Legalize Marijuana?

[Zephyr]

It's not really too important. If you want to find out for yourself, though, feel free to post it. I'm genuinely interested.

Anyway, I think they should have another variable mentioned: "long-term effects."

Marijuana use has only been prevalent since the sixties and seventies, right? Well, the long-term effects of continued use/abuse are only beginning to show.

Eh, it's only fair really, and I'm curious, but really it's not the biggest issue to deal with.

And marijuana use has been prevalent for a lot longer than that. The first smoking pipes were not made for tobacco

 

[DarkSun]

Eh, it's only fair really, and I'm curious, but really it's not the biggest issue to deal with.

And marijuana use has been prevalent for a lot longer than that. The first smoking pipes were not made for tobacco

The first smoking pipes were not as widely used as they are now, were they? And we've got a lot more potent stuff going around now.

 

[Zephyr]

With cigarrettes, everyone of all age-groups is exposed to the fact that there is a causal relationship between smoking and lung-cancer, that nicotene is addictive, that it gives you phlegm. That's taught in schools, too.

And I support this. However, they need to trim the BS that goes with it. Just the facts.

But a lot of people don't really care, because it's still a relatively socially acceptable thing.

If people want to smoke, then they're going to do it, whether it's made legal or not.

My problem with legallisation is that it's probably going to make more people want to do it, if it becomes accepted.

Yeah, whether it's legal or not won't stop people, but it will take the money out of the hands of criminals and put it towards valuable social programs. And legalization does not equal social acceptance. Tobacco use is becoming less and less accepted in America with taxation, anti-smoking programs, and smoking bans. If somebody doesn't want to smoke, they don't want to smoke.

 

[Zephyr]

The first smoking pipes were not as widely used as they are now, were they? And we've got a lot more potent stuff going around now.

Well, given that today's population is absolutely enormous compared to back then...

And we do have more potent stuff, but at the same time we have safer methods of intake. There have been countless studies showing that THC is relatively benign, even over time. There have been studies that have traced the long term effects of it with aging hippies and sometimes people even older than that. How long-term do you want? 90 years? By that point, who cares what the long-term effects are? You're sitting on the brink of death anyways.

 

[DarkSun]

And I support this. However, they need to trim the BS that goes with it. Just the facts.

There is no BS regarding nicotene and alcohol, but people still choose to do it. My point was that educating people about socially acceptable actions is pointless. Unless they are brought up to see such behaviour as inacceptable in the first place, then the vast majority of people (not all of them) will probably engage in drugs like cigarrettes and tobacco anyway.

In light of the correlations between adolescant marijuana use and psychosis, then making marijuana more readily available may not be a good thing, especially if adolescents could then get it as readily as cigarrettes.

And once you consider all the evidence which suggests that THC and other cannibinoids could worsen pre-existing mental illnesses (which one in four Americans have), the wide-spread recreational use of marijuana does not seem completely harmless. At all.

Yeah, whether it's legal or not won't stop people, but it will take the money out of the hands of criminals and put it towards valuable social programs. And legalization does not equal social acceptance. Tobacco use is becoming less and less accepted in America with taxation, anti-smoking programs, and smoking bans. If somebody doesn't want to smoke, they don't want to smoke.

But by legallising the marijuana and selling it, only a few things will have changed.

1 - The substance would have a "legal" lable on it, even though the substance itself won't have changed.

2 - The drug dealers are no longer responsible for the now legal crime. The government will be.

Some people might use marijuana's legallisation as a justification for using it, which would escalate whatever problems it does have.

We would probably find more people using marijuana if it became legal; and more or more so as generations gradually become desensatised to it.

And education about the absolute known facts about THC won't change societal thought any more than the current slightly distorted media has. Once again, the act of making it legal will encourage some people to smoke it, and a small proportion more people will come to be regular users.

 

[DarkSun]

Well, given that today's population is absolutely enormous compared to back then...

And we do have more potent stuff, but at the same time we have safer methods of intake. There have been countless studies showing that THC is relatively benign, even over time. There have been studies that have traced the long term effects of it with aging hippies and sometimes people even older than that. How long-term do you want? 90 years? By that point, who cares what the long-term effects are? You're sitting on the brink of death anyways.

