What is with the stupidity of our leaders. Why won't Obama (and Congress) just end the drug war!
-
I think you are partially correct. Cannibis, especially if consumed via food or a vaporizor (smokeless), is far safer than alcohol. My wife was watching some doctor show on A&E or something and the woman said alcohol was involved in 50% of suicides. Are you kidding me? This isn't even mentioned in our national discourse on the drug. Alcohol is just as addictive any other drug and is probably more harmful than many... Don't get me wrong prohibiton doesn't work. But it doesn't work for other drugs either. Often I feel like I was born a 1,000 years to soon. Things that seem like common sense to me aren't even on most people's radar.
I didn't get any requirements for the signature
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
Cannibis, especially if consumed via food or a vaporizor (smokeless)
Even with smoke, at normal levels, it is far safer than alcohol, at abuse levels, which is always how the two are compared. Two beers never hurt anyone any more or less that two tokes on a joint.
-
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
Cannibis, especially if consumed via food or a vaporizor (smokeless)
Even with smoke, at normal levels, it is far safer than alcohol, at abuse levels, which is always how the two are compared. Two beers never hurt anyone any more or less that two tokes on a joint.
Brady Kelly wrote:
Even with smoke, at normal levels, it is far safer than alcohol, at abuse levels, which is always how the two are compared. Two beers never hurt anyone any more or less that two tokes on a joint.
It isn't the THC in the weed that causes the cancer. It is other toxins in the smoke that are harmful. If you only have a tiny bit, it probably won't kill you. But if you smoke a few joints everyday, you might end up with lung cancer or COPD. Having smoke in your lungs is not good for you, even if the THC is not harmful. Anyway, as far as addictions go, your biggest worry with pot is getting in legal trouble. Alcohol on the other hand can ruin your life in many ways.
I didn't get any requirements for the signature
-
Brady Kelly wrote:
Even with smoke, at normal levels, it is far safer than alcohol, at abuse levels, which is always how the two are compared. Two beers never hurt anyone any more or less that two tokes on a joint.
It isn't the THC in the weed that causes the cancer. It is other toxins in the smoke that are harmful. If you only have a tiny bit, it probably won't kill you. But if you smoke a few joints everyday, you might end up with lung cancer or COPD. Having smoke in your lungs is not good for you, even if the THC is not harmful. Anyway, as far as addictions go, your biggest worry with pot is getting in legal trouble. Alcohol on the other hand can ruin your life in many ways.
I didn't get any requirements for the signature
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
Anyway, as far as addictions go, your biggest worry with pot is getting in legal trouble
My biggest worry with weed is finding decent stuff. :) Haha, at least I just found "Weeds", season 4. :cool:
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090416/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_mexico[^] How silly we are to keep fighting a war that can't be won! All they have to do decriminalize drugs. Don't legalize drugs, just hit people with a $500 fine and confiscate the drugs. Remove all the other laws. Since there will be no more risk in selling drugs, all the profits for the drug dealers will go away... But when you put people in prison for selling drugs, you create a scarcity. It is the high demand and low supply (because of legal penalties) that creates all the profit for the drug dealers. They could decriminalize drugs and the problem would be solved. I don't know about you, but if you are dumb enough to hit a crack pipe or put a heroine needle in your arm then you get what you deserve. Uncle Sam making all the drug dealers rich isn't helping. I frankly don't give a shit if someone wants to ruin their life and become an addict. However, I do feel that spending billions fighting this war and jailing millions of people with almost no results to show for it is pointless, dumb, idiotic and foolish. So just end it already.
I didn't get any requirements for the signature
Tobacco: legal - and a killer. Alcohol: legal - and a killer. Both of these make enormous amount of money for the government. Dope: illegal - rarely kills Coke: illegal - rarely kills Heroin: illegal - kills when badly handled, mostly. etc. All of these make enormous amounts of money for criminals, both big and small; contribute to street crime, burglary, and murder. All of these cost the government a fortune in detection, capture, legal processing, prison costs, and clean up. If the bulk of the people are ignoring a law; if the law enforcement is showing no signs of winning; if the only people profitting are the crimminals (and any corrupt law makers / enforcers): The the law is stupid and needs rethinking. Legalise the lot, enforce quality rules (just as for alchol) and tax it. Result: happier druggies, lower costs all round, less deaths. I can say this as someone who hasn't smoked for 5 years, hardly drinks, and who hasn't touched dope or anything else for 20 years!
-
Tobacco: legal - and a killer. Alcohol: legal - and a killer. Both of these make enormous amount of money for the government. Dope: illegal - rarely kills Coke: illegal - rarely kills Heroin: illegal - kills when badly handled, mostly. etc. All of these make enormous amounts of money for criminals, both big and small; contribute to street crime, burglary, and murder. All of these cost the government a fortune in detection, capture, legal processing, prison costs, and clean up. If the bulk of the people are ignoring a law; if the law enforcement is showing no signs of winning; if the only people profitting are the crimminals (and any corrupt law makers / enforcers): The the law is stupid and needs rethinking. Legalise the lot, enforce quality rules (just as for alchol) and tax it. Result: happier druggies, lower costs all round, less deaths. I can say this as someone who hasn't smoked for 5 years, hardly drinks, and who hasn't touched dope or anything else for 20 years!
