Pot smokers

[nanook 1]

Quote

Can you please clarify that statement?

What I meant is him getting his fix is more important to him than the damage to other lives caused by the demand for his need. Now, before you come in with that "laws caused the dangers" crap, remember that the enforcements came after the dangers were realized. They did not come as a pre-emptive possible danger, it came after the damage was realized. These laws are written in blood. But I don't expect you to understand this.

Quote

To what increased dangers are you referring? The neighborhoods won't suddenly be more dangerous simply because people can legally smoke pot or use other drugs.

Are you serious? Yes they can. Again, drugs are dangerous. They are harmful. I have shown you countless studies in the past. They cause family issues, they are higly addicting, and they take control of your life. If you are blind to this, I can't help you. I have taken many of your previous posts seriously, hell, I even agreed on some of what you have to say, but this is just too much. Just because you believe you are in control doesn't mean that others can be. Mostly, it can grab a hold of you and pull you under. I have seen this on a personal level, the APA agrees with this, studies always show positives. . .You know where the NIDA sites are. You are being very disingenous here.

Quote

From George Washington's diary

Well, I'm pretty sure he did. His growing is for the the industrial cultivation of hemp as a product. That was a considerable amount of time ago though. Very agrarian lifestyle he led.

I'll be candid with you here. I am really on the fence with Pot. I am at a point here where when it comes to making a decision of yea or nay, i'm in the place where though the NIDA has proven that it's dangers are way overexagerated, it is still not considered safe. This means that until it is considered safe enough for OTC dispensing, rather than a prescription, I am still leery of it. You may get your day in court. As I have told Bolas, AB130 is being looked at right now in the California assembly.

But no way in hell are you going to convince me that the other crap is safe enough, or that people as a collective, are responsible enough to let this stuff on the street. I just cannot agree with you here.

Quote

Many studies suggest that cannabis use does not adversely affect driving ability beyond the extent expected of over the counter cold medicines taken as directed. The DUI scare tactic is a red herring w/r/t cannabis.

Geez. . .The bold type you emphasized for me is talking about the fact that the dosages used are not at the level to impair the driver at high intoxication, or in other words so bad that the danger is obvious.

Also, this study is totally opposite to what you are trying to say about pot and DUI. You're cherry picking. . .
From the same study:

..."We concluded that marijuana smoking that delivers the relatively low.moderate THC doses of 100 and 200 ~g/kg impairs Road Tracking and Car Following performance."

..."The magnitudes of impairment observed after these doses of THC alone were not especially large in historical comparison to those of other drugs and alcohol present in BACs above 0.08 g/dl. However, they do imply a loss of driving ability that could be serious in exceptional traffic situations"...

..."There is no doubt that D9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) impairs its users' cognitive and psychomotor abilities to an extent largely determined by the inhaled or ingested dose. It is also certain that the dose preferred by cannabis smokers (around 300 ~g/kg) is sufficient for impairing performance in potentially dangerous tasks such as driving (Robbe & O'Hanlon, 1993)."...

. . ."In a previous series of studies on the effects of THC alone we concluded that THC given in doses up to 300 1lg/kg has "slight" effects on driving performance (Robbe & O'Hanlon, 1993). The results of the present study now compel us to revise that conclusion. The present subjects' performance was more affected than their predecessors'.". . .

. . ."If not blatantly dangerous, however, the effects of THC alone in this study were certainly more than slight. They were of sufficient magnitude to warrant concern. Drivers suffering the same degrees of impairment as the present subjects did after THC alone would be less than normally able to avoid collisions if confronted with the sudden need for evasive action. They would probably also be more likely to fall asleep during prolonged vehicle operation. In short, while the effects of THC alone in doses up to 200 1lg/kg might be categorized as "moderate" in the tests, they could easily become "severe" under exceptional circumstances.
". . .

There's plenty of exeptional circumstances out on the road.