Here is some information about marijuana that has previously been posted in this thread by myself. It shows where I'm coming from:

THE MEDICAL DANGERS OF MARIJUANA USE

http://www.unicri.it/wwk/publicatio...ugs/sdr 2005 marijuana and mental illness.pdf

THC Information - Effects of THC - Use of THC



Acute and chronic exposure to cannabinoids has been associated with cognitive deficits, a higher risk for schizophrenia and other drug abuse. However, the precise mechanism underlying such effects is not known. Preclinical studies suggest that cannabinoids modulate brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF). Accordingly, we hypothesized that Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (Delta(9)-THC), the principal active component of cannabis, would alter BDNF levels in humans.

Healthy control subjects (n = 14) and light users of cannabis (n = 9) received intravenous administration of (0.0286 mg/kg) Delta(9)-THC in a double-blind, fixed order, placebo-controlled, laboratory study. Serum sampled at baseline, after placebo administration, and after Delta(9)-THC administration was assayed for BDNF using ELISA.


Delta(9)-THC increased serum BDNF levels in healthy controls but not light users of cannabis. Further, light users of cannabis had lower basal BDNF levels. Delta(9)-THC produced psychotomimetic effects, perceptual alterations, and "high" and spatial memory impairments.


The effects of socially relevant doses of cannabinoids on BDNF suggest a possible mechanism underlying the consequences of exposure to cannabis. This may be of particular importance for the developing brain and also in disorders believed to involve altered neurodevelopment such as schizophrenia. Larger studies to investigate the effects of cannabinoids on BDNF and other neurotrophins are warranted.

D'Souza, Deepak Cyril et al. (2009) "PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY" P|569-578







Background: There is growing evidence that adolescence is a key period for neuronal maturation. Despite the high prevalence of marijuana use among adolescents and young adults in the United States and internationally, very little is known about its impact on the developing brain. Based on neuroimaging literature on normal brain developmental during adolescence, we hypothesized that individuals with heavy cannabis use (HCU) would have brain structure abnormalities in similar brain regions that undergo development during late adolescence, particularly the fronto-temporal connection.

Method: Fourteen young adult males in residential treatment for cannabis dependence and 14 age-matched healthy male control subjects were recruited. Patients had a history of HCU throughout adolescence; 5 had concurrent alcohol abuse. Subjects underwent structural and diffusion tensor magnetic resonance imaging. White matter integrity was compared between subject groups using voxelwise and fiber tractography analysis.


Results: Voxelwise and tractography analyses revealed that adolescents with HCU had reduced fractional anisotropy, increased radial diffusivity, and increased trace in the homologous areas known to be involved in ongoing development during late adolescence, particularly in the fronto-temporal connection via arcuate fasciculus.

Conclusions: Our results support the hypothesis that heavy cannabis use during adolescence may affect the trajectory of normal brain maturation. Due to concurrent alcohol consumption in five HCU subjects, conclusions from this study should be considered preliminary, as the DTI findings reported here may be reflective of the combination of alcohol and marijuana use. Further research in larger samples, longitudinal in nature, and controlling for alcohol consumption is needed to better understand the pathophysiology of the effect of cannabis on the developing brain. (c) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.


Ashtari, Manzar. (2008) "JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRIC RESEARCH". p|189-204






Cannabis consumption has varying effects over the whole life span, especially on achievements in the areas of schooling, professional life and performance in a social environment. Data from Studies oil remission from neurocognitive deficits following chronic cannabis consumption are ambiguous. The outcome range included everything from complete remission over considerable lasting deficits up to even chronic psychotic disorders. The data seem to be consistent however, when a differentiation between early begin of consumption (before the age of 16) and late begin of consumption is taken into account. Mainly those cannabis users with an early begin of consumption are prone to developing lasting neurocognitive deficits and even a decrease in grey Substance volume, as well as an increase in the risk of psychosis. The correlation of this outcome with cannabis Consumption during a phase of brain development that includes the consolidation of higher cognitive functions, awareness of social cues, planning of concepts and motivation as well as tools of functional control, is highly convincing. The endocannabinoid system reaches the point of highest receptor density during this age of 16/17 years, and many of the above-mentioned developmental processes are modulated by this system. A chronic damage to this system (e.g., down-regulation or desensitisation of CB1receptors by exogenous cannabinoids) therefore holds the potential for permanent neurophysiological as well as neurocognitive deficits, and also for the development of psychotic disorders.

Gudlowski, Y et al. (2008) "GESUNDHEITSWESEN" p|653-657






An increasing number of novel therapeutic agents are targeted at cannabinoid receptors. Drug development programmes of new cannabinoid drugs may be facilitated by the identification of useful biomarkers. This systemic literature review aims to assess the usefulness of direct biomarkers for the effects of cannabis and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in healthy volunteers. One hundred and sixty-five useful articles were found that investigated the acute effects of cannabis or THC on the central nervous system (CNS) and heart rate in healthy volunteers. Three hundred and eighteen tests (or test variants) were grouped in test clusters and functional domains, to allow their evaluation as a useful biomarker and to study their dose-response effects. Cannabis/THC affected a wide range of CNS domains. In addition to heart rate, subjective effects were the most reliable biomarkers, showing significant responses to cannabis in almost all studies. Some CNS domains showed indications of depression at lower and stimulation at higher doses. Subjective effects and heart rate are currently the most reliable biomarkers to study the effect of cannabis. Cannabis affects most CNS domains, but too many different CNS tests are used to quantify the drug-response relationships reliably. Test standardization, particularly in motor and memory domains, may reveal additional biomarkers.

Zuurman, Lineke et al. (2009) "BRITISH JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY" p| 5-21

Anyway, I'm off to bed now. I've spent all night studying Anatomy... *Groan.*

Good morning.

 

[Zephyr]

There is no BS regarding nicotene and alcohol, but people still choose to do it. My point was that educating people about socially acceptable actions is pointless. Unless they are brought up to see such behaviour as inacceptable in the first place, then the vast majority of people (not all of them) will probably engage in drugs like cigarrettes and tobacco anyway.

Then let's do that. I was taught by my parents not to smoke tobacco. It's a nasty habit with no real benefit. That was enough for me. I'm guessing they've totally revamped DARE then? Because I'm pretty sure "If you ever drink even just one beer you will die choking on your puke and all your brain cells will die" was pretty thorough BS. Parent's should teach their children what's right and wrong, and that includes drug education. I learned not to smoke because it would make me get tired whenever I tried running and lung cancer is no fun. These are hard facts, and far from the BS I learned in DARE.

In light of the correlations between adolescant marijuana use and psychosis, then making marijuana more readily available may not be a good thing, especially if adolescents could then get it as readily as cigarrettes.

For what it's worth, as a kid I could get meth more easily than alcohol or cigarettes. We should make giving it to minors an appropriately severe crime.

And once you consider all the evidence which suggests that THC and other cannibinoids could worsen pre-existing mental illnesses (which one in four Americans have), the wide-spread recreational use of marijuana does not seem completely harmless. At all.

Some studies say it makes things worse, others say it eases things. Clearly more research needs to be done. Let's compare this to alcohol though. Alcohol does not give any benefits to mental disorders, and has been shown again and again without controversy that excessive alcohol consumption will make things worse.

But by legallising the marijuana and selling it, only a few things will have changed.

Let's see here...taking the money out of the hands of organized crime, stopping filling our jails with nonviolent drug offenders, demystifying cannabis which will discourage use, increasing government tax earnings to be put into social programs...yeah, I'm cool with that.

Besides, if legalizing cannabis causes increased usage, why did it do exactly the opposite in the Netherlands?

2 - The drug dealers are no longer responsible for the now legal crime. The government will be.

This is a very good thing. I'm not sure you fully grasp the benefit of this. We'll be taking money that would usually go to criminal purposes and put it to good use.

Some people might use marijuana's legallisation as a justification for using it, which would escalate whatever problems it does have.

Got any evidence for this, because the Dutch model shows us that it will actually reduce usage. Most of the people chilling in the Dutch coffee shops are actually Americans.

We would probably find more people using marijuana if it became legal; and more or more so as generations gradually become desensatised to it.

Yes, we will become desensitized to it, which will reduce the mystique and thus usage, just like in the Netherlands.

And education about the absolute known facts about THC won't change societal thought any more than the current slightly distorted media has. Once again, the act of making it legal will encourage some people to smoke it, and a small proportion more people will come to be regular users.

Look, we already have an example of a country that legalized it, and it's been legal long enough to see the effects. Legalizing cannabis will cause a reduction in usage, not an increase.

 

[Zephyr]

Here is some information about marijuana that has previously been posted in this thread by myself. It shows where I'm coming from:






Anyway, I'm off to bed now. I've spent all night studying Anatomy... *Groan.*

Good morning.

You do realize that study is based on merely 23 people right? And it's also concluding exactly what I've been saying all along: that children should not smoke cannabis. Of course it's going to screw up their development. The study is also showing the combined effects of cannabis with alcohol, which also screws up development.

Once again, children should not smoke cannabis, and there is good evidence for that. What there isn't compelling evidence for is that adults shouldn't.

Anyways, tchuss everybody. Ich hab' Deutsch neu.

 

[DarkSun]

I'm guessing they've totally revamped DARE then? Because I'm pretty sure "If you ever drink even just one beer you will die choking on your puke and all your brain cells will die" was pretty thorough BS. Parent's should teach their children what's right and wrong, and that includes drug education. I learned not to smoke because it would make me get tired whenever I tried running and lung cancer is no fun. These are hard facts, and far from the BS I learned in DARE.

:biglaugh:

They actually had programs like that in the US? That's hillarious.

No, I haven't ever been told anything like that in school over here. Yes, that is complete and utter BS, but there you go.

Anyway, I'll respond to the rest of your post later. Probably when I wake up some time at 12noon or 1pm or whatever.

Ciao. ^_^

 

[DarkSun]

You do realize that study is based on merely 23 people right? And it's also concluding exactly what I've been saying all along: that children should not smoke cannabis. Of course it's going to screw up their development. The study is also showing the combined effects of cannabis with alcohol, which also screws up development.

Once again, children should not smoke cannabis, and there is good evidence for that. What there isn't compelling evidence for is that adults shouldn't.

Anyways, tchuss everybody. Ich hab' Deutsch neu.

One of the studies there doesn't mention teenagers at all.

Anyway, I really have to go. Ciao.

 

[Zephyr]

:biglaugh:

They actually had programs like that in the US? That's hillarious.

No, I haven't ever been told anything like that in school over here. Yes, that is complete and utter BS, but there you go.

Anyway, I'll respond to the rest of your post later. Probably when I wake up some time at 12noon or 1pm or whatever.

Ciao. ^_^

Oh geez, forgot you were an Aussie. That explains so much. For a second there I thought you knew what our system was like and were just really painfully clueless. This comes as a relief.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My problem with legallisation is that it's probably going to make more people want to do it, if it becomes accepted.

Why do you assume that? From what I gather, the places that have legalized marijuana have generally seen its rate of use go down.

 

[Buttons*]

Do you think we should change our programs in school from

1) IT WILL KILL YOU AND YOUR FAMILY

to something more honest like:

2) It's a great buzz, but it can make you a little slow, probably should be used carefully and on its own with a group of safe people. Overindulgence of any sort will cause you harm, and could mess up your life, but that is overindulgence - it's how you use it moreseo than what it does. Also, try not to use it at work... especially if you're making food for people

 

[Buttons*]

Why do you assume that? From what I gather, the places that have legalized marijuana have generally seen its rate of use go down.

Ever been to Amsterdam? O_O .... clearly not the case there....

 

[Buttons*]

With cigarrettes, everyone of all age-groups is exposed to the fact that there is a causal relationship between smoking and lung-cancer, that nicotene is addictive, that it gives you phlegm. That's taught in schools, too.

But a lot of people don't really care, because it's still a relatively socially acceptable thing.

If people want to smoke, then they're going to do it, whether it's made legal or prohibitted.

My problem with legallisation is that it's probably going to make more people want to do it, if it becomes accepted.

See, that's sort of how I see it also. I reckon the more people say "it's ok" the more people will do it. However, that may not always be the case... but the trouble is there's no way to tell either way. I suppose we could give it a shot, see if it benefits society more with or without it being legal, and move on from there.

I would hope that if it's made legal, it's also got an age restriction... and honestly, I'd almost want some sort of license on the buyers/sellers' parts. That way, 16 year old Johnny can't meander in there with a fake ID. I wish the laws on alcohol were more strict... when my youngest brother was buying alcohol underage, I was SO ****** that no one caught him or even asked for ID. Kids have NO business buying **** like that, and it upsets me when it happens. Especially when it's my little brother.

I always felt that if I told people "meh, I dont' care what you do, it's all good" that they'd feel free to do things around me I didn't care for. So, I have always said how I feel about it, and sometimes people understand, sometimes they don't. The point is, that if no one says anything about it, a lot of people will feel free to do it moreso than they would otherwise.

