• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Drug czar: Feds won't support legalized pot

Re: Obama's drug czar: Marijuana 'has no medical benefit'

I actually have an issue. If even one person who didn't smoke because of the illegality of weed decided to try it after it was legalized, then legalization increased the usage of marijuana.
Of course that hypothetical is true, and sure it might even happen with a few individuals, but it's been so rare in the experiences of other countries that it's barely even worth mentioning except to point out a technicality.

If a significant number of people start using any drug after legalization, then we will have failed to properly implement the legalization policies; in particular, we will have failed to properly wage the "education & deglamorization" part of the war on drugs that has been so successful with tobacco.

This is not accurate. Marijuana is absolutely physically addicting. Recent studies have discovered that human brains have "canabinoid" receptors...similar to opioid receptors, the things that make opiates so physically addicting. Though less addicting than opiates, cannabis creates similar affects that can define an addiction...the need for more to get the same effect, physical/psychological withdrawal when a heavy user stops, interference in life activities, etc... These canabiniod receptors also tend to trigger the opioid receptors, both increasing the addictive effect and lending potential credence to the "gateway effect" which, for the most part, has been disproven in coorelational studies from what I can remember. Regardless, marijuana NOT being physically addictive is a fallacy. Is it as addictive as alcohol, nicotine, or heroin? No.

"Chronic marijuana use is associated with development of tolerance to some effects and the appearance of withdrawal symptoms (restlessness, irritability, mild agitation, insomnia, sleep disturbances, nausea, cramping) with the onset of abstinence. Depending on the measures and age group studied, 4 percent to 9 percent of marijuana users fulfill diagnostic criteria for substance dependence. Although some marijuana users develop dependence, they appear to be less likely to do so than users of alcohol and nicotine, and the abstinence syndrome is less severe. Like other drugs, dependence is more likely to occur in individuals with co-morbid psychiatric conditions."

AMA - Report 6 of the Council on Scientific Affairs (A-01) Full t

Further, as far as the medical benefits of marijuana, there certainly are some. They are, however, overruled by the negative effects, especially of smoking it.
In most cases that's true, smoking as a method of delivery is very undesirable and they've been calling for more research to come up with less hazardous alternatives. But ultimately it should be up to doctors and their patients to decide whether the negatives outweigh the positives. The DEA (and the rest of us!) should butt the heck out of it.

I believe that is why it remains a Schedule 1 drug.
Probably so, and also because the IOM recommended that it remain Schedule 1 pending further research -- which was never authorized.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama's drug czar: Marijuana 'has no medical benefit'

This is not accurate. Marijuana is absolutely physically addicting. Recent studies have discovered that human brains have "canabinoid" receptors...similar to opioid receptors, the things that make opiates so physically addicting. Though less addicting than opiates, cannabis creates similar affects that can define an addiction...the need for more to get the same effect, physical/psychological withdrawal when a heavy user stops, interference in life activities, etc... These canabiniod receptors also tend to trigger the opioid receptors, both increasing the addictive effect and lending potential credence to the "gateway effect" which, for the most part, has been disproven in coorelational studies from what I can remember. Regardless, marijuana NOT being physically addictive is a fallacy. Is it as addictive as alcohol, nicotine, or heroin? No.

Further, as far as the medical benefits of marijuana, there certainly are some. They are, however, overruled by the negative effects, especially of smoking it. I believe that is why it remains a Schedule 1 drug.

What are the physical withdrawal symptoms of ceasing marijuana use? I was a very heavy smoker and stopped suddenly, I didn't experience any physical withdrawal; I don’t know anybody who has.
 
Re: Obama's drug czar: Marijuana 'has no medical benefit'

In most cases that's true, smoking as a method of delivery is very undesirable and they've been calling for more research to come up with less hazardous alternatives.

Wouldn't vaporizers mitigate this?
 
Re: Obama's drug czar: Marijuana 'has no medical benefit'

But ultimately it should be up to doctors and their patients to decide whether the negatives outweigh the positives. The DEA should butt the heck out of it.

What percentage of marijuana smokers in this country are smoking on doctor's orders?

f_cheechchongm_1af73d5.jpg
 
Re: Obama's drug czar: Marijuana 'has no medical benefit'

I'm not arguing. I'm playing the devil's advocate, trying to get an actual argument from the pro-pot faction. Something more than, "a semi-logical argument", as one poster put it.
You've not countered a single argument on the subject. Until you start actually debating nobody is really going to care what your opinion is.

