• 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!

Ron Paul, Barney Frank team up to legalize marijuana

On the subject of driving stoned and seeing a guy in a 18-wheeler driving stoned, my dad was a truck driver and honestly most of them are ****ing assholes that don't follow the rules of how long they can drive, there is a reason there is all kinds of speed like products in every TA station, and honestly I think pissing in a bottle and dodging weigh stations is a lot worse in a lot of people's minds than a guy that thinks he owns the road slowing it down a bit. With that said, I thought about this and I think the same rules would apply that apply to beer. The only difference is you would get a cotton swab test and not any kind of breathalyzer or the cop would have to use their best judgement.

Me personally I drive just fine high if nothing else maybe a little like a grandma, anyone else I know has had a similar experience.
 
I am not a doctor, so I do not know. I do know there is a reaction between certain receptors in the brain and THC. Considering there is blood flow to and within the brain, I am inferring that yes THC passes through the blood brain barrier.

The whole weak and strong acid concept is best understood if you were taking AP Chemistry. I know I am going to get flake for this (it is just because they are dumb) but every single reaction goes to equilibrium. Some reactions are more one sided than others. So a strong acid completely reacts with what it touches. So if you took a strong acid and poured it on cardboard, the acid would react with the cardboard and there would be a hole where the acid was poured. A weak acid isn't so one sided. The reaction is more reserved, but there is till a reaction. So if you were to pour a weak acid onto cardboard, you would probably see some bubbles, and that is about it. What is important to note, is there is bubbles. Which means there is a reaction. This analogy can be placed with THC and the brain. There is a reaction, but it is very subtle, to the point that you could smoke pot daily for lets say 10 years and you would see very minimal effects. But if you were to keep smoking, decade after decade, you would probably see in the MRI or CAT scan a brain that has been eaten up so to speak. Eaten up by THC.
 
sookster said:
I am not a doctor, so I do not know. I do know there is a reaction between certain receptors in the brain and THC. Considering there is blood flow to and within the brain, I am inferring that yes THC passes through the blood brain barrier.
Click to expand...
For many drugs, it's their metabolites that actually enter the brain, not the drugs themselves.
It seems significant if thc does.

sookster said:
The ... by THC.
Click to expand...
The body is full of a lot of complex chemistry and adjusting systems. That's why we look at what drugs actually do in a body rather than being satisfied with what we think they will do.

Is there any more reliable evidence of pot gradually dissolving people's neurons than some anecdotes about burn outs and theories about acids and brains? Has anyone found any actual evidence of this process? Or is it more theoretical at this point?
 
I don't think that has EVER been observed in ANYONE. Marijuana alone has yet to kill anyone and eating up a brain sounds a lot like death to me. The only negative effects are observed in daily smokers for extended periods of time.
 
sookster said:
Some brains, as I know one personally, smoke pot their entire lives. THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, is a weak acid. That basically means there is small disassociation when the THC reacts with the neurons. This is another reason why pot is dangerous as this man is a testimony to. He smoke pot daily since the 60's, and I can tell you personally he is a burn out now. He can barely keep a conversation. That is because even though THC reacts just a little tiny bit with the neurons, there is still a reaction. So over the years, his neurons has steadily deteriorated.
Click to expand...

You know a 70 year old that is slipping mentally and that proves pot does what?
 
RStringfield said:
You know a 70 year old that is slipping mentally and that proves pot does what?
Click to expand...
He prob'ly has a bunch of glutamic acid rolling around between his neurons.
 
Last edited:
SPC said:
Ron Paul doesn't stand a snowball's chance in a blast furnace of getting elected anyway.
Click to expand...
True, the chances are pretty minuscule, but he's certainly not the least recognized candidate currently in the republican race, and if for some bizarre reason Romney were to drop out and that 20% or so of the vote got distributed around the other candidates you never know, he's in third place in this poll once you discount Palin and Huckabee. Then it would just be up to the general election, still guessing he'd loose there though.
 
