"Cannabis use under Licence" Proposes leading Scientist
- Thread starter thenumberthirteen
- Start date
Recommended Videos
True acid isn't toxic, butit's one of the most psychologically volitile drugs. You might be thinking shrooms, which usually simply bend your senses slightly, while acid twists your enter perception and sometimes blends your senses togetherRed Right Hand said:
Ding!Timmey said:
http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20080506-17437-2.html
Please note: Although modest use may not lead to significant neurotoxic effects, these results suggest that heavy daily use might indeed be toxic to human brain tissue
Note how it does not state that moderate use does not cause any nuerotoxic effects.
Thus it DOES cause such effects, albiet on a smaller scale and thus DOES damage your brain.
Happy?
Extremely, read the title ''Marijuana CAN cause brain damage''. CAN being the main word in there, drinking CAN cause death, however it does not always do so.jasoncyrus said:
Also the test was done on ''15 men (average age 39 years)who smoked more than five joints daily for over 10 years''. Now that is heavy duty smoking. Imagine the damage of someone aged 39 drinking 5 pints daily for 10 years. They would probably be dead.
Not everyone who smokes Marijuana is smoking it heavy duty, just like not every one who drinks does so on a large scale. It is perfectly possible to smoke a spliff and then go do something else. Just as it is perfectly possible to go have two pints down the pub then go and do something else.
If anything this is evidence for why it should be legalised, its not even as dangerous as it was once thought!
Quick Google search pulled this up:AxCx said:
http://www.lungcancerjournal.info/article/S0169-5002%2805%2900318-1/abstract
Converting your figure into USD, we get a total of ~$91,000 from cigarette taxes. To treat patients with lung cancer, the government would gain a total of ~$45,000 per patient, assuming every patient was cured by the intitial treatment. If that does not happen (which is fairly likely, last figures I remember was something like 40% of initial treatments were successful), then the government will lose ~$30,000 per patient. Because of an easily avoidable outcome.
Yes, he is human, and I respect that enough to respect his choices. If you want to treat him as a child, go ahead, but don't dare to claim the moral high ground. People have the right, freedom, and I would say obligation to make their own decisions. The entire concept of being an adult is the ability to recognize that each choice has consequences, and you must accept and deal with them. If one is not willing to accept that, one should probably move back in with one's parents because one is obviously not ready to be an adult.AxCx said:
Considering I've watched two members of my family die slowly and painfully, with little to no hope of recovery, I know exactly what the relatives and friends of addicts can go through. The only thing I can't say I know is how it would feel if I knew they brought it on themselves.
Also, the only thing I value higher than human life is the individual's right to choose. Absolutely nothing else is of higher priority. If people want to throw their life away, it is not my obligation to undermine that choice.
Sigh, way to overlook the point made. /facepalmTimmey said:
Alcohol ALWAYS causes liver damage, slight in small doses, but always regardless.
Smoking ALWAYS fucks up your lungs, slight in small odses, but always regardless.
Just as Cannabis ALWAYS damages your brain, regardless of dose.
As for drinking 5 pints dailys for 10 years. Pretty much anyone over 50 in the developed world has done that on average. Also, with weekend binge drinking in the current age, it averages out pretty much as that if not more.
So yeah, you missed the point totally. Way to go genuis.
If marijuana is restricted, at all, they will be able to turn an amazing profit by buying it from a legit dealer and selling it for massively inflated prices.Timmey said:
Also, the comparison to pirated DVDs is perfectly valid. That's not to say the market will still be there, since everyone I know who smokes would instantly buy legit over a deal even if they had to pay double, just that the comparison is valid. Dealers would clean up their product and/or find some way to make it better and/or significantly cheaper to stay in business. Would it work? I have no idea, but they would certainly try.
Well it depends on the quantity taken. Weed, while less damaging, messes with you much more, and can be potentially much more harmful.Milky_Fresh said:
That said, I'm for it being legalised, in the same way I'm for people over the age of 14 being able to drink in bars to an extent. Because if they drink in bars, there will always be responsible adults around to control them and how much they drink. Kids will always get alcohol, but instead of letting them get pissed in a field, it would be much more safe for them to be able to drink in pubs, granted they cannot have too much or of too high an alcohol percentage.
On the same stance, I believe legalising weed will only make the situation better, it is currently extremely easy to get access to weed, if it was legal it means it would be much less harmful, as you would know what's in it, and the amount purchased can be controlled. Keeping it illegal is doing nothing but giving money to organised crime, making it almost impossible to regulate it, and making it much more dangerous getting hold of it. Plus, it's just showing how our government are all stupid hypocrites with no understanding of anything they are in charge of. Like how they have no understanding of how the internet works, with that stupid anti piracy law.