OriginalGriff wrote:
Dope: illegal - rarely kills Coke: illegal - rarely kills Heroin: illegal - kills when badly handled, mostly.
Well, no. I am quite sure that drugs, when legalized and easily accessible, would kill more than "rarely". Even now, I guess you cannot qualify death by drugs as "rare". But I do agree with the rest of your post.
-
OriginalGriff wrote:
Dope: illegal - rarely kills Coke: illegal - rarely kills Heroin: illegal - kills when badly handled, mostly.
Well, no. I am quite sure that drugs, when legalized and easily accessible, would kill more than "rarely". Even now, I guess you cannot qualify death by drugs as "rare". But I do agree with the rest of your post.
"Rare" is a relative term. Compared to smoking?
In developed countries alone, the habit is currently responsible for nearly
two million deaths a year, about half of which are deaths in middle age (ages 35-69).http://www.deathsfromsmoking.net/[^] Drinking?
A sharp increase in the number of middle-aged people drinking themselves to death was revealed yesterday.
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) said alcohol-related fatalities among all adult age groups in Britain more than doubled from 4,144 in 1991 to 8,758 in 2006.But the steepest increase was among men aged 35 to 54, who were falling victim to cirrhosis of the liver and other alcohol-induced diseases at a younger age than before. The alcohol-related death rate for this group rose by 132% from 13.4 deaths per 100,000 in 1991 to 31.1 in 2006.
Among middle-aged women, the rate increased from 7.2 to 14.8 deaths per 100,000 - a larger increase than for women in other age groups.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jan/26/drugsandalcohol.society[^] Driving while drunk?
Government figures show that 590 people died last year in accidents involving drivers over the limit.
This compares to 580 drink-driving deaths in 2003 and 480 in 2002 and is higher than any time since 1992.
http://www.london.gov.uk/londoner/05dec/p2c.jsp?nav=news[^] These are legal drugs.
Table 1. Number of deaths in England related to drug misuse by gender
England 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Males 1,242 1,262 1,237 1,137 911 1,044
Females 242 303 291 319 270 295
Totals 1,484 1,565 1,528 1,456 1,181 1,339Source: ONS, Health Statistics Quarterly 29, Spring 2006, p7
http://www.nta.nhs.uk/areas/drug_related_deaths/trends.aspx[^]
-
"Rare" is a relative term. Compared to smoking?
In developed countries alone, the habit is currently responsible for nearly
two million deaths a year, about half of which are deaths in middle age (ages 35-69).http://www.deathsfromsmoking.net/[^] Drinking?
A sharp increase in the number of middle-aged people drinking themselves to death was revealed yesterday.
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) said alcohol-related fatalities among all adult age groups in Britain more than doubled from 4,144 in 1991 to 8,758 in 2006.But the steepest increase was among men aged 35 to 54, who were falling victim to cirrhosis of the liver and other alcohol-induced diseases at a younger age than before. The alcohol-related death rate for this group rose by 132% from 13.4 deaths per 100,000 in 1991 to 31.1 in 2006.
Among middle-aged women, the rate increased from 7.2 to 14.8 deaths per 100,000 - a larger increase than for women in other age groups.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jan/26/drugsandalcohol.society[^] Driving while drunk?
Government figures show that 590 people died last year in accidents involving drivers over the limit.
This compares to 580 drink-driving deaths in 2003 and 480 in 2002 and is higher than any time since 1992.
http://www.london.gov.uk/londoner/05dec/p2c.jsp?nav=news[^] These are legal drugs.
Table 1. Number of deaths in England related to drug misuse by gender
England 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Males 1,242 1,262 1,237 1,137 911 1,044
Females 242 303 291 319 270 295
Totals 1,484 1,565 1,528 1,456 1,181 1,339Source: ONS, Health Statistics Quarterly 29, Spring 2006, p7
http://www.nta.nhs.uk/areas/drug_related_deaths/trends.aspx[^]
-
Brady Kelly wrote:
Even with smoke, at normal levels, it is far safer than alcohol, at abuse levels, which is always how the two are compared. Two beers never hurt anyone any more or less that two tokes on a joint.
It isn't the THC in the weed that causes the cancer. It is other toxins in the smoke that are harmful. If you only have a tiny bit, it probably won't kill you. But if you smoke a few joints everyday, you might end up with lung cancer or COPD. Having smoke in your lungs is not good for you, even if the THC is not harmful. Anyway, as far as addictions go, your biggest worry with pot is getting in legal trouble. Alcohol on the other hand can ruin your life in many ways.
