Marijuana is by far the safest recreational drug, study finds

[rudeguy]

55% of CO voters said yes to A64. Similar margins & higher have been achieved in WA, OR, AK & DC. Must be a lot more stoners than I'd thought.

I don't smoke and I think it should be legal.

But in my town that's basically already the case. It's decriminalized and amazingly no evil pot heads have went on murdering sprees.

 

[shira]

I find the issue of legalization amusing, considering how only pot smokers want it legal.

I've never taken any illicit drug (just not interested), but I'm STRONGLY in favor of MJ legalization. In fact, I'm STRONGLY in favor of ending the "war on drugs" generally.

I doubt I'm an outlier. It should be obvious to any thinking person that most of the damage associated with illicit drugs is a consequence of the war on drugs, not a consequence of the effect of the drug itself. That being the case, decriminalizing and regulating almost all illicit drugs would be a huge benefit to society.

And I don't want to hear that people die of drug overdoses. Most overdoses would be avoided if illicit drugs were regulated and met strict purity and dosage requirements. Besides, merely stating the negative consequences of illicit drug use is intellectually dishonest, as the benefit side of the equation is completely ignored.

 

[soundforbjt]

How can something that's true be dumb? You just don't want to accept it. Feel free to provide evidence that I am wrong, but I don't think you'll be successful at it.

You made the claim, therefore it's on you to back it up. That's how it works.

 

[xeeyfjdjskd]

I've never taken any illicit drug (just not interested), but I'm STRONGLY in favor of MJ legalization. In fact, I'm STRONGLY in favor of ending the "war on drugs" generally.

I doubt I'm an outlier. It should be obvious to any thinking person that most of the damage associated with illicit drugs is a consequence of the war on drugs, not a consequence of the effect of the drug itself. That being the case, decriminalizing and regulating almost all illicit drugs would be a huge benefit to society.

And I don't want to hear that people die of drug overdoses. Most overdoses would be avoided if illicit drugs were regulated and met strict purity and dosage requirements. Besides, merely stating the negative consequences of illicit drug use is intellectually dishonest, as the benefit side of the equation is completely ignored.

Is that so? Well, I guess the problem is, you pro-legalizers aren't outright saying you don't smoke, so you're not getting rid of the stereotypes of your cause.

 

[Harvey]

That's one of the dumbest statements I've seen on here, which says a lot.

Got any more?

How can something that's true be dumb? You just don't want to accept it. Feel free to provide evidence that I am wrong, but I don't think you'll be successful at it.

nickqt is right, and you are among the ignorant. Last fall, did a couple of months of chemo and radiation. I could tell you how much it helped me with the nausea from chemo and helping deal with the side effects of radiation, but if you don't believe me you could always ask the rest of the patients I saw, daily, or you could ask the doctors who agreed, or you could ask my brother-in-law, who happens to be an MD and who was treated for throat cancer a couple of years ago, or you could ask HIS cancer specialist who recommended it strongly to him and to me.

Or, assuming you're not Google and mouse challenged, you could read about it all over the web.

OTOH, exactly what do you have to support your meaningless assertions? :whiste:

 

[Victorian Gray]

Any guess on who he was before he was banned?

Aren't there only 5 people actually participating here? :biggrin:

 

[rudeguy]

Aren't there only 5 people actually participating here? :biggrin:

Sometimes I think so. I read a post and I swear it's from someone I should know.


My guess for this guy is oobydoobydoo

 

[nickqt]

How can something that's true be dumb? You just don't want to accept it. Feel free to provide evidence that I am wrong, but I don't think you'll be successful at it.

Your opinion is neither truth nor evidence.

Got anything else I can laugh at?

 

[Vic]

I find the issue of legalization amusing, considering how only pot smokers want it legal.

This is like saying that only alcoholics supported repealing prohibition. Which was hardly the case.
Government isn't the cure-all for society's problems. Sometimes, just callously passing a law and expecting government to fix it only makes it worse.

