War on Drugs is Burning Out

[driveway]

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

What a bunch of propaganda bulls hit. Weed is still the same streggth.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ondc...report_104.pdf

[AcGold]

Originally Posted by #-3

I've always found this funny, the government puts out "public health" ads saying marijuana is more potent, which is true. I Believe they say 7 x more, I'm not sure that that is true. They are probably cherry picking stats from somewhere. And everyone starts mocking them.

Some middle aged stoned guy who can hold down a regular job calls himself an activist and says Pot never hurt anyone, which is obviously a lie. and we all jump on board.

Homeopaths say pot is great medicine because its natural. But really it is not natural to inhale smoke, and I can think of any instance where burning something and inhaling it is good for you.

I'm not really coming down hard on either side of the legality argument. But no different than Smoking, Drinking, Binge Diets, Tanning booths, Energy Drinks whatever other stupid things we can come up with.. Smoking Pot not long after been legalized will be proven to have implications on you health.

Interesting assumptions. Nobody here said no harm ever came from it, not a single person. What implications? How will legalization all of a sudden change how it effects people? We already know most of the effects.

Bad for teenagers and developing minds, bad for lungs if there are chemicals used on it, bad for mentally unstable people, bad for memory if abused. Legalization changes nothing in terms of health effects. Most of the governments propaganda is usually false; the it makes you lazy argument is the worst one. Lazy people are lazy.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by AcGold

Interesting assumptions. Nobody here said no harm ever came from it, not a single person. What implications? How will legalization all of a sudden change how it effects people? We already know most of the effects.

Bad for teenagers and developing minds, bad for lungs if there are chemicals used on it, bad for mentally unstable people, bad for memory if abused. Legalization changes nothing in terms of health effects. Most of the governments propaganda is usually false; the it makes you lazy argument is the worst one. Lazy people are lazy.

Just a correction: it's awful for the lungs regardless of what "chemicals" are added. One of the more annoying arguments I hear from people on its benefits

[AcGold]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Just a correction: it's awful for the lungs regardless of what "chemicals" are added. One of the more annoying arguments I hear from people on its benefits

How is it awful for the lungs? I'm interested. I've read that heavy use shows minor pulmonary deficiency after 10 years and medium use possibly protects against lung cancer. The tests I've read have been far from conclusive that it is awful in all circumstances and that it's worst in joints when there's no filter and physical matter enters the lungs (makes sense)

[blankall]

Originally Posted by AcGold

How is it awful for the lungs? I'm interested. I've read that heavy use shows minor pulmonary deficiency after 10 years and medium use possibly protects against lung cancer. The tests I've read have been far from conclusive that it is awful in all circumstances and that it's worst in joints when there's no filter and physical matter enters the lungs (makes sense)

Basically all of those nasty things you here about in cigarettes are natural products of burning organic matter or end up in the plant via the agricultural process.

When smoking weed you generally do it unfiltered. You also inhale weed deeper and harder than cigarettes.

[AcGold]

Well they are both false for me. So if it is filtered or not combusted then what?

[#-3]

Originally Posted by AcGold

Interesting assumptions. Nobody here said no harm ever came from it, not a single person. What implications? How will legalization all of a sudden change how it effects people? We already know most of the effects.

Bad for teenagers and developing minds, bad for lungs if there are chemicals used on it, bad for mentally unstable people, bad for memory if abused. Legalization changes nothing in terms of health effects. Most of the governments propaganda is usually false; the it makes you lazy argument is the worst one. Lazy people are lazy.

Every pot activist I have ever heard speak has started with the statement, "Pot has never hurt anybody." and what I was really saying is we don't mock those people nearly enough, especially if we are going to mock the government for stating more realistic statistics.

No problem with anyone who wants to come down on either side of the legalize/don't legalize argument, I have no strong opinion either way. But I think before the argument is made we should be clear pot is not good for you, it is in fact not good for you especially if you are smoking it.

That said I do lots of things that aren't good for me, I drink sometimes, I don't work out enough, I eat way too much salt & sugar sometimes, I get the occational sun burn............I have not extensively studied any of these but I am sure they are all on about the same scale of how bad pot is for you.

So who am I to say that people shouldn't do it. On the other hand, in an era when the government is trying to take measures to reduce smoking, improve sun safety/fitness awareness, legislate against over use of salts and bad sugars in our food.

Why are the moving in to opposite direction on this?

And the only good medical argument for pot is the cost effectiveness. For some reason its the "It" treatment right now so doctors don't want to come out strongly against it, but coke was once and medicine and we have all seen old videos of doctors recommending cigarettes.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by AcGold

How is it awful for the lungs? I'm interested. I've read that heavy use shows minor pulmonary deficiency after 10 years and medium use possibly protects against lung cancer. The tests I've read have been far from conclusive that it is awful in all circumstances and that it's worst in joints when there's no filter and physical matter enters the lungs (makes sense)

When you burn organic matter you create a lot of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and other highly reactive carcinogens, which are what causes cancer in cigarettes. Perhaps that's lessened with a water bong, but I'd want to see proof for that. Smoke itself is what causes cancer regardless of what leaf is burned.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by AcGold

Well they are both false for me. So if it is filtered or not combusted then what?

If ingested, then I suppose is not harmful for the lungs

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by #-3

On the other hand, in an era when the government is trying to take measures to reduce smoking, improve sun safety/fitness awareness, legislate against over use of salts and bad sugars in our food.

Why are the moving in to opposite direction on this?

I believe that governments / society are moving the opposite direction on this because of the insane costs for incarceration, labeling people as felons and significantly damaging futures and reducing overcrowding of prisons. It is more of a cost benefit analysis that I believe is moving in the right direction because, as the article points out, funding generated from taxation can and will be used for social benefit programs focusing on prevention.

And while logically one would think, 'but why go harder on cigarettes and then the opposite direction on marijuana?', cigarettes aren't going to be criminalized. People aren't going to be put in jail over smoking cigarettes or labeled a felon. So looks to me like governments are trying to marry the treatment of how both substances are used. At the end of the day, how different are tobacco and cannabis?

I think it really is only a matter of time before it becomes legal in Canada one day.

[AcGold]

Originally Posted by #-3

Every pot activist I have ever heard speak has started with the statement, "Pot has never hurt anybody." and what I was really saying is we don't mock those people nearly enough, especially if we are going to mock the government for stating more realistic statistics.

No problem with anyone who wants to come down on either side of the legalize/don't legalize argument, I have no strong opinion either way. But I think before the argument is made we should be clear pot is not good for you, it is in fact not good for you especially if you are smoking it.

That said I do lots of things that aren't good for me, I drink sometimes, I don't work out enough, I eat way too much salt & sugar sometimes, I get the occational sun burn............I have not extensively studied any of these but I am sure they are all on about the same scale of how bad pot is for you.

So who am I to say that people shouldn't do it. On the other hand, in an era when the government is trying to take measures to reduce smoking, improve sun safety/fitness awareness, legislate against over use of salts and bad sugars in our food.

Why are the moving in to opposite direction on this?

And the only good medical argument for pot is the cost effectiveness. For some reason its the "It" treatment right now so doctors don't want to come out strongly against it, but coke was once and medicine and we have all seen old videos of doctors recommending cigarettes.

Comparing cigarettes and cocaine to cannabis is just ridiculous though. Cigarettes kill hundreds of thousands every year, cannabis never killed anyone ever so the idea that the only reason it's looked at medicinally because it's cheap is purposefully ignorant.

Sure it can do harm but come on, comparing it to something that kills hundred of thousands annually is ridiculous. The reason it's so valuable medicinally is the side effects are so minimal in comparison to laboratory synthesized pharmaceuticals. Clearly you have a bias and it's irrational.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by AcGold

Comparing cigarettes and cocaine to cannabis is just ridiculous though. Cigarettes kill hundreds of thousands every year, cannabis never killed anyone ever so the idea that the only reason it's looked at medicinally because it's cheap is purposefully ignorant.

Sure it can do harm but come on, comparing it to something that kills hundred of thousands annually is ridiculous. The reason it's so valuable medicinally is the side effects are so minimal in comparison to laboratory synthesized pharmaceuticals. Clearly you have a bias and it's irrational.

If cigarettes have killed people, so has cannabis. To a much smaller degree, sure. It's also much more widely consumed

[GGG]

It's not moving in the opisite direction to legalize tax educate and treat. To reduce smoking they did t make it illegal. They raised tax and increased education.

[Thor]

Its best to keep drugs in the hands of people cooking and growing stuff in their trailer park, for quality, and then distributing them via gangs.

Best way forward!

[FlamesAddiction]

This whole issue is actually what is going to prompt me to vote for the Liberals for the first time ever in a election this year.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

This whole issue is actually what is going to prompt me to vote for the Liberals for the first time ever in a election this year.

Same. Never voted before because there was never a candidate I liked, but now even though I don't fully support Trudeau he'll get my vote simply to get Harper out

[AcGold]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

If cigarettes have killed people, so has cannabis. To a much smaller degree, sure. It's also much more widely consumed

Care to back that up with any evidence? I've never heard of a single person dying from it and it seems like you're just assuming.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by AcGold

Care to back that up with any evidence? I've never heard of a single person dying from it and it seems like you're just assuming.

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publication...acts/marijuana

Marijuana smoke is an irritant to the lungs, and frequent marijuana smokers can have many of the same respiratory problems experienced by tobacco smokers, such as daily cough and phlegm production, more frequent acute chest illness, and a heightened risk of lung infections. One study found that people who smoke marijuana frequently but do not smoke tobacco have more health problems and miss more days of work than those who don’t smoke marijuana, mainly because of respiratory illnesses. It is not yet known whether marijuana smoking contributes to risk for lung cancer.

I grabbed the first web site I looked at, seems they have not been able to isolated the effects of smoking it in a large enough study to be definitive. But I personally am confident that inhaling enough of any type of smoke can have a negative impact on your life expectancy, I don't really need a study to know that.

Also saw this poster last week, made me thing of the "its natural" argument

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by AcGold

Care to back that up with any evidence? I've never heard of a single person dying from it and it seems like you're just assuming.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/marih...-eng.php#chp72


You have to remember that marijuana smoking risks are not as easily assessed due to the fact that those who smoke marijuana normally not do so as consistently as tobacco users do. Add in the fact that it has been illegal for a very long time and we simply don't have the body of evidence we do for tobacco. It's incredibly ridiculous to suggest smoking cannabis has never killed anyone. If your meaning by overdose, then neither has tobacco. It's the insidious nature of the illnesses they cause that make it difficult to determine.


Here's the things we know and can demonstrate:

1. Cigarette smoke is what causes lung cancer and various other cancers. It's also what causes the lung damage that leads to COPD and other airway maladies.

2. Specifically, it's the various polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and other oxygen free radical forming compounds in the smoke that cause these diseases.
3. Burning any organic matter creates these compounds


It's really not a stretch to believe that inhaling smoke of any kind will lead to these health problems. What marijuana has going for it is the fact that one does not consume marijuana to the same extent as tobacco, so it is likely much less harmful. It has killed people and caused cancer

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by driveway

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ondc...report_104.pdf

So let me get this straight. I call it government propaganda and your rebuttal is with a Government funded study?

Seems legit.