Now, I hear everyone saying "That's what freedom of choice is for, dolt" and I realize that it comes with our autonomy - the right to choose what's right for you. The only problem is that sometimes, it doesn't affect JUST you. Also, freedom to choose should come with responsibility, not some kind of no-holds-barred anarchy.

I don't think it should be legal for this reason: We already have harmful substances that are legal: alcohol, tobacco. If people choose to have weed added to that mix, I see more people doing more stupid things. It's really not the *weed* that's the problem, it's introducing it into a society that already has issues. America should probably get its act together first before they legalize something so pointless.

Anyway, this is pretty much my last little rant. I just hope that you realize where I'm coming from. I do agree with Zephyr on MANY aspects of how to legalize it without turning society into mush. I think that if the government was able to regulate it and do something similar to what he describes, it would at least be something I could live with, even if I am on the other side of the fence.

 

[Father Heathen]

Ever been to Amsterdam? O_O .... clearly not the case there....

Actually, yes, it is. I think I'll trust the word of those who actually live there.

 

[Buttons*]

Actually, yes, it is. I think I'll trust the word of those who actually live there.

I'd rather trust demographics and observation... trusting words is tricky business

 

[jacobweymouth]

Ever been drunk? It's kind of like that. Well, I'm not sure that's entirely accurate, as alcohol distorts it even more.

I know what you're talking about, but I've still heard of it causing hallucinations.

Like Father Heathen said, if this is so logical, you should have no trouble explaining how this happens.

THP kills cancer cells -at least that's the general theory as established by a study by the UCLA. The study wasn't conclusive: it was a reasonable hypothesis. The study also showed that marijuana was still dangerous. Because it's still been known to weaken the immune system, aside from causing breathing problems. If it prevents cancer by killing the cancerous cells, but weakens the immune system, it's not unreasonable to think that it works the same way as chemotherapy, in that respect.

Yeah, tobacco and alcohol withdrawal are far worse than caffeine withdrawal, but marijuana does not have major dependency issues like the other things in your list. Any addiction somebody can get from it is purely psychological. It does not cause physical withdrawal symptoms.

Psychological addiction, does indeed, have its toll.

I disagree. Properly respected, marijuana is no worse than caffeine. The perception problems it causes are horribly overblown by the media (unless you smoke way too much) and it lacks the withdrawal symptoms that every other chemical in that list causes.

You are just making these assertions. Where is your data? The difference between marijuana and caffeine is quite simple: the effects of caffeine are benign, both long and short term. Granted there is no physical withdrawal for marijuana -because it lingers in the system for a long time, but the psycological dependency still exists. Again, I'm all for legalizing it. However, all the studies that show it to be as harmless as caffeine, or more harmless, are always called "inconclusive". It's always "may prevent cancer."

As for stoners in the military, that's entirely a discipline problem. Marijuana use doesn't automatically make you undisciplined and lazy like many people would lead you to believe. If somebody is getting high and cussing out their superiors, they would do the same thing if they were drinking.

That's what they said -I believe them, as they were there.

And yes it does. It has been known to affect motivation.

Got any data that marijuana weakens the immune system?

Here's just one link. Immune System & Illicit Drugs

 

[Buttons*]

Here's just one link. Immune System & Illicit Drugs

.... After looking at the link.... I have to say, that's a pretty **** article, and I'm on YOUR side. The reason it's crap? Well, the use of alcohol and STD's or cannabis and STD's, has one link missing SEX. Irresponsible use of any drug plus sketchy sex is an automatic rescipe for STD's and AIDS. It really has little to do with what you're using to get ****** up. People who overindulge have higher risks of doing stupid stuff. That's the point you should be arguing. Anyway, the link doesnt' say anything useful - no actual medical document that links anything to anything.

Now... I don't have anything better, but I do have something published by Oxford on the subject involving both illegal and legal drugs.

Into the World of Illegal Drug Use: Exposure Opportunity and Other Mechanisms Linking the Use of Alcohol, Tobacco, Marijuana, and Cocaine -- Wagner and Anthony 155 (10): 918 -- American Journal of Epidemiology

it may make a little more sense since it's actually been published and has links to other academic articles.

 

[emiliano]

quote=Zephyr;1464651]

Not necessarily. You're assuming that people don't smoke just because it's expensive. I can get cigarettes very cheaply, with a whole pack costing less than even a mere gram of cannabis, but I don't smoke tobacco.