 

[Jhhnn]

I don't smoke and I think it should be legal.

But in my town that's basically already the case. It's decriminalized and amazingly no evil pot heads have went on murdering sprees.

Reefer madness has not occurred here in CO, and I don't think that white women crave black dick any more than they ever did. Moral degeneracy seems to have held constant in other regards, as well, other than that inherent in locking up people for no good reason & all the dangerous scenarios created in doing so. Other than those of us who are retired or unemployed, cannabis users seem to be going to work just like everybody else, for the same incentives, Rand Paul's bullshit aside.

Decrim is insufficient & merely sustains the black market. Users are still subject to fines & their suppliers to prosecution. It's also unacceptable from a public perception POV.

We intend to normalize cannabis use- like alcohol- and we put the same responsibilities on both. In order to do that, we have to provide legal supply channels from seed to consumer, which we are doing. Anything less clings to the dishonesty of the past.

 

[disappoint]

Is that so? Well, I guess the problem is, you pro-legalizers aren't outright saying you don't smoke, so you're not getting rid of the stereotypes of your cause.

I'm pro-legalization and I've never smoked. There are plenty of pro-legalizers who don't smoke.

Although I think everyone should realize that all drugs and most if not all treatments have side effects that should be explained up front before being prescribed, and people should be allowed to make their own decisions, except minors who often lack the ability to do so.

I also think the legal age should be changed from 18 to 25 because there is sufficient evidence to show that the brain doesn't fully develop until around age 25 but I realize that will be controversial and get a lot of push back. Also there will always be outliers that will develop faster or slower but that doesn't change what is true for the majority of people.

 

[nickqt]

I'm pro-legalization and I've never smoked. There are plenty of pro-legalizers who don't smoke.

Although I think everyone should realize that all drugs and most if not all treatments have side effects that should be explained up front before being prescribed, and people should be allowed to make their own decisions, except minors who often lack the ability to do so.

I also think the legal age should be changed from 18 to 25 because there is sufficient evidence to show that the brain doesn't fully develop until around age 25 but I realize that will be controversial and get a lot of push back. Also there will always be outliers that will develop faster or slower but that doesn't change what is true for the majority of people.

Actually, alcohol is associated with brain structure changes, whereas cannabis is not.

http://www.jneurosci.org/content/35/4/1505.short

 

[Fenixgoon]

wrong thread

 

[shira]

Is that so? Well, I guess the problem is, you pro-legalizers aren't outright saying you don't smoke, so you're not getting rid of the stereotypes of your cause.

What part of "I've never taken any illicit drug" do you not understand? I've never smoked, vaped, or otherwise inhaled, or injected, or swallowed, or skin-patched, or in any other way introduced ANY illicit drug into my body ever. Is that specific enough for you?

The only even marginal thing I ever did was to take two or three non-inhaling puffs of my mother's cigarettes on two occasions when I was eleven years old.

So now you know that your assumptions are wrong. Except that self-righteous types like you apparently just tell themselves "He must be lying; I'm still correct." But in that case, you're obviously immune from knowledge.

 

[disappoint]

Actually, alcohol is associated with brain structure changes, whereas cannabis is not.

http://www.jneurosci.org/content/35/4/1505.short

I think the legal age of consent of alcohol should be 25 as well.

That study had a small sample size and only looked at shapes and sizes of only certain structures of the brain. Unaffected shape and size does not equate to something being safe.

Having said that, as I've tried to state earlier, saying cannabis is safer than alcohol, which I'll concede it likely is, does not mean cannabis is safe for all people in all situations. Each person should come to their own conclusions based on the evidence and should take responsibility for their own choices with the exception of people who are demonstrably incapable of doing so.

 

[shira]

I think the legal age of consent of alcohol should be 25 as well.

That study had a small sample size and only looked at shapes and sizes of only certain structures of the brain. Unaffected shape and size does not equate to something being safe.