I didn't get any requirements for the signature
Oddly enough there has never been a link made from cannabis alone to lung cancer. A recent study did find that Cannabis and cigarettes combined will make it 2.5 more likely to cause cancer than cigarettes alone. They couldn't find any reasonable correlation in their data to connect cannabis alone to lung cancer. Should be interesting to see what other combo effects weed has. They've identified about 50 compounds that could have some effect in combination with common medications. Now they just have to figure out what those effects might be.
The true man wants two things: danger and play. For that reason he wants woman, as the most dangerous plaything.
-
OriginalGriff wrote:
Totals 1,484 1,565 1,528 1,456 1,181 1,339
OK, nevermind. Astonishing, BTW.
~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus
Do not feed the troll ! - Common proverbThe other thing to realize is that drug deaths are inflated in prohibition countries due to increased addiction rates. Legalization has led to lower usage and addiction rates in countries where it's been tried, Portugal and Amsterdam (Amsterdam had the bad luck to go first, causing a lot of mayhem with 'visitors' screwing up the stats.)
The true man wants two things: danger and play. For that reason he wants woman, as the most dangerous plaything.
-
Oddly enough there has never been a link made from cannabis alone to lung cancer. A recent study did find that Cannabis and cigarettes combined will make it 2.5 more likely to cause cancer than cigarettes alone. They couldn't find any reasonable correlation in their data to connect cannabis alone to lung cancer. Should be interesting to see what other combo effects weed has. They've identified about 50 compounds that could have some effect in combination with common medications. Now they just have to figure out what those effects might be.
The true man wants two things: danger and play. For that reason he wants woman, as the most dangerous plaything.
Skymir wrote:
Oddly enough there has never been a link made from cannabis alone to lung cancer.
No there is study correlating cannibis (alone) and lung cancer. But I still think it is risky to smoke a lot of weed. The healthy way to do it is to cook with it or invest in a vaporizer.
I didn't get any requirements for the signature
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090416/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_mexico[^] How silly we are to keep fighting a war that can't be won! All they have to do decriminalize drugs. Don't legalize drugs, just hit people with a $500 fine and confiscate the drugs. Remove all the other laws. Since there will be no more risk in selling drugs, all the profits for the drug dealers will go away... But when you put people in prison for selling drugs, you create a scarcity. It is the high demand and low supply (because of legal penalties) that creates all the profit for the drug dealers. They could decriminalize drugs and the problem would be solved. I don't know about you, but if you are dumb enough to hit a crack pipe or put a heroine needle in your arm then you get what you deserve. Uncle Sam making all the drug dealers rich isn't helping. I frankly don't give a shit if someone wants to ruin their life and become an addict. However, I do feel that spending billions fighting this war and jailing millions of people with almost no results to show for it is pointless, dumb, idiotic and foolish. So just end it already.
I didn't get any requirements for the signature
Have you ever tried to legalize marijuana[^]?
Religiously blogging on the intarwebs since the early 21st century: Kineti L'Tziyon Judah Himango
-
Skymir wrote:
Oddly enough there has never been a link made from cannabis alone to lung cancer.
No there is study correlating cannibis (alone) and lung cancer. But I still think it is risky to smoke a lot of weed. The healthy way to do it is to cook with it or invest in a vaporizer.
I didn't get any requirements for the signature
I can recommend popcorn. The hot oil seems to activate the THC, and it is spread evenly into the corn which gives the body more time to consume it. I haven't tried it for 20 years though, I found it far too potent :-D
"God doesn't play dice" - Albert Einstein "God not only plays dice, He sometimes throws the dices where they cannot be seen" - Niels Bohr
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090416/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_mexico[^] How silly we are to keep fighting a war that can't be won! All they have to do decriminalize drugs. Don't legalize drugs, just hit people with a $500 fine and confiscate the drugs. Remove all the other laws. Since there will be no more risk in selling drugs, all the profits for the drug dealers will go away... But when you put people in prison for selling drugs, you create a scarcity. It is the high demand and low supply (because of legal penalties) that creates all the profit for the drug dealers. They could decriminalize drugs and the problem would be solved. I don't know about you, but if you are dumb enough to hit a crack pipe or put a heroine needle in your arm then you get what you deserve. Uncle Sam making all the drug dealers rich isn't helping. I frankly don't give a shit if someone wants to ruin their life and become an addict. However, I do feel that spending billions fighting this war and jailing millions of people with almost no results to show for it is pointless, dumb, idiotic and foolish. So just end it already.
I didn't get any requirements for the signature
It all comes down to allowing people to be personally responsible for their decisions. Hard for people of power to do this. The fact is, I'm all for legalizing just about dang near everything, with one condition. I don't have to pay for re-hab. Of course, people will always want their cake and to eat it as well.
Charlie Gilley Will program for food... Hurtling toward a government of the stupid, by the stupid, for the stupid we go. —Michelle Malkin This crap sandwich is all yours.... 2009 "Stimulus Bill"