You're, "staying home to get stoned, instead of being at a bar getting drunk", position is the lamist of all,
Two things: First...I didn't make that argument. Second, it's "lamest."

because not only are folks going to be out drinking,
Never said they wouldn't be. Show me where I did.

they're going to be out smoking dope, too.
Sure they will.

You'll end up with non-drinkers and non-smokers getting buzzed from the second hand smoke and then driving home.
Now this is the lamest argument thus far in the thread. Right there behind the "it'll damage our virtue" argument.
 
Re: Obama's drug czar: Marijuana 'has no medical benefit'

This seems like a common misconception amongst the marijuana threads. No one is suggesting that drug laws have no affect on druge use, we're saying it has a negligible affect on drug use. It's an important distinction.

Well I agree with that position, the problem is I've read folks on here stating it won't result in an increase. That's not really true. Negligible increase is still an increase, and that was really the point I was trying to make.

I've seen pro-legalization proponents attacked on this board over a really insignificant mistake.
 
Re: Obama's drug czar: Marijuana 'has no medical benefit'

actually its worse than both

"Reaction time for motor skills, such as driving, are reduced by 41% after smoking 1 joint and is reduced by 63% after smoking 2 joints"
Please provide links when you quote something directly. I believe you are quoting from here, yes?

marijuana statistics

Let's take a look one of their other claims about marijuana and driving:

"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Data has shown that people high on marijuana show the same lack of coordination on standard "drunk driver" tests as do people who have had to much to drink."[/FONT]

But here's a series of studies by the U.S. Department of Transportation:

"Marijuana's effects on actual driving performance were assessed in a series of three studies wherein dose-effect relationships were measured in actual driving situations that progressively approached reality. (snip) Alcohol impaired performance relative to placebo but subjects did not perceive it. THC did not impair driving performance yet the subjects thought it had. These studies show that THC in single inhaled doses up to 300 g/kg has significant, yet not dramatic, dose-related impairing effects on driving performance."

Marijuana And Actual Driving Performance* - Abstract

And here's a study by the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre in Austrailia:

"The results of studies within the last 10 years have failed to present clear evidence for a role of cannabis in road crashes. The role of alcohol in all studies has proved to be dominant."

Cannabis and Road Safety - Executive Summary

So I wonder where "marijuana-addiction.info" is getting their "data" that shows pot smokers just as incapacitated as alcohol drinkers? And I wonder where they get the rest of their "data" as well.

"The daily use of 1 to 3 marijuana joints can produce the same lung damage and potential cancer risk as smoking five times as many cigarettes."
Oops, another false assertion by the amatures at "marijuana-addiction.info."

"The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer. The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years. "We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect.""

Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection - washingtonpost.com


the point i am trying to make and have been trying to make, is that with increased use there is increased numbers of addiction. and with addiction comes the losses, or do you think addiction also is beneficial?
And the point I've already made, should you choose to acknowledge it, is that there is no known correlation between drug laws and the rate of drug use. So your assumption that marijuana use would substantially or even measurably increase upon legalization is based on a false premise.

"The negative consequences of drug abuse affect not only individuals who abuse drugs but also their families and friends, various businesses, and government resources. Although many of these effects cannot be quantified, ONDCP recently reported that in 2002, the economic cost of drug abuse to the United States was $180.9 billion. "
No argument here on the negative effects of drugs and addiction. Been there done that. Now please tell us what exactly does prohibition do to address these problems?


Wrong,
i am talking about Abusers and the effect that a more socially executable drug such as Marijuana WILL have on the number of abusers, Not to mention the casual smokers who decide to get in their car after a join or 2 on a Saturday night

"Children of individuals who abuse drugs often are abused or neglected as a result of the individuals' preoccupation with drugs. National-level studies have shown that parents who abuse drugs often put their need to obtain and abuse drugs before the health and welfare of their children."

"Children whose parents and other family members abuse drugs often are physically or emotionally abused and often lack proper immunizations, medical care, dental care, and necessities such as food, water, and shelter. "

"The economic impact of drug abuse on businesses whose employees abuse drugs can be significant. While many drug abusers are unable to attain or hold full-time employment, those who do work put others at risk, particularly when employed in positions where even a minor degree of impairment could be catastrophic; airline pilots, air traffic controllers, train operators, and bus drivers are just a few examples."
1. Legalizing marijuana does not mean making it socially acceptable. You're making a lot of assumptions about that.