RStringfield said:
My point was always clear. Legalization will lead to lots of money being made in a booming and emerging market and the only real concern is that it might become a bubble.
Click to expand...

and again, this is the dumbest concern ever "Semi articulated" in relation to drug wars.

the Fed is going to be the catalyst for many, many bubbles. To even bring forth the argument that Fed actions should give one pause in expanding on individual liberties is asinine.

Some legitimate concerns are things like the lack of individual responsibility in our current nanny state and how drug use prays on this lack of responsibility. Your concerns are things to laugh at.


RStringfield said:
Just to make the point that you continue to evade. Who is wealthier, the Busch (substitute Coors or any of the dozens of others) family or the Capone's? You don't seem to be able to understand that income does not equal wealth.
Click to expand...

oh for the love of all that is good.

They were both extremely wealthy, yet you claim the black market destroys wealth.

way to move those goal posts!
 
ARealConservative said:
and again, this is the dumbest concern ever "Semi articulated" in relation to drug wars.

the Fed is going to be the catalyst for many, many bubbles. To even bring forth the argument that Fed actions should give one pause in expanding on individual liberties is asinine.
Click to expand...

I said nothing about pausing anything. You are putting words in my mouth.

Some legitimate concerns are things like the lack of individual responsibility in our current nanny state and how drug use prays on this lack of responsibility. Your concerns are things to laugh at.
Click to expand...

huh? Tell us about how this drug use leads to prayer? Or do you mean that prey which would seem to imply you think drugs are animate and actively seek out their users? My concern was certainly meant to be tongue in cheek but yours are amusing for other reasons.

oh for the love of all that is good.

They were both extremely wealthy, yet you claim the black market destroys wealth.

way to move those goal posts!
Click to expand...

The Capones have no great family wealth. Like I said, you do not seem to be able to differentiate between income and wealth. It is easy come easy go in the black market. Though, a few may seem to grow rich they fail to ever build any lasting wealth due to the ultraviolence of black markets.
 
RStringfield said:
I said nothing about pausing anything. You are putting words in my mouth.
Click to expand...

you stated it is a concern - meaning it is something we have to give thought to.

huh? Tell us about how this drug use leads to prayer? Or do you mean that prey which would seem to imply you think drugs are animate and actively seek out their users? My concern was certainly meant to be tongue in cheek but yours are amusing for other reasons.
Click to expand...

mine are actually valid - a nanny state often prevents people from reaching rock bottom - which is needed to clean up from drugs. So legalizing drugs, while not enforcing personal responsibility is a bad combination.

The Capones have no great family wealth.
Click to expand...
the Busch's filed for bankruptcy prior to figuring out how to pasteurize beer. We can go all day singling out individual people.
 
sookster said:
Proof that when THC mimics a neurotransmitter, a chemical equilibrium is established, and over decades of use will result into the deterioration of the brain.
Click to expand...
Could you please quote the section where it says that "decades of use will result into the deterioration of the brain." I am having trouble finding it.

Also, I was hoping that you would have noticed, asked and then answered the issue I quietly implied about why any of the other acids we use for neurotransmitters, like glutamic acid, don't cause deterioration of our brain over decades of use.

but w/e. keep on lecturing us APkid.

"I like how people that don't smoke pot, or haven't even dealt with what they are talking about, think they know what they are talking about."
 
Last edited:
ARealConservative said:
I find your attitude alarming to be perfectly honest.

this type of view actually makes me think twice about decriminalization.
Click to expand...

That's actually me paraphrasing what I remember about the question of stoned versus drunk driving.

The driving more carefully bit was the comparison of one beer/one hit, not stoned/drunk.

Sorry if it sounded like an endorsement of driving while impaired.
 
Looks like "APkid" has been listening to too much outdated anti-drug material in his school health class. I looked at my son's health notes he had last year and apparently the teacher instructed the students that marijuana "kills sperm in great numbers, thus leading to infertility", but failed to mention that the average male produces a few million sperm daily as well as "marijuana is physically addictive", which is just so totally wrong I didn't even know where to start.
 
