California Proposition 19 (Legalization of Marijuana)

[Escher]

The effects of Marijuana depend on the strain smoked; Sativa strains are stimulants, inducing the so called 'giggly' effects or 'hyper' stoned feeling ('charged'). Indica strains induce the relaxed 'baked' feeling...

Since both types induce different physiological reactions (both a stimulant and depressant), 'Marijuana' cannot be discussed as exclusively either. In extremely large amounts it's also a hallucinogen.

It is in no way directly comparable to alcohol just because of the physiological classification. Would you compare Heroin or Barbiturates to Alcohol and try to infer a similar link?

 

[Gaétan Guimond]

Marijuana (grass, pot, weed) is the common name for a crude drug made from the plant Cannabis sativa. The main mind-altering (psychoactive) ingredient in marijuana is THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol), but more than 400 other chemicals also are in the plant. A marijuana "joint" (cigarette) is made from the dried particles of the plant. The amount of THC in the marijuana determines how strong its effects will be. The type of plant, the weather, the soil, the time of harvest, and other factors determine the strength of marijuana. The strength of today's marijuana is as much as ten times greater than the marijuana used in the early 1970s.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrhPRr_1Klw Le numero 1 qui a fait revivre le cube est caché derrière les autres

 

[Escher]

Marijuana (grass, pot, weed) is the common name for a crude drug made from the plant Cannabis sativa. The main mind-altering (psychoactive) ingredient in marijuana is THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol), but more than 400 other chemicals also are in the plant. A marijuana "joint" (cigarette) is made from the dried particles of the plant. The amount of THC in the marijuana determines how strong its effects will be. The type of plant, the weather, the soil, the time of harvest, and other factors determine the strength of marijuana. The strength of today's marijuana is as much as ten times greater than the marijuana used in the early 1970s.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrhPRr_1Klw Le numero 1 qui a fait revivre le cube est caché derrière les autres

I love you so much right now.

 

[Stefan]

Yeah, we might finally have the explanation.

 

[brunson]

That's awesome, Gaétan. The most comprehensible post I've ever seen you make is on Cannabis.

 

[blucrosoft]

Marijuana (grass, pot, weed) is the common name for a crude drug made from the plant Cannabis sativa. The main mind-altering (psychoactive) ingredient in marijuana is THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol), but more than 400 other chemicals also are in the plant. A marijuana "joint" (cigarette) is made from the dried particles of the plant. The amount of THC in the marijuana determines how strong its effects will be. The type of plant, the weather, the soil, the time of harvest, and other factors determine the strength of marijuana. The strength of today's marijuana is as much as ten times greater than the marijuana used in the early 1970s.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrhPRr_1Klw Le numero 1 qui a fait revivre le cube est caché derrière les autres

That's nice, but not true.

 

[qqwref]

qqwref: [long paragraph about how marijuana hurts your judgment and makes you do things you'd normally be too civilized to do]

That makes sense, that alcohol mostly turns off some higher brain functions like emotion control and patience.

I just feel like the negatives of alcohol and positives of pot are the only things being evaluated instead of all of them for each.

Right, because the whole argument is trying to counter the prevalent assumption that marijuana is harmful (to users, to society, to crime, whatever) as compared to the currently legal drugs i.e. alcohol. I'm sure pot has negative effects (pretty much all chemicals do) and alcohol has positive effects, but the point is to show that the arguments "pot is worse than alcohol so it should remain illegal" or "legalizing pot will hurt society / the economy" don't hold water.


Interesting question: I've heard of long-term side effects of pot smoking, such as memory problems and a higher risk of lung cancer. Has anyone done such studies on eating it? I'm sure it's not as enjoyable, but I imagine it would remove any side effects caused by the smoke itself.

 

[FatBoyXPC]

Fair enough. I completely agree on your point of what people say, when simple research can do more than throw those types of arguments down the drain (such as Hadley's simple asking for one fatal accident based off marijuana use alone).

I've actually heard the ingesting marijuana is a better experience, but this is based off one friend who happens to smoke a lot and rarely eat. He says that the high is better but it obvious takes longer to reach that high. It's also more expensive and time consuming if you want to do it right (such as make bud butter vs just putting ground up pot into the batter, I've actually heard the latter is one of the most wasteful things you can do and you'd have to eat a lot of brownies to get high). This friend made a cheese spread with the butter, brownies, and then a few sandwiches. He made this solely for the "national holiday" (lol) because he wasn't able to get off work so he had to find a way to partake in the celebration while on the clock (lol sounds like not such a smart guy but he's actually incredibly smart lol). I can't really speak much about the side effects of ingestion vs inhalation though.