Yes I know, there is a black market for tobacco. It's a flourishing market here in Australia, it is sold by the kilos and is a lot cheaper than buying the fancy heavily taxed stuff, I don’t know they manage to reduce it cost, but it is cheaper. My guess is that the sellers do not charge or collect taxes for the government on it.

Sure, if they want to reduce their prices that drastically. There is no way a dealer could make even close to the same profit now if it were legal. I'm not sure you get it.

But the production of the stuff will be legal, so anybody can have a little green patch in their garden and produce enough to make the same profit, illegality has put a lot of expenditure on the trafficking of this illegal trading, as somebody pointed out (Kai) there is black markets for cigarettes and alcohol that are legal. Why is it so?

Even with high taxation, the cost would plummet so low that only people who grow large amounts of it could ever hope to make a big profit on it.

At present it is cultivated inside houses and kept away from view, I don’t think that it would require a big expenditure to set a collecting scheme to buy the extra production of the little green patches at a bottom prices. I think that it will be cheaper that way and all they have to do is to pass the saving to the consumer and have the price advantage.

Currently, one could sell an ounce of marijuana for close to or over 200 dollars.

And for how much could you sell it for to black marketeers after legalisation?

After legalization, black market weed would have to cost less than 60 or so. The point is that the tax will be so much more than the actual price that black market sales will no longer become profitable and thus not worth the legal risks for dealers.

You are not getting it, black-marketeers will buy the stuff cheaply, they don’t pay or collect the taxes that people tell me will flow form legalisation, they will have an advantage and pocket it, that's the profit that black-market will produce and since we know taxes will have to be increase more and more as more people increases their consumption and their health deteriorates.

We've all had our rough times. Consider yourself lucky I guess. I've seen the nightmares that alcohol abuse can cause.

As I said I thank God that took me out of that filthy pit every day of my life, lucky? I rather say blessed.

Lol what? Do you even know what opiate means? THC isn't even close to chemically similar to opiates. They don't function the same way either.

Yes it does function the same way, it is the dope reward mechanism, smoke, feel good (reward) When are you going to reward me again question? The locations of the cannabinoid receptors are most revealing of the way THC acts on the brain. Neurons are brain cells which process information. Neurotransmitter chemicals enable them to communicate with each other by their release into the gap between the neurons. Receptors are proteins in neurons which are specific to neurotransmitters, and which turn various cellular mechanisms on or off. Neurons can have thousands of receptors for different neurotransmitters, causing any neurotransmitter to have diverse effects in the brain. Drugs affect the production, release or re-uptake of various neurotransmitters. They also mimic or block actions of neurotransmitters, and can interfere with or enhance the mechanisms associated with the receptor. Dopamine is a neurotransmitter which is associated with extremely pleasurable sensations, so that the neural systems which trigger dopamine release are known as the "brain reward system" the receptor can’t wait for the next rash of dope (dopamine) specially if you have a tendency to seek chemical pleasure, that is what I mean, you didn’t really quit you just replace it by another drug that gives you a pleasure rash and has more chances of become acceptable/legal.
As for usage, I would use the same amount because I found what works for me and have no desire to smoke any more. The only difference legalizing it will have is make it easier on the wallet and prevent me from being arrested for taking what is (for me) a beneficial medicine.
This is very doubtful, and as said the reason that prohibition works is that it makes it too expensive to overindulge, if that restrain is taken it will lead to increase consumption. a beneficial medicine? are you sick? if so, I am sorry and know this "
THC, the active chemical in marijuana, is manufactured into a pill available by prescription that can be used to treat the nausea and vomiting that occur with certain cancer treatments and to help AIDS patients eat more to keep up their weight:
I

actually hold a few jobs right now to pay my way through college, and I spend my summers and free time doing volunteer works for groups like the Tacoma Rescue Mission and Love and Logic parenting programs in order to help people who are still in the situations I've had to struggle with in the past. The stereotype of the lazy stoner really needs to die out.

I am glad that you are such a strong willed individual, my encounter with this has been more negative, it could be due to the fact that I facilitate drug and alcohol group’ discussion to mentally ill patient as part of my job, the success rate is so poor that it frustrate me at times, but in the end I find peace in the fact that these individuals have added problems and there is no shortage of wrong advice when they go back to the community, they seem to have an inclination to self medication, and lack a of faith in the medical profession.