2. Nobody is in favor of allowing people to drive or do other dangerous activities while stoned. Now please tell us what prohibition does to prevent that from happening?


unfortunately you forget not all people are responsible, in fact, it only takes one act of irresponsibility in the billions of decisions we make in our lives, to effect all those around you in a negative way.
Yeah. If you have kids and don't raise them right, that can have a negative impact on me. It should be illegal for you to have kids unless you take classes and get a permit from the government first. I mean, we can't have people's personal choices impacting our lives in any remote or imaginable way right? How far down that slope are you willing to slip?

I dont Deny the Medical Benefits Of Marijuana, and i have not thus far, But what i have said is that The Drug has more adverse Effects than Benefits, and that all the Benefits you get from Medical Marijuana you can get from Already Produced alternatives without the Economic and Social impact that Marijuana can have and does Already have upon people.
I explained why Marinol is not an acceptable alternative to smoked marijuana for many people, and that the pros and cons should be decided upon by doctors and patients, not the DEA or Joe the Plummer.
 
Re: Obama's drug czar: Marijuana 'has no medical benefit'

Well I agree with that position, the problem is I've read folks on here stating it won't result in an increase. That's not really true. Negligible increase is still an increase, and that was really the point I was trying to make.

I've seen pro-legalization proponents attacked on this board over a really insignificant mistake.
I've tried not to sound like I'm saying there will be no increase whatsoever. Prohibitionists constantly assume that legalization would increase drug use, and their arguments are always in terms of social consequences. Which implies that the discussion is about trends on the macro level, not splitting hairs on the micro level.
 
Re: Obama's drug czar: Marijuana 'has no medical benefit'

This is not accurate. Marijuana is absolutely physically addicting. Recent studies have discovered that human brains have "canabinoid" receptors...similar to opioid receptors, the things that make opiates so physically addicting. Though less addicting than opiates, cannabis creates similar affects that can define an addiction...the need for more to get the same effect, physical/psychological withdrawal when a heavy user stops, interference in life activities, etc... These canabiniod receptors also tend to trigger the opioid receptors, both increasing the addictive effect and lending potential credence to the "gateway effect" which, for the most part, has been disproven in coorelational studies from what I can remember. Regardless, marijuana NOT being physically addictive is a fallacy. Is it as addictive as alcohol, nicotine, or heroin? No.

Further, as far as the medical benefits of marijuana, there certainly are some. They are, however, overruled by the negative effects, especially of smoking it. I believe that is why it remains a Schedule 1 drug.


And our bodies produce their own endogenous cannabinoids such as anandamide which bind to the CB1 and CB2 receptors. So in order to assert that exocannabinoids such as THC and the myriad of others present in marijuana are addicting merely because our bodies have cannabinoid receptors, one would have to show that cessation of usage would actually inhibit the normal function of our endogenous cannabinoids. The mere presence of receptors does not necessitate addiction.

If there were conclusive studies showing marijuana to be addictive (not the rats who were administered extremely high doses, and then subsequently administered cannabinoid blockers that also inhibit their naturally produced endogenous cannabinoids) they would be widely publicized as they would do miracles to bolster the ONDCP/DEA/DARE ect ect. positions.

Am I saying marijuana is not addicting? no, not at all, there are a few who do develop addiction symptoms, however animals do not self administer, withdrawal symptoms almost never occur (sweaty palms/anxiety for chronic users being the sole exception, and likely psychosomatic). Marijuana has not been shown to cause a physical dependence, despite an intense desire to demonstrably prove this link.

Those who do become addicted do so out of choice, just as they would choose to be addicted to video games, ice cream, skydiving, sex, ect. this is psychological dependence as a result of personality, and not to a physical dependence.

I am sure you are well versed in the psychology part of all this :2razz:

This is still a red herring argument for its scheduling, and for the continued prohibition since for the most part those who have a propensity to abuse it already are. As has been hashed and rehashed, prohibition is not a significant deterrent to use.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama's drug czar: Marijuana 'has no medical benefit'

actually its worse than both
No, it's not.