 

[blade740]

Interesting question: I've heard of long-term side effects of pot smoking, such as memory problems and a higher risk of lung cancer. Has anyone done such studies on eating it? I'm sure it's not as enjoyable, but I imagine it would remove any side effects caused by the smoke itself.

I don't have any links to studies at the moment because I'm posting from my phone, but I remember reading one that showed that "cannabis only" smokers (as in non-tobacco smokers) had slightly LOWER than average rate of lung cancer as compared to non-smokers. I'llget more info when I get home.

 

[masterofthebass]

I don't have any links to studies at the moment because I'm posting from my phone, but I remember reading one that showed that "cannabis only" smokers (as in non-tobacco smokers) had slightly LOWER than average rate of lung cancer as compared to non-smokers. I'llget more info when I get home.

http://cancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org/content/2/8/759.abstract <--- actual article
http://www.alternet.org/health/142121 <--- commentary

 

[Hadley4000]

There are no cases of marijuana causing lung cancer. Also, if there were cases, wouldn't the anti drug organizations have the cancer patients on TV every 5 minutes?

And as far as marijuana killing brain cells, the study itself was done in a very biased way. They connected monkeys to gas masks, and pumped the amount of smoke from 63 joints into the mask, over a period of 5 minutes. The brain cells were dieing from suffocation. Also, a study by Xia Zhuang at the University of Vancouver showed that marijuana can actually stimulate brain cells.

 

[qqwref]

And as far as marijuana killing brain cells, the study itself was done in a very biased way. They connected monkeys to gas masks, and pumped the amount of smoke from 63 joints into the mask, over a period of 5 minutes. The brain cells were dieing from suffocation. Also, a study by Xia Zhuang at the University of Vancouver showed that marijuana can actually stimulate brain cells.

I haven't heard about this, but it sounds pretty silly. I guess it's just another reason not to take the conclusion of a paper at face value, eh?

 

[FatBoyXPC]

Hadley, I know about that study too. If I remember correctly the monkeys smoked over 30x their body weight. They also had no control group. I also think that a week later or something the guy who ran that study made a public apology for not conducting the study correctly. In fairness though, any form of smoke can cause lung cancer So technically, yes, smoking marijuana leads to lung cancer haha!

 

[Hadley4000]

Hadley, I know about that study too. If I remember correctly the monkeys smoked over 30x their body weight. They also had no control group. I also think that a week later or something the guy who ran that study made a public apology for not conducting the study correctly. In fairness though, any form of smoke can cause lung cancer So technically, yes, smoking marijuana leads to lung cancer haha!

Not true. It's the chemicals in tobacco, for example, not the smoke itself. If that was the case, then why, A: are there no cases of someone developing lung cancer from purely marijuana, and B: use it as a medicine, FOR cancer?

In fact, Dr. Donald Tashkin of UCLA conducted a study that showed that marijuana can actually KEEP cells from becoming malignant. After studying marijuana and its effects for 30 years, this is what he had to say

"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."

 

[Cubezz]

I personally am fine with it, as long as it does not affect anyone's health, other than the marijuana user.
If marijauna DOES lead to lung cancer, people that breathe in the 2nd hand smoke should not have to suffer because of the actual smokers.

 

[Hadley4000]

I personally am fine with it, as long as it does not affect anyone's health, other than the marijuana user.
If marijauna DOES lead to lung cancer, people that breathe in the 2nd hand smoke should not have to suffer because of the actual smokers.

But it doesn't even effect the users health, in a negative way that is =P

And by that theory, do you think they should prohibit all tobacco products?

 

[Innocence]

But it doesn't even effect the users health, in a negative way that is =P

And by that theory, do you think they should prohibit all tobacco products?

I believe he would want it to be regulated the same way as marijuana. That is, if his reasoning is sound.

 

[FatBoyXPC]

Hadley, I'm pretty sure inhaling smoke of any form leads to lung cancer

 

[DavidWoner]

I'm pretty sure that you can't say something like that without evidence to back it up and expect anyone to take you seriously.

 

[Innocence]

I'm pretty sure that you can't say something like that without evidence to back it up and expect anyone to take you seriously.

Although, you could say "I'm pretty sure inhaling smoke of any form will get carbon in your lungs."