The second study concludes the same. You must remember: .08 is the standard max allowance before getting arrested for DUI. you are still impaired with less, and can be arrested for causing an accident for DUI even if it's under .08. It doesn't have to be alcohol to be "under the influence" thus making your "pot safe as cold medicine" argument null.

Quote

I've personally witnessed many highly successful people use illegal drugs recreationally, in many cases regularly. Included among those are airline pilots, Air Force pilots, well known cinematographers, successful business entrepreneurs/owners, college professors, inventors, soldiers, and world champion athletes.

come on now, dude. Military pilots? Airline pilots? Now I know you are making things up.


Overall, I find it funny you are using sources that you previously have said was not credible because they were Govt Agencies. Why the change of heart? You just sourced one. (apparently I was very wrong on how much your favorite site sources govt studies) Is it only the ones that appear to serve you? Why the double standards?

I'm giving in to this thread now. All my opinions are out, been covered, covered again. Go ask your world champion athletes, airline pilots, airforce pilots and cinematographer best-buds if you can tag along and talk about all the cool drugs out there. Bring your football.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

What I meant is him getting his fix is more important to him than the damage to other lives caused by the demand for his need. Now, before you come in with that "laws caused the dangers" crap, remember that the enforcements came after the dangers were realized. They did not come as a pre-emptive possible danger, it came after the damage was realized. These laws are written in blood. But I don't expect you to understand this.

You do realize that I specificlly posed a scenario in which there were no such associated dangers, right?

Quote

Quote

To what increased dangers are you referring? The neighborhoods won't suddenly be more dangerous simply because people can legally smoke pot or use other drugs.

Are you serious? Yes they can.

Clearly, you have no idea what the actual effects of illegal drugs in general, or pot in particular. I provided you with substantial resources so you might educate yourself, but it appears that you have no interest in the truth.

Quote

Again, drugs are dangerous. They are harmful. I have shown you countless studies in the past.

I haven't seen you supply any credible sources showing this.

Out of curiosity, are you familiar with UCLA physician Donald Tashkin? "It is Tashkin's research that the Drug Czar's office cites in ads linking marijuana to lung cancer." I'll offer excerpts from an interesting article:

Marijuana smoking -"even heavy longterm use"- does not cause cancer of the lung, upper airwaves, or esophagus, Donald Tashkin reported at this year's meeting of the International Cannabinoid Research Society. Coming from Tashkin, this conclusion had extra significance for the assembled drug-company and university-based scientists (most of whom get funding from the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse). Over the years, Tashkin's lab at UCLA has produced irrefutable evidence of the damage that marijuana smoke wreaks on bronchial tissue. With NIDA's support, Tashkin and colleagues have identified the potent carcinogens in marijuana smoke, biopsied and made photomicrographs of pre-malignant cells, and studied the molecular changes occurring within them. It is Tashkin's research that the Drug Czar's office cites in ads linking marijuana to lung cancer. Tashkin himself has long believed in a causal relationship, despite a study in which Stephen Sidney examined the files of 64,000 Kaiser patients and found that marijuana users didn't develop lung cancer at a higher rate or die earlier than non-users. Of five smaller studies on the question, only two -involving a total of about 300 patients- concluded that marijuana smoking causes lung cancer. Tashkin decided to settle the question by conducting a large, prospectively designed, population-based, case-controlled study. "Our major hypothesis," he told the ICRS, "was that heavy, longterm use of marijuana will increase the risk of lung and upper-airwaves cancers."