"Reaction time for motor skills, such as driving, are reduced by 41% after smoking 1 joint and is reduced by 63% after smoking 2 joints"
So? It has a more intoxicating effect. Big deal? Vodka is more intoxicating than beer when used in equal amounts. What's your point?
"The daily use of 1 to 3 marijuana joints can produce the same lung damage and potential cancer risk as smoking five times as many cigarettes."
You claim marijuana can produce lung cancer faster than tobacco...it's not true it but let's run with it. Do you think that making marijuana legally obtainable is going to result in an new wave of heavy duty pot smokers? Given the highly addictive nature of nicotine and the fact that it's legal, I'd say your crusade would be better spent trying to prohibit tobacco. I know plenty of people who are heavily addicted to nicotine and smoke between one and two packs a day. If you are really THAT concerned about the cancer causing effects of smoked substances, then you are fighting the wrong battle.

this will be the last time i am going to respond to you because i know i am dealing with a true nut case, your not even providing the logical arguments of PRO-Marijuana advocates.
I absolutely have. Run away all you want, but your arguments have been little more than a litany of propaganda and personal anecdotes. I'm not a nut case, I'm the guy who doesn't let you off the hook with your weak **** arguments.

the point i am trying to make and have been trying to make, is that with increased use there is increased numbers of addiction. and with addiction comes the losses, or do you think addiction also is beneficial?
Addiction to anything is not good. Addiction is a result of somebody not using responsibly. I've been drinking since I was 17 years old, I'm not an alcoholic. I drink socially at parties sometimes, rarely do I ever drink at home. Occasionally I drink with friends or when entertaining clients. We get buzzed for sure. But we don't drive. I'm not an addict nor am I a threat to society because I'm a responsible consumer of intoxicants. Just like millions and millions of other people. You'd never know we partook of the evils of intoxicants if we didn't tell you.

You see the hole in your argument is that you assume everyone will become an addict. Legalization will not increase use to any measurable degree nor will it result in an increase of drug addicts. You're insane if you think that's the case.

Once again you are trying to regulate personal responsibility.


do you really think it is possible to quantify emotional loss? put it in numbers?
economically,
No, but I do know that it's retarded to blame substance abuse on the existence of the substance and not on the personal issues of the abuser.
"The negative consequences of drug abuse affect not only individuals who abuse drugs but also their families and friends, various businesses, and government resources. Although many of these effects cannot be quantified, ONDCP recently reported that in 2002, the economic cost of drug abuse to the United States was $180.9 billion. "
How much of that was related to marijuana? Further, you need to tell everyone how much of that was related to enforcement and incarceration. The substance itself is not responsible for those figures. The individuals using the illegal substances getting caught, going to trial, and going to jail are the majority of those expenses. If it were legal that number, or at least the portion attributed to marijuana, would drop remarkably.

Wrong,
i am talking about Abusers and the effect that a more socially executable drug such as Marijuana WILL have on the number of abusers, Not to mention the casual smokers who decide to get in their car after a join or 2 on a Saturday night

I find it amazing you can make an argument like this and expect to be taken seriously. You have yet to prove what effect legalization would have on marijuana use. You are setting here making some anemic plea that legalization will lead to casual smokers toking up and driving. I have news for you, MILLIONS of Americans already smoke pot casually. They already toke and drive. Legalization will not impact that to any measurable degree. Either put up statistical data to verify your boogey man claims or just stop.

WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT! i have said the word Morality 2 times, one of which was to say it was my own belief and has little to do with my point! you can shape your image of me anyway you would like but if you have Read my argument then you would know i am not making that stand here and now.
You made the argument, are you now retracting it?

And personal responsibility isn't so personal when someone is irresponsible.
but here are the effects on society.
:rofl What????

"Children of individuals who abuse drugs often are abused or neglected as a result of the individuals' preoccupation with drugs. National-level studies have shown that parents who abuse drugs often put their need to obtain and abuse drugs before the health and welfare of their children."

"Children whose parents and other family members abuse drugs often are physically or emotionally abused and often lack proper immunizations, medical care, dental care, and necessities such as food, water, and shelter. "
There is a difference between marijuana and heroin or methamphetamines. We are talking about marijuana. I have years of personal experience investigating the homes of "drug users." I have dealt with scores of casual users who are responsible, productive members of society. What does your study say is the impact that marijuana has on children of users and their home life? Because we aren't talking about all drugs, we are talking about marijuana.