Having said that, as I've tried to state earlier, saying cannabis is safer than alcohol, which I'll concede it likely is, does not mean cannabis is safe for all people in all situations. Each person should come to their own conclusions based on the evidence and should take responsibility for their own choices with the exception of people who are demonstrably incapable of doing so.

Exactly. Kind of like driving a car.

 

[soundforbjt]

I think the legal age of consent of alcohol should be 25 as well.

That study had a small sample size and only looked at shapes and sizes of only certain structures of the brain. Unaffected shape and size does not equate to something being safe.

Having said that, as I've tried to state earlier, saying cannabis is safer than alcohol, which I'll concede it likely is, does not mean cannabis is safe for all people in all situations. Each person should come to their own conclusions based on the evidence and should take responsibility for their own choices with the exception of people who are demonstrably incapable of doing so.

Nothing is safe for all people in all situations with the possible exception of oxygen, even too much water can kill.

 

[Vic]

Exactly. Kind of like driving a car.

I could only dream of such competency requirements for driving a car.

 

[pcgeek11]

IMO Drugs should not be considered as recreation in the first place. If it is you are already screwed up.

 

[Moonbeam]

IMO Drugs should not be considered as recreation in the first place. If it is you are already screwed up.

Exactly. And you should only have sex one time per child. People who do things out of some sense of self gratification are screwed up.

 

[SlowSpyder]

IMO Drugs should not be considered as recreation in the first place. If it is you are already screwed up.

Why exactly?

 

[ThinClient]

you guys and your dope..always bending over backwards to fool your selves about fooling your selves.

http://www.schizophrenia.com/prevention/cannabis.marijuana.schizophrenia.html


Researchers in New Zealand found that those who used cannabis by the age of 15 were more than three times (300%) more likely to develop illnesses such as schizophrenia. Other research has backed this up, showing that cannabis use increases the risk of psychosis by up to 700% for heavy users, and that the risk increases in proportion to the amount of cannabis used (smoked or consumed). Additionally, the younger a person smokes/uses cannabis, the higher the risk for schizophrenia, and the worse the schizophrenia is when the person does develop it. Research by psychiatrists in inner-city areas speak of cannabis being a factor in up to 80 percent of schizophrenia cases.


* Cannabis impacts on neurotransmitters that regulate how arousal and stress are managed in the brain. Cannabis takes a long time to metabolise, and can quickly build up to high levels in the body. Once you get to this point, there is a real risk of depression or schizophrenia being triggered.

* A Swedish study of 50,000 military conscripts found heavy use of cannabis increased the risk of suicide by four times (400%). A Victorian study of 2332 adolescents found weekly use increased the risk of suicide attempts among females by five times. Weekly use as a teenager doubled the risk of depression and anxiety. Daily use at the age of 20 boosted the risk of depression and anxiety by five times (500%).

This only matters to people who have a predisposition for schizophrenia.

In plain words, without already having a high likelihood to develop schizophrenia, cannabis does not cause or contribute to schizophrenia.

That's like blaming alcohol for liver failure in people with genetically malfunctioning livers.

 

[soundforbjt]

IMO Drugs should not be considered as recreation in the first place. If it is you are already screwed up.

So, I take it you don't drink, right?

 

[Jhhnn]

IMO Drugs should not be considered as recreation in the first place. If it is you are already screwed up.

Not being able to get over yourself is far more screwed up.

Humans have an affinity for mind altering drugs. It's been that way since before the dawn of history. It's in society's interest to direct that affinity towards the least damaging substances available, cannabis among them.

 

[Jhhnn]

This only matters to people who have a predisposition for schizophrenia.

In plain words, without already having a high likelihood to develop schizophrenia, cannabis does not cause or contribute to schizophrenia.

That's like blaming alcohol for liver failure in people with genetically malfunctioning livers.

It's important to realize that onset isn't like throwing a switch. People so afflicted often realize that they're having problems before the situation becomes acute & will attempt to self medicate given the dearth of other treatments readily available to them. They will show a greater affinity for mind altering drugs than the general population. In that, researchers with an agenda can easily confuse correlation with causation.