Smoking Pot.

[leibowde84]

That's not a reputable, scientific site. Some of those claims are true but some I doubt. And they're very, very minor compared to the proven negative affects of marijuana.

What are the negative effects of marijuana when it is not ingested through smoke? Take a look at this link.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...l_harm_and_dependence,_NA_free_means).svg.png

 

[sun rise]

What are the negative effects of marijuana when it is not ingested through smoke? Take a look at this link.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...l_harm_and_dependence,_NA_free_means).svg.png

I answered that question already in #118 and #142 upstream.

The points I've been trying to make in this thread are: the current federal classification is bogus. The ingredients in marijuana should be dealt with rationally in medical situations. Marijuana can have negative physical affects whether smoked or ingested. Another point is that I personally experienced negative effects from it including psychological dependency and several others I mentioned early on in this thread.

Whether or not the placement in that graphic is warranted will change with further medical information as is true for other drugs there. And it's true that smoking is more dangerous than eating but there's a risk with drug-laden food being around as well - that someone, perhaps a child, might eat some of it. And that will happen as accidents happen.

If you want to argue that occasionally taking small amounts has a relatively low risk, I'll accept that statement. But for me, clouding my consciousness is not something I find attractive or spiritually healthy to do.

 

[leibowde84]

I answered that question already in #118 and #142 upstream.

The points I've been trying to make in this thread are: the current federal classification is bogus. The ingredients in marijuana should be dealt with rationally in medical situations. Marijuana can have negative physical affects whether smoked or ingested. Another point is that I personally experienced negative effects from it including psychological dependency and several others I mentioned early on in this thread.

Whether or not the placement in that graphic is warranted will change with further medical information as is true for other drugs there. And it's true that smoking is more dangerous than eating but there's a risk with drug-laden food being around as well - that someone, perhaps a child, might eat some of it. And that will happen as accidents happen.

If you want to argue that occasionally taking small amounts has a relatively low risk, I'll accept that statement. But for me, clouding my consciousness is not something I find attractive or spiritually healthy to do.

We aren't talking about your preference or your opinion on the subject. And, the child thing is bogus facially because that risk has not caused anything else to be illegal. But, that is beyond the scope of this discussion. This is a legal issue. Nothing that you have stated is any legitimate reasoning for prohibition.

 

[leibowde84]

I answered that question already in #118 and #142 upstream.

The points I've been trying to make in this thread are: the current federal classification is bogus. The ingredients in marijuana should be dealt with rationally in medical situations. Marijuana can have negative physical affects whether smoked or ingested. Another point is that I personally experienced negative effects from it including psychological dependency and several others I mentioned early on in this thread.

Whether or not the placement in that graphic is warranted will change with further medical information as is true for other drugs there. And it's true that smoking is more dangerous than eating but there's a risk with drug-laden food being around as well - that someone, perhaps a child, might eat some of it. And that will happen as accidents happen.

If you want to argue that occasionally taking small amounts has a relatively low risk, I'll accept that statement. But for me, clouding my consciousness is not something I find attractive or spiritually healthy to do.

We aren't talking about your preference or your opinion on the subject. And, the child thing is bogus facially because that risk has not caused anything else to be illegal. But, that is beyond the scope of this discussion. This is a legal issue. Nothing that you have stated is any legitimate reasoning for prohibition.

 

[leibowde84]

I answered that question already in #118 and #142 upstream.

The points I've been trying to make in this thread are: the current federal classification is bogus. The ingredients in marijuana should be dealt with rationally in medical situations. Marijuana can have negative physical affects whether smoked or ingested. Another point is that I personally experienced negative effects from it including psychological dependency and several others I mentioned early on in this thread.

Whether or not the placement in that graphic is warranted will change with further medical information as is true for other drugs there. And it's true that smoking is more dangerous than eating but there's a risk with drug-laden food being around as well - that someone, perhaps a child, might eat some of it. And that will happen as accidents happen.

If you want to argue that occasionally taking small amounts has a relatively low risk, I'll accept that statement. But for me, clouding my consciousness is not something I find attractive or spiritually healthy to do.

I'm not talking medicinally. I am asking whether you think these are sufficient reasons to criminalize the recreational use of marijuana.

 

[sun rise]

I'm not talking medicinally. I am asking whether you think these are sufficient reasons to criminalize the recreational use of marijuana.

You asked medical questions and I provided medical answers. Specifically your last medical question was What are the negative effects of marijuana when it is not ingested through smoke? Take a look at this link.

But to answer your legality question. Infractions are not criminal offenses and leave no record. I would not legalize recreational use but I think I'd prefer an infraction. At the very most a misdemeanor. Having possession for use a felony is to me wrong.

 

[sun rise]

And today I read something that shows what is going on in the pot world: spice. Experts: Increase in synthetic pot hospitalizations is stunning | State Column

How would those who favor legalization deal with a synthetic form of pot that can cause kidney failure and probably worse?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

How would those who favor legalization deal with a synthetic form of pot that can cause kidney failure and probably worse?

Legalizing pot, as well as doing away with drug testing (they really aren't that great in terms of accuracy anyways: way too many false positives and negatives), would kill spice overnight. Most people I know who use it use it only because they are subject to a drug test. It use to be that it was legal, but it's not anymore and people still use it. Legalize the real thing, and why would people pay for a synthesized 10 minute wicked high that causes the problems it does?

 

[leibowde84]

You asked medical questions and I provided medical answers. Specifically your last medical question was What are the negative effects of marijuana when it is not ingested through smoke? Take a look at this link.

But to answer your legality question. Infractions are not criminal offenses and leave no record. I would not legalize recreational use but I think I'd prefer an infraction. At the very most a misdemeanor. Having possession for use a felony is to me wrong.

Misdemeanors still go on your record and can prevent you from getting gainful employment. Decriminalization is great for this aspect of the issue, but it completely disregards the fact that, without regulation and affordability for consumers, the black market (Mexican Cartels), will be the one's "raking in the dough". For this reason, I think that legalization/regulation is the only reasonable choice.

 

[oldbadger]

And today I read something that shows what is going on in the pot world: spice. Experts: Increase in synthetic pot hospitalizations is stunning | State Column

How would those who favor legalization deal with a synthetic form of pot that can cause kidney failure and probably worse?

Usual journalistic rubbish.
When 'they' start talking about 'experts', you can bet that something is wrong, somewhere.
This sentence was noted whilst reading your link.:-
One expert speculated that it may be from a new batch of synthetic pot on the streets.
....yep...... gobbledegook ahoy!

 

[oldbadger]

In 2010, 655 people died by falling down stairs.
Not one person died because of smoking pot that year.

In fact, the first person to die of smoking pot died in 2014

Mortality statistics: every cause of death in England and Wales, visualised | Datablog | News | The Guardian

...... says it all, really......

 

[Shadow Wolf]

In 2010, 655 people died by falling down stairs.
Not one person died because of smoking pot that year.

In fact, the first person to die of smoking pot died in 2014

Mortality statistics: every cause of death in England and Wales, visualised | Datablog | News | The Guardian

...... says it all, really......

The only death I've ever heard of from smoking pot was someone trying to attribute something dumb the person did (like the story of someone jumping out of a building on LSD because that person thought they could fly) and not actually linked to marijuana itself.

 

[psychoslice]

Smoking bongs can be bad for your lungs, so down the track you may develop lung disease which you may die from, but it wont be said that you died from smoking pot.

 

[oldbadger]

The only death I've ever heard of from smoking pot was someone trying to attribute something dumb the person did (like the story of someone jumping out of a building on LSD because that person thought they could fly) and not actually linked to marijuana itself.

.......... and there governments are, hustling 'science' to show how bad pot is.
It's reached a point where a massive % of the populace is totally indoctrinated about how bad pot is.
Indoctrination, leading to prejudice, thus allowing huge numbers of searches, leading to rubbish arrest stats, producing one huge expensive time-wasting cop out.

I say legalise B and C drugs, and open up A drugs to prescription availability.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Smoking bongs can be bad for your lungs, so down the track you may develop lung disease which you may die from, but it wont be said that you died from smoking pot.

If that were the case, it would be in the same manner that the hundreds of thousands of deaths from cigarette smoking, such as lung cancer, are attributed to cigarette smoking.

 

[psychoslice]

If that were the case, it would be in the same manner that the hundreds of thousands of deaths from cigarette smoking, such as lung cancer, are attributed to cigarette smoking.

Well of course that's my point, many people die of related diseases from smoking, and of course pot would have to be there also, smoke doesn't belong in the lungs.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well of course that's my point, many people die of related diseases from smoking, and of course pot would have to be there also, smoke doesn't belong in the lungs.

One Joint a Week for 49 Years Doesn’t Harm Lungs, Research Finds - Bloomberg Business
Jan. 10 (Bloomberg) -- Occasional pot smoking doesn’t appear to harm users’ lungs the way regular tobacco use does, according to a 20-year study.
At the level of one marijuana cigarette a week for 49 years, or one joint a day for 7 years, there was no decline in lung function, according to a paper released today by the Journal of the American Medical Association.
...
More than half of the people in the study reported current marijuana smoking, tobacco smoking, or both at one or more examinations. Tobacco smokers had eight to nine cigarettes a day at the peak of their use, versus marijuana smokers reporting about two or three episodes in 30 days.
At more than 10 years of smoking a daily joint, lung function seemed to decline although not to a degree that was statistically significant, the study found.
The studies are not supporting your claim.

 

[sun rise]

Legalizing pot, as well as doing away with drug testing (they really aren't that great in terms of accuracy anyways: way too many false positives and negatives), would kill spice overnight. Most people I know who use it use it only because they are subject to a drug test. It use to be that it was legal, but it's not anymore and people still use it. Legalize the real thing, and why would people pay for a synthesized 10 minute wicked high that causes the problems it does?

I'm in favor of doing away for drug tests for marijuana.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm in favor of doing away for drug tests for marijuana.

I've recently studied material regarding drug testing. It doesn't matter what drug, there are too many things that cause false positives, and too often the test will miss any substances being tested for. If I can find it again even the DOJ has said they aren't really that good.

 

[psychoslice]

One Joint a Week for 49 Years Doesn’t Harm Lungs, Research Finds - Bloomberg Business
Jan. 10 (Bloomberg) -- Occasional pot smoking doesn’t appear to harm users’ lungs the way regular tobacco use does, according to a 20-year study.
At the level of one marijuana cigarette a week for 49 years, or one joint a day for 7 years, there was no decline in lung function, according to a paper released today by the Journal of the American Medical Association.
...
More than half of the people in the study reported current marijuana smoking, tobacco smoking, or both at one or more examinations. Tobacco smokers had eight to nine cigarettes a day at the peak of their use, versus marijuana smokers reporting about two or three episodes in 30 days.
At more than 10 years of smoking a daily joint, lung function seemed to decline although not to a degree that was statistically significant, the study found.
The studies are not supporting your claim.

Still its best to keep the crap out of our lungs, its just not normal, I use to smoke it and it made me feel like crap for three days after, good at the time though, but not worth it.