MARIJUANA

[Latch33570]

Many states in the US have passed medical use and the restrictions are pretty lax.  California has been doing it since 1996 and low and behold it hasn't fallen apart yet. 2 of our states have passed recreational use. I bet they won't fall apart either. I wonder how much money and lives it will save.

[Mark Andrew Maben]

the fact of marijuana is that it is destructive to the body. this is a fact. just as tobacco and alcohol are. these are vice we as a nation have decide to allow. we grant that they cause problems. and we accept the consequences. this is but another example of having a moderately dangerous substance that when used in moderation is not necessarily dangerous. as to the legality of such a substance, it like many things, fall under the tenth amendment because the use of a substance such as marijuana is neither granted to the Federal government, nor is prohibited to the sates, is under the ultimate jurisdiction of the states. as such, after the 21st amendment, alcohol was legal to have on a federal level, but was somewhat assured of being kept at a high enough age by funding extortion , but it was ultimately up to the states to both decide at what age it was legal, and whether it should be legal or not. as such, if, and when such a battle over constitutionality would arise in response to recent legalization, by a proper reading of the constitution, it is their prerogative to judge its legality

[Maxwell Waters]

I wanna clear up something here:

While the scientific community's still trying to figure out a lot about this plant (because studies are hindered by illegality), there is one thing that is not open for debate at all:

Cannabis (and, for that matter, mushrooms containing psylocin and L.S.D.) is not physically addictive.

And emotional/psychological addictions can be formed on *anything*.

It also clearly is healthier for your body than cigarettes are, though exactly how good or bad they are for you beyond that science is still on the fence about. And that's only if you smoke it; there appear to be very few or possibly no health detriments to using cannabis via other methods of administration (ie. cannabis oils in foods (ie. "special" brownies)).

[Mark Andrew Maben]

thus why i would say the use of say a vaporizer or other means to extract the pure THC is fine. the smoking of it is the main health detriment 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

It also clearly is healthier for your body than cigarettes are, though exactly how good or bad they are for you beyond that science is still on the fence about. And that's only if you smoke it; there appear to be very few or possibly no health detriments to using cannabis via other methods of administration (ie. cannabis oils in foods (ie. "special" brownies)).

 

Unless you count psychosis as a health detriment.

[Latch33570]

Psychosis is to general of a term. You need to be more specific. What type ofpsychosis? I have seen no bad reports from the states that have legalized medical marijuana. Can you provide some? I am willing to change my mind if I see evidence.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Medicinal Cannabis is very tightly controlled in its content. It is hardly apt to call it the same drug as that which is used by people buying it from sketchy street vendors.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Strains. The strains that are on the street at the moment are far far stronger than the medicinal variety. BBC reports have accounts from some people who were loosing multiple days to inactivity caused by some of the stronger strains.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/b00nw3rv

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

that hardly makes it a different drug. There's just different potencies. Same drug different strengths

It was a rhetorical point, actually calling it different. I was just pointing it out to show you why medicinal cannabis isn't an apt comparison.

I saw an interview with a teenage boy whose bones were fusing together who needed to purchase illegal weed because the legal marijuana was no longer helping with the pain. Medical marijuana should be available with varying levels of THC.

There are other drugs that are more apt. Methodone for instance.

I would also like to hear the reports of instances where psychosis was linked to marijuana use.

 

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2007/July/Pages/Cannabislinkedtopsychoticill...

 

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2011/03March/Pages/smoking-weed-cannabis-psy...

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

neither of those were instances when an individual developed some sort of psychosis as a direct link to marijuana use. Everything was all maybes and possibilities.

Actually, yes it did.

 

It found that new cannabis use almost doubled the risk of psychotic symptoms in the years after use.

There. If you want to start denying this sort of thing, let's remember this is the same kind of level of link you have between smoking and lung cancer.

 

it even said that smoking marijuana increased your 3% chance of developing schizophrenia by 40%, leaving you with a 5-6% (?) chance of developing it at best.

I don't see how doubling the risk is the same thing as a 5-6% chance. You are quite wrong.

 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

You still seem to be ignoring the fact that the article explicitly states that the risk is almost doubled. Spin it any way you want, almost doubled is not the same as 3%. The 3% chance you are using is lifetime risk overall for all of us. That really isn't relevent. That's like saying "Well the average risk of a car accident happening is less than 1%, so it really doesn't matter if a seat belt will improve your chances of survival of said crash by 90%."

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

the risk doesn't almost double though. the risk increases by 40%. and the 3% is the number they use in their study how is it irrelevant?

 

No, 3% isn't the number they used. 3% is the number in general overall. Their study produced the 40% number. The 3% number is to do with your overall risk of psycosis as a whole, which increases if you take Cannabis.

This is the math you linked me to. I don't understand what you are disputing.

 

You are claiming that because it's only 4.2% its not important. But by your logic, because it is less than 1% chance that you'll ever be in a car accident, you shouldn't have to wear a seat belt. Because what are the chances it will happen?

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Where it says "3%" that means the liklyhood of any of us, regardless of smoking cannabis or not, getting some form of psychosis. The same way that its a less than one percent chance that any of us will be involved in a car accident. You can't belittle these reports by claiming "well its only 3% up to 4.2%" etc. If you do, you essentially make the case that you shouldn't be forced to wear seatbelts in cars.