The Los Angeles County Cancer Surveillance program provided Tashkin's team with the names of 1,209 L.A. residents aged 59 or younger with cancer (611 lung, 403 oral/pharyngeal, 90 laryngeal, 108 esophageal). Interviewers collected extensive lifetime histories of marijuana, tobacco, alcohol and other drug use, and data on diet, occupational exposures, family history of cancer, and various "socio-demographic factors." Exposure to marijuana was measured in joint years (joints per day x 365). Controls were found based on age, gender and neighborhood. Among them, 46% had never used marijuana, 31% had used less than one joint year, 12% had used 10-30 j-yrs, 2% had used 30-60 j-yrs, and 3% had used for more than 60 j-yrs. Tashkin controlled for tobacco use and calculated the relative risk of marijuana use resulting in lung and upper airwaves cancers. All the odds ratios turned out to be less than one (one being equal to the control group's chances)! Compared with subjects who had used less than one joint year, the estimated odds ratios for lung cancer were .78; for 1-10 j-yrs, .74; for 10-30 j-yrs, .85 for 30-60 j-yrs; and 0.81 for more than 60 j-yrs. The estimated odds ratios for oral/pharyngeal cancers were 0.92 for 1-10 j-yrs; 0.89 for 10-30 j-yrs; 0.81 for 30-60 j-yrs; and 1.0 for more than 60 j-yrs. "Similar, though less precise results were obtained for the other cancer sites," Tashkin reported. "We found absolutely no suggestion of a dose response." The data on tobacco use, as expected, revealed "a very potent effect and a clear dose-response relationship -a 21-fold greater risk of developing lung cancer if you smoke more than two packs a day." Similarly high odds obtained for oral/pharyngeal cancer, laryngeal cancer and esophageal cancer. "So, in summary" Tashkin concluded, "we failed to observe a positive association of marijuana use and other potential confounders."

There was time for only one question, said the moderator, and San Francisco oncologist Donald Abrams, M.D., was already at the microphone: "You don't see any positive correlation, but in at least one category [marijuana-only smokers and lung cancer], it almost looked like there was a negative correlation, i.e., a protective effect. Could you comment on that?"

"Yes," said Tashkin. "The odds ratios are less than one almost consistently, and in one category that relationship was significant, but I think that it would be difficult to extract from these data the conclusion that marijuana is protective against lung cancer. But that is not an unreasonable hypothesis."

Quote

They cause family issues, they are higly addicting, and they take control of your life.

Drugs don't typically cause family issues. Drug laws, however, cause plenty of problems.

True, some drugs are addictive (e.g., alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, cocaine, heroin). Others are not addictive (e.g., marijuana, ecstasy, LSD). Of course, addiction does not imply that a substance cannot be used responsibly without significant negative effects. For example, I'm addicted to caffeine, like millions of other Americans. Despite my addiction, I'm able to get on with my life without my coffee drinking adversely affecting the rest of my life.

Quote

Just because you believe you are in control doesn't mean that others can be.

Interesting. By that logic, we should prohibit cars, sex, alcohol, and parachutes, among many other things, because some people are unable to maintain control.

Quote

Quote

From George Washington's diary

Well, I'm pretty sure he did. His growing is for the the industrial cultivation of hemp as a product. That was a considerable amount of time ago though. Very agrarian lifestyle he led.

Males and females are not separated for industrial hemp. That practice is only desirable (albeit not totally necessary) when cannabis is being harvested for THC. THC serves medicinal and recreational purposes, not industrial purposes.

Quote

But no way in hell are you going to convince me that the other crap is safe enough, or that people as a collective, are responsible enough to let this stuff on the street. I just cannot agree with you here.

To be fair, I have to give you credit for acknowledging that you won't let the facts affect your opinion on the matter.

Quote

Also, this study is totally opposite to what you are trying to say about pot and DUI.

Bullshit. Try actually reading them.

Quote

Quote

I've personally witnessed many highly successful people use illegal drugs recreationally, in many cases regularly. Included among those are airline pilots, Air Force pilots, well known cinematographers, successful business entrepreneurs/owners, college professors, inventors, soldiers, and world champion athletes.

come on now, dude. Military pilots? Airline pilots? Now I know you are making things up.

Once again, you're making false claims without any idea what the truth is. Yes, I have witnessed airline pilots and Air Force pilots use illegal drugs. Why do you find that surprising? Illegal drugs are used by all kinds of people, including many, many successful, productive people. Heck, I'd be willing to bet that quite a few of your friends and colleagues partake in some from time to time. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't happening.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!