"The economic impact of drug abuse on businesses whose employees abuse drugs can be significant. While many drug abusers are unable to attain or hold full-time employment, those who do work put others at risk, particularly when employed in positions where even a minor degree of impairment could be catastrophic; airline pilots, air traffic controllers, train operators, and bus drivers are just a few examples."

Well here we go again with you arguing about a matter of personal responsibility but masking it as a reason to vilify a substance. Employees who use drugs to the extent that it effects their work are personally irresponsible. Plenty of people use marijuana casually and lead perfectly productive, successful lives. I'm a casual drinker and make a damn good living, take care of my family, pay my billls.
Prescription drug abuse is an entirely different subject, There is a doctor standing in between you and a drug, most drugs used for short periods of time and for specific reasons and specific problems, and if someone abuses those drugs, it is largely the fault of the doctor continuing to supply the patient with those drugs. Most Medical drug abuse is NON prescription drugs.
Bull****. You know absolutely nothing about illicit presciption drug trafficking then my friend. Tell you what, you need to do some research. Your ignorance on this subject alone speaks volumes about where you are coming from. What I find completely amusing is that you are blaming the doctor instead of the person choosing to abuse the drug. Tells me a lot about your mindset. "Don't worry, it's not your fault...it's the doctors, you should have never had access to those pills." I took Vicodin for quite a while after a bad knee injury that required multiple surgeries. I realized several weeks into my recovery I was self dosing to cope with the pain rather than follow the doctors instructions. The day I realized I was looking forward to taking my meds I quit. It wasn't the doctors fault, it was mine. Personal responsibility. You can't live people lives for them or make their choices for them.

Thank god you don't get the cancer causing effects of cigarettes and the debilitating effects to your motor skills with over the counter drugs at least.
Ever guzzle cough syrup. Next?
unfortunately you forget not all people are responsible, in fact, it only takes one act of irresponsibility in the billions of decisions we make in our lives, to effect all those around you in a negative way.
So? It still boils down to personal responsibility. You can dance around this all you want, but your argument here doesn't change that fact.

up cakes are not safe??? Mountain dew is not safe?
Not when consumed in excess. They lead to obesity in some people. Obesity is a killer. What are you going to do about that?

what are you smoking? wait let me guess Marijuana...
Nope, as I pointed out in another thread, I don't partake of the herb because of my employment. And I don't smoke. If it ever were to become legal and my employment didn't prohibit it's use, I would try it in a brownie or some other food product.

I dont fear that ill kill someone if i drive after eating a cup cake and drinking a can of Mountain dew.
Don't worry, I knew you'd miss the point entirely. But it is funny you resort back to an argument about personal responsibility yet refuse to acknowledge what you are doing.

I dont Deny the Medical Benefits Of Marijuana, and i have not thus far,
But what i have said is that The Drug has more adverse Effects than Benefits,
No it doesn't, and you haven't in any way proven that it does.

and that all the Benefits you get from Medical Marijuana you can get from Already Produced alternatives
If that's true why do so many people turn to marijuana when the course of treatment their doctors prescribe doesn't work? Just curious.

without the Economic and Social impact that Marijuana can have and does Already have upon people.
I find it hilarious to watch you spin like a top on this subject. Until you break the "social and economic impacts" of marijuana out separate from drugs like heroin, meth, and cocaine...you can just keep this propaganda campaign to yourself. You've not even come close to identifying the impact marijuana has on society or the economy. Period.

We are talking about marijuana...it'd be nice if you tried to do the same.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama's drug czar: Marijuana 'has no medical benefit'

"The negative consequences of drug abuse affect not only individuals who abuse drugs but also their families and friends, various businesses, and government resources. Although many of these effects cannot be quantified, ONDCP recently reported that in 2002, the economic cost of drug abuse to the United States was $180.9 billion. "

They worded that poorly.. it should be the "cost of drug prohibition to the US was 180.9 billion""

40 billion of which is interdiction and eradication alone. Then add in the costs of prosecution, incarceration, lack of employability due to having a record for drug possession, and it is not a huge leap to see where that 180 billion of cost comes from.
 