I have no idea. The people I know would almost certainly buy legit, but I have no idea if that's how others would do it. It also depends on what the dealers do to counteract the move. As I am not one, nor do I know any, I cannot say with any certainty what kind of moves they would make to still have a viable business.Timmey said:
The only thing I can safely assume is that dealers will be around in some form for as long as they offer a superior/more convenient product to the legal version.
''Although modest use may not lead to significant neurotoxic effects, these results suggest that heavy daily use might indeed be toxic to human brain tissue,'' Dr Yucel said.jasoncyrus said:
What the study is saying is that use of cannabis in large quantities causes brain damage. However, small time use does not significantly effect the brain. In other words its not as bad for you as people say. So why should it not be legalised if it is no worse for you then a Pint of beer ?
Legalising it will remove the criminal element, people will buy over the shelf instead of from a dealer due to three main reasons
1) It will probably be cheaper
2) You will know exactly what you are paying for
3) You will know that what you are buying is government approved and uncut - safer.
Legalising it will also allow the government to tax the sale of it thus making the government money (Big incentive right here)
Look at the era of alcohol prohibition in the early 20th century US. Everyone recognizes that prohibition was the cause of huge amounts of violence. No one blames alcohol for the gang wars of the 20s and 30s.
Then look at the drug prohibition that is in place today, and the drug wars that it causes. People are too stupid to put A and B together, so instead they say "drugs cause violence." What utter bullshit. How often do you hear about someone killing someone else so he could go to the store and buy a bottle of booze? Sure it happens, but it's very rare. But how often do you hear about drug dealers getting into gun battles where people (often innocent bystanders) are killed? Far too often.
The evil is not the drug, it's the prohibition.
And the same fallacy applies to the whole "gateway drug" argument as well. The reason pot is a gateway drug today is that in order to buy pot you need to go to a fucking drug dealer. You get used to living in the underworld, and you know people who sell drugs. So it is now so much easier to move on to harder drugs than it would be if the pot were purchased at the corner store from a licensed vendor who checked your ID.
Now with all of this said, I think that smoking pot is pretty damn stupid. I smoked away 5 or more years of my life in my late teens and early 20s - all I did was hang out with my friends and get high. I sometimes wonder where I would be today if I had stayed in college during those years and had kept my shit together instead of being a burnout. But I still believe that the worst thing that could have happened to me would have been to get caught. Having that criminal record would be much worse than ANY effect of using the drug itself.
Then look at the drug prohibition that is in place today, and the drug wars that it causes. People are too stupid to put A and B together, so instead they say "drugs cause violence." What utter bullshit. How often do you hear about someone killing someone else so he could go to the store and buy a bottle of booze? Sure it happens, but it's very rare. But how often do you hear about drug dealers getting into gun battles where people (often innocent bystanders) are killed? Far too often.
The evil is not the drug, it's the prohibition.
And the same fallacy applies to the whole "gateway drug" argument as well. The reason pot is a gateway drug today is that in order to buy pot you need to go to a fucking drug dealer. You get used to living in the underworld, and you know people who sell drugs. So it is now so much easier to move on to harder drugs than it would be if the pot were purchased at the corner store from a licensed vendor who checked your ID.
Now with all of this said, I think that smoking pot is pretty damn stupid. I smoked away 5 or more years of my life in my late teens and early 20s - all I did was hang out with my friends and get high. I sometimes wonder where I would be today if I had stayed in college during those years and had kept my shit together instead of being a burnout. But I still believe that the worst thing that could have happened to me would have been to get caught. Having that criminal record would be much worse than ANY effect of using the drug itself.
jasoncyrus said:
Granted, drug crime was never a major issue in Holland before legalisation, but the fact is that even though cannabis is readily available and legal, the country's use of it still lower than countries where possession is illegal
By legalising a drug, all you are doing is removing the criminal aspect from the purchase of it. The majority of the population don't use heroin, for example. If heroin was made legal, very very few of those people would begin using heroin
Ever heard of Hells Angels? If the Netherlands is anything like the rest of Europe HA were probably responsible for at least half of all drugs, smuggling and human trafficking since the 50's or 60's. The rest are done by local gangs. And now we have the joy of entertaining Eastern European gangs as they try to take over the markets.jasoncyrus said:
Take it from someone who knows the environment these guys have created, it won't be pretty.
The Netherlands have about 16 mill. people. Do you really think that 1 in 8 (millions) of the
Of course. I was also referring to drugs in general, but using Cannabis as an example. The main problem with any drug, legal or otherwise is overuse. Because the high from drugs such as Cocaine, Heroin and Meth is so strong, the body becomes used to it quickly. As a result, people heavily overuse the drug in question, which heavily damages them.Agayek said:
I guess the argument is that drug addicts will always hurt others i.e. their friends/colleagues/loved ones.
^Milky_Fresh said:
Interesting idea but I think I have to go with Skippie's school of thinking on the matter.
(yes I'm aware that your name is not Skippie)