Last edited:
ARealConservative said:
you stated it is a concern - meaning it is something we have to give thought to.
Click to expand...



mine are actually valid - a nanny state often prevents people from reaching rock bottom - which is needed to clean up from drugs. So legalizing drugs, while not enforcing personal responsibility is a bad combination.
Click to expand...

What's rock bottom on marijuana? Empty cubbards and a pile of food wrappers?

You are wrong on both points, though. The welfare state does not stop people from hitting rock bottom and you don't need to hit rock bottom to stop using.

the Busch's filed for bankruptcy prior to figuring out how to pasteurize beer. We can go all day singling out individual people
Click to expand...

Free markets lead to vast sums of wealth. Black markets lead to an early grave. Mexico is not growing wealthy. The life expectancy is growing shorter.
 
Jesus. You guys are dumb.

Those two sources do not directly say what I said. They provide the facts for your brain to come to a logical conclusion from A to B.

Every chemical reaction goes to a state of equilibrium. What does that mean? Let's take a slab of marble and pour water onto it shall we? When the water makes contact with the marble, a very one sided equilibrium would occur. The equilibrium constant is defined as the concentration of products over reactants. So for example, let us use the following reaction: [A] + <----> [C] + [D] + [E]

Therefore.... E = [C][D][E] / [A] Where [] equals the concentration in moles per liter. Back to the example of water on marble. The equilibrium constant for this reaction would be very very small because there would be a very high concentration of reactants. However, there would still be a reaction going in the forward direction. It wouldn't be many molecules, but it would be there. How would you prove it? If you could pour water on the slab of marble and devise a way to extract ALL of the water, over time trial after trial the volume of water you retrieved would steadily decrease. Also, if you were to pour water on the slab of marble for year after year after year, and you were to re-mass the marble slab, you would notice that some mass would of been lost.

This is what I mean when I say every reaction goes into a state of equilibrium. When you touch something, there is a small reaction. Sure, the equilibrium constant would be very very small, I completely agree with that, but there would be some atoms that would go in the forward direction. This is what equilibrium means.

So when THC binds with a neuron, a chemical reaction is started. There would be an equilibrium constant associated with that reaction, as I have stated in the past. That means, there would be a forward reaction in a small number, but a number nonetheless. So, over years and years and years of smoking pot, you would see a considerable different brain between the daily smoker and the control.

If you do not believe what I just said, go take a basic high school chemistry class. I will leave with one question for those who are skeptical about what I said about chemical equilibrium:

Why is it that when you pour a glass of distilled water there is a pH of 7?

I eagerly await your responses.
 
sookster said:
Jesus. You guys are dumb.
Click to expand...
lol. I suppose I may be. But that really isn't any defense for your ignorance.

sookster said:
Those two sources do not directly say what I said. They provide the facts for your brain to come to a logical conclusion from A to B.
Click to expand...
But it doesn't follow logically. As I pointed out, most of what goes on between nerves is conducted by acids. If the thc metabolite, (it doesn't cross the bbb directly btw), wasn't an acid like the neurotransmitters that naturally occur, it wouldn't fit in the receptor.

sookster said:
Every...responses.
Click to expand...
The body is full of a lot of complex chemistry and adjusting systems. That's why we look at what drugs actually do in a body rather than being satisfied with what we think they will do.
It's not occurring in a beaker.

Why don't our regular neurotranmitters, eat away at our brain since they are acids too?
Have you figured that out yet?

Is it even possible that there are things going on that you haven't accounted for?

When you have evidence of your hypothesis actually occurring, please post it. There're reasons why hypotheses are tested.

People "common sense" very wrong things all the time. Your hypothesis is one of those times.
 
Did you read my sources? THC mimics some neurotransmitters of the brain. The reason why neurotransmitters don't eat away at our brain is because the cells are designed to receive those chemicals. THC isn't designed for, and is able to fit in the receptors pretending to be other chemicals.