Re: Obama's drug czar: Marijuana 'has no medical benefit'

I've tried not to sound like I'm saying there will be no increase whatsoever. Prohibitionists constantly assume that legalization would increase drug use, and their arguments are always in terms of social consequences. Which implies that the discussion is about trends on the macro level, not splitting hairs on the micro level.

I understand where you are coming from and I agree with you wholly. I was just addressing a common sticking point that some advocates get caught on when making the argument. Our detractors will definitely mince words over this issue, it's about all they can do.
 
Re: Obama's drug czar: Marijuana 'has no medical benefit'

I wouldn't go as far as to say that marijuana is of NO benefit, medical or whatever. But I am of the opinion that it's actual BENEFITS are over rated.

I am also of the opinion that the effects of marijuana, when used for recreational use, responsibly, adds a flavor to this thing we call life, much like icing adds to a cake.

The question is, does the pro outweigh the con?

I mean, take cars for example. They add to our way of life. How many die each year from auto accidents? Still, we have decided the good of automobiles outweighs the bad.

How about booze in general? What's a wedding without champagne? But alcohol kills thousands upon thousands each and every year. Our society has decided that alcohol shall remain legal despite it's side effects.

Then there is pot. For some ilogical reason, (based on our precidented standards of society,) it remains illegal? I mean, like, serious DUH?!?!?! :doh
 
Re: Obama's drug czar: Marijuana 'has no medical benefit'

The question is, does the pro outweigh the con?

You just boiled the whole issue down to its base form right there. There is no perfect solution, the best solution is the least bad.
 
Re: Obama's drug czar: Marijuana 'has no medical benefit'

That's the part that blows me away. The folks that are the strongest supporters of legal weed are the same folks who are the strongest opponents of fast food, soft drinks and cigarettes.

What on earth are you talking about? "Strongest opponents of?" Not on this forum they aren't.

What blows me away is that given the nature of the actual health epidemic that is the cigarette industry some of you social crusaders aren't blowing up Phillip Morris. Seriously, there are legal substances out there right now that are genuinely costing this nation billions a year in health care expenses and I don't you all starting or participating in any anti-smoking threads.

Personally, I don't smoke, but I don't go after those that do. It's their thing, they must live with the results. But if I ever chose to take a crusade to get an unhealthy substance banned, it'd be cigarettes.
 
Re: Obama's drug czar: Marijuana 'has no medical benefit'

You've not countered a single argument on the subject. Until you start actually debating nobody is really going to care what your opinion is.


Two things: First...I didn't make that argument. Second, it's "lamest."


Never said they wouldn't be. Show me where I did.


Sure they will.


Now this is the lamest argument thus far in the thread. Right there behind the "it'll damage our virtue" argument.

The only refute you have is to preach to me about something that matters not, take my comments out of context and proof read my posts?
 
Re: Obama's drug czar: Marijuana 'has no medical benefit'

Personally, I don't smoke, but I don't go after those that do. It's their thing, they must live with the results. But if I ever chose to take a crusade to get an unhealthy substance banned, it'd be cigarettes.

Therein lies the hypocrisy.
 
I figured as much Obama didnt have the stones to stand up to the drug war crowd.

Unfortunately it continues to be the third rail of politics, then of course there is that sticky issue of a few international treaties that we crammed down everyones throat that we would have to renig on to make legalization a reality. Unfortunately we grandstanded on the world stage and tied ourselves into this straight jacket.
 
Re: Obama's drug czar: Marijuana 'has no medical benefit'

The only refute you have is to preach to me about something that matters not, take my comments out of context and proof read my posts?

:rofl:rofl:rofl

What? You been drinking and posting again son?
 
Re: Obama's drug czar: Marijuana 'has no medical benefit'

And our bodies produce their own endogenous cannabinoids such as anandamide which bind to the CB1 and CB2 receptors. So in order to assert that exocannabinoids such as THC and the myriad of others present in marijuana are addicting merely because our bodies have cannabinoid receptors, one would have to show that cessation of usage would actually inhibit the normal function of our endogenous cannabinoids. The mere presence of receptors does not necessitate addiction.

If there were conclusive studies showing marijuana to be addictive (not the rats who were administered extremely high doses, and then subsequently administered cannabinoid blockers that also inhibit their naturally produced endogenous cannabinoids) they would be widely publicized as they would do miracles to bolster the ONDCP/DEA/DARE ect ect. positions.

Am I saying marijuana is not addicting? no, not at all, there are a few who do develop addiction symptoms, however animals do not self administer, withdrawal symptoms almost never occur (sweaty palms/anxiety for chronic users being the sole exception, and likely psychosomatic). Marijuana has not been shown to cause a physical dependence, despite an intense desire to demonstrably prove this link.

Those who do become addicted do so out of choice, just as they would choose to be addicted to video games, ice cream, skydiving, sex, ect. this is psychological dependence as a result of personality, and not to a physical dependence.

I am sure you are well versed in the psychology part of all this :2razz:

This is still a red herring argument for its scheduling, and for the continued prohibition since for the most part those who have a propensity to abuse it already are. As has been hashed and rehashed, prohibition is not a significant deterrent to use.

I am not advocating prohibition. I am anti-prohibition. However, often what hurts the anti-prohibition position is information presented erroneously, like yours. Yours reads like marijuana is fine and not addictive at all. Not true. Read Binary Digit's information. Same information as I've seen. Marijuana IS physically addictive in a minority of people, and DOES cause physical dependence in that same minority. Providing erroneous information about that, is just as bad as telling people that if you smoke marijuana you WILL become addicted.

Most people who drink do not become alcoholics. Most who smoke marijuana do not become addicted. However, SOME of each group will.

And as far as addictions such as sex, video games, gambling, etc... we already know that brain scans of these folks are similar to those of folks who are addicted to substances...as opposed to those who are not. The biology of addiction lends itself to the medical model and to the physical addiction concept, even when it seems as if this should not be the case.
 
Re: Obama's drug czar: Marijuana 'has no medical benefit'

What are the physical withdrawal symptoms of ceasing marijuana use? I was a very heavy smoker and stopped suddenly, I didn't experience any physical withdrawal; I don’t know anybody who has.

You were fortunate. You may not have been addicted. I know quite a few who were and who DID have physical withdrawal symptoms. Those symptoms included difficulty sleeping, GI irritation, headaches, and irritability.
 
Re: Obama's drug czar: Marijuana 'has no medical benefit'

Please provide links when you quote something directly. I believe you are quoting from here, yes?

marijuana statistics

Let's take a look one of their other claims about marijuana and driving:

"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Data has shown that people high on marijuana show the same lack of coordination on standard "drunk driver" tests as do people who have had to much to drink."[/FONT]

But here's a series of studies by the U.S. Department of Transportation:

"Marijuana's effects on actual driving performance were assessed in a series of three studies wherein dose-effect relationships were measured in actual driving situations that progressively approached reality. (snip) Alcohol impaired performance relative to placebo but subjects did not perceive it. THC did not impair driving performance yet the subjects thought it had. These studies show that THC in single inhaled doses up to 300 g/kg has significant, yet not dramatic, dose-related impairing effects on driving performance."

Marijuana And Actual Driving Performance* - Abstract

And here's a study by the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre in Austrailia:

"The results of studies within the last 10 years have failed to present clear evidence for a role of cannabis in road crashes. The role of alcohol in all studies has proved to be dominant."

Cannabis and Road Safety - Executive Summary

So I wonder where "marijuana-addiction.info" is getting their "data" that shows pot smokers just as incapacitated as alcohol drinkers? And I wonder where they get the rest of their "data" as well.


Oops, another false assertion by the amatures at "marijuana-addiction.info."

"The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer. The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years. "We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect.""

Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection - washingtonpost.com

Both of your assertions, smoking marijuana has no effect on driving and no marijuana-cancer link are incorrect. I posted something on the former a while ago and will have to find it. I read something, recently, in the latter, and again will have to find it.
 
Re: Obama's drug czar: Marijuana 'has no medical benefit'

You were fortunate. You may not have been addicted. I know quite a few who were and who DID have physical withdrawal symptoms. Those symptoms included difficulty sleeping, GI irritation, headaches, and irritability.

I was a heavy pot smoker many years ago. When I decided to give it up there were no physical withdrawal symptoms at all. I missed it at times as you do anything you enjoy but decide to give up but nothing that could be described as physical withdrawal symptoms.

Now let's talk cigarettes. I've quit them time and again only to go back. This time I do believe I've got them licked for good.:)

But...

There were physical withdrawal symptoms this time as there has been every time I'm tried to quit.
 
Back
Top Bottom