Please tell me, spell out for me, what in my response was not logical.
 
sookster said:
Did you read my sources? THC mimics some neurotransmitters of the brain. The reason why neurotransmitters don't eat away at our brain is because the cells are designed to receive those chemicals. THC isn't designed for, and is able to fit in the receptors pretending to be other chemicals.
Click to expand...
And the evidence that neurons are actually being degraded is...?

sookster said:
Please tell me, spell out for me, what in my response was not logical.
Click to expand...
That the results in a lab with few variables are necessarily the results in a different situation with a wide multitude of variables.
You may still be correct, but the logic is not there to say that it is what definitely happens.

Neurons interact with acids literally all day long.
So just theorizing that neurotransmitter-like acids eat up neurons in vivo because acids react with some substances in a lab is not at all the same as proving that they do.

Now if you had some actual empirical evidence that pot metabolites eat away neurons, it would be different.
If you have some, please share.
 
All the evidence you need is from the two articles I presented earlier. Even neurotransmitters will have an equilibrium constant, and that chemical reaction will actually start an action potential, driving a current through the brain. What I presented, is the only evidence that you need. I am sure if I were to go to a medical library (like Washington University's medical library) I could obtain even more evidence that you require, but unfortunately I do not have access to that library anymore. I had a non-paying internship at a brain research lab during a summer, and that summer has been long gone.

Honestly, I got better stuff to do really. If you still require more evidence, I'm sure you can find it. Just look for brain images in subjects that are daily smokers and have been smoking for decades.
 
sookster said:
All the evidence you need is from the two articles I presented earlier.
What I presented, is the only evidence that you need.
Click to expand...
It's really not. Until you can rule out that the brain of a living person is somehow different than a two chemical reaction in a lab, it's not.
 
RStringfield said:
What's rock bottom on marijuana? Empty cubbards and a pile of food wrappers?

You are wrong on both points, though. The welfare state does not stop people from hitting rock bottom and you don't need to hit rock bottom to stop using.
Click to expand...

Rock bottom is a phrase – it is different for each individual. One person may feel that getting too high to remember their kids birthday is rock bottom – another may need to find themselves on welfare or homeless to equate it to rock bottom.

That you choose to argue such a phrase with a person you claim is stupid beyond words indicates how full of it you actually are. Your words and actions contradict one another.

Free markets lead to vast sums of wealth. Black markets lead to an early grave. Mexico is not growing wealthy. The life expectancy is growing shorter.
Click to expand...

More empty rhetoric.
 
sookster said:
All the evidence you need is from the two articles I presented earlier. Even neurotransmitters will have an equilibrium constant, and that chemical reaction will actually start an action potential, driving a current through the brain. What I presented, is the only evidence that you need. I am sure if I were to go to a medical library (like Washington University's medical library) I could obtain even more evidence that you require, but unfortunately I do not have access to that library anymore. I had a non-paying internship at a brain research lab during a summer, and that summer has been long gone.

Honestly, I got better stuff to do really. If you still require more evidence, I'm sure you can find it. Just look for brain images in subjects that are daily smokers and have been smoking for decades.
Click to expand...

lead researcher and psychiatrist Igor Grant, MD.

Tod Mikuriya, MD, former director of non-classified marijuana research for the National Institute of Mental Health Center for Narcotics and Drug Abuse Studies

Pretty sure those guys and their research teams know what they are talking about more than you do. Stop trying to show off your abilities at balancing chemical equations and actually look at the science.


Heavy Marijuana Use Doesn't Damage Brain

Other than causing the obvious impairment issues with learning and memory, no one's brain was destroyed.
 
Last edited:
The study only lasted for up to 13 years. The gentleman that I originally was talking about has been smoking daily for at least 40 years.
 
sookster said:
The study only lasted for up to 13 years. The gentleman that I originally was talking about has been smoking daily for at least 40 years.
Click to expand...
And you got to examine his brain? And were able to rule out other possible causes?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom