War on Drugs is Burning Out

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Same with beer.

A lot of the beers I drink now are between 6.5 and 10%. That's like, double as strong as beer was in the 1980s.

Now, I can only have like 5 or 6 of them instead of 10-12.

I mean, like, 300% stronger, that would be like...wine. I could probably only drink like 4-5 glasses of wine.

Serious stuff.

6.5% and up is not beer is called malt liquor 6.5-8%. 8% and up is called barley wine. It always has been . So beer is not stonger . You had been drinkin Malt liquor and barley wine which you have just been calling it beer.

Edit. Also your an older person then you were in the 80's. Your not going to be able to drink the same as you could back then . people age and bodies can only take so much.

[combustiblefuel]

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)

Actually marijuana is harmful to the lungs . marijuana does form tar in the respitory system. The tar just is minimal and less invasive to the body .I am a legal medical user who volunteers at a compassion club. I see marijuana being properly tested all the time. Eatibles or Vapimg is the preferred choice. Even tho the evidence suggests smoking marijuana has shown no deaths or contributing to illness, It only takes common sense to realize any inhalants are not good for your respiratory system.

The difference tho with marijuana smoke over tobacco is your not inhaling the added chemicals. Marijuana users lungs compared to non smokers lungs has shown through testing to be a 3% difference in health.

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

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

Speculation at best.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

Speculation at best.

Really???

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Really???

Nooooo, not at all......

[remember2004]

It's really bad nowadays because even if someone is caught dealing depending on what and how much they can get released on bail and start all over again...

[nik-]

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

6.5% and up is not beer is called malt liquor 6.5-8%. 8% and up is called barley wine. It always has been . So beer is not stonger . You had been drinkin Malt liquor and barley wine which you have just been calling it beer.

Edit. Also your an older person then you were in the 80's. Your not going to be able to drink the same as you could back then . people age and bodies can only take so much.

No. There's lots of beers that are 6.5% and over. A large portion of IPA's are in the 6.5% range. Imperial Stouts are up around 10 and 11. Many Belgian Ale's run in the 6-12% range.

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by nik-

No. There's lots of beers that are 6.5% and over. A large portion of IPA's are in the 6.5% range. Imperial Stouts are up around 10 and 11. Many Belgian Ale's run in the 6-12% range.

Yes those are called Old age ales aka barleywines . Barley wine constitutes any "beer" between 8% to 12% in alcohol content. So in short Yes.

[nik-]

Barley wine is a specific style of beer, not any beer between certain percentages of alcohol

[driveway]

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

6.5% and up is not beer is called malt liquor 6.5-8%. 8% and up is called barley wine. It always has been . So beer is not stonger . You had been drinkin Malt liquor and barley wine which you have just been calling it beer.

Despite its name, a Barleywine (or Barley Wine) is very much a beer, albeit a very strong and often intense beer!

source: http://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/style/19/

But make no mistake: Barleywines are beers. Very strong beers (usually in the 9-to-12 percent ABV range) that challenge the brewer and reward the drinker. ... The goal with a barleywine is to make a very strong beer that can potentially be cellared. In order to do that, brewers need to use more malt—sometimes three or four times as much as a lower-gravity beer such as a pale ale—to increase the fermentable sugars in the wort, so that the yeast have plenty to convert into alcohol.

source: http://imbibemagazine.com/Barleywines

For the most part, Malt Liquor beers are sold in the infamous 40 oz sized bottles. Straw to pale amber in color, most use excessive amounts of adjuncts, such as corn, rice, refined brewers sugar (dextrose) and as a result there are very few "all malt" brewed malt liquors. Hops are barely used, just enough is added to balance off any cloyingness.

source: http://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/style/42/

100+ years ago the term “malt liquor” was basically synonymous with “beer”. Let’s now move on to learn what “malt liquor” means in today’s world ... Malt liquor IS beer, just like spaghetti is pasta. It’s one of the 70+ different styles of beer. ... What differentiates malt liquor from other styles of lager? Well, to put it bluntly, the malt liquor that we all know and love is cheap, sweet, and strong. The basic American style of malt liquor is brewed using inexpensive ingredients (usually corn) with more sugar in the fermentation, which is what gives it a higher alcohol content than other cheap go-to lagers like Bud Light, Old Milwaukee, or Schlitz.

source: http://www.40ozmaltliquor.com/blog/what-is-malt-liquor/

[AcGold]

I never said that it can't cause health problems, it's that there is not one recorded case I've ever heard of of it killing someone. Has it killed someone? Maybe, equating it to cigarettes that has killed millions of people is just ridiculous. Maybe some deaths versus millions definitely are the same thing?

I can see how the argument goes, equate it to other drugs that were once deemed safe and were used as medicine. Thing is cocaine and heroine are not natural substances, they are derivatives and the smeer campaign going on here is illogical. The medicinal properties of cbd are so valuable because the plant does not need to be manipulated for the medicinal effects to work as with coca or poppy you will need extremely large doses of the natural plant. Smoking a joint can inhibit certain debilitating nervous system diseases immediately.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by AcGold

I never said that it can't cause health problems, it's that there is not one recorded case I've ever heard of of it killing someone. Has it killed someone? Maybe, equating it to cigarettes that has killed millions of people is just ridiculous. Maybe some deaths versus millions definitely are the same thing?

I can see how the argument goes, equate it to other drugs that were once deemed safe and were used as medicine. Thing is cocaine and heroine are not natural substances, they are derivatives and the smeer campaign going on here is illogical. The medicinal properties of cbd are so valuable because the plant does not need to be manipulated for the medicinal effects to work as with coca or poppy you will need extremely large doses of the natural plant. Smoking a joint can inhibit certain debilitating nervous system diseases immediately.

I think the point we are making is if it were used the same way and in the same quantities of cigarettes it would be shocking if it wasn't killing people in the same numbers. But its not used with that volume so of course it isn't killing people in the same numbers, and it is illegal so its vary hard to do a firm study on the impacts to people who just smoke allot of pot.

[Azure]

By all accounts too much alcohol is bad for you too.

So that argument fails when you try to apply it to pot.

Prohibition of any substance is not necessarily going to lead to the best outcome.

[AcGold]

Originally Posted by #-3

I think the point we are making is if it were used the same way and in the same quantities of cigarettes it would be shocking if it wasn't killing people in the same numbers. But its not used with that volume so of course it isn't killing people in the same numbers, and it is illegal so its vary hard to do a firm study on the impacts to people who just smoke allot of pot.

It's often used at a much higher volume than cigarettes. You are making an assumption that smoking the same amount of pot as cigarettes would lead to marijuana deaths but thouands of people smoke an ounce or more of marijuana a day and we aren't hearing of a single case.

I'm in the 2 grams a week if that group but some people smoke 30 grams every single day which would be about 30 cigarettes per day, not one reported death so you're false assumption is doubly wrong. I'm not even saying there are no deaths ever, just that your equivocation factor is off by several million.

[Hugh Jahrmes]

Doubt many people smoke 30g a day CMON

[AcGold]

Places where people farm wild like central america, south america, India and Africa they smoke from dawn til dusk. The Rastafarians smoke somewhere between 100-200 grams a day, no deaths. How long could you smoke 200 cigarettes a day before dying. 2 weeks?

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by AcGold

I never said that it can't cause health problems, it's that there is not one recorded case I've ever heard of of it killing someone. Has it killed someone? Maybe, equating it to cigarettes that has killed millions of people is just ridiculous. Maybe some deaths versus millions definitely are the same thing?

I can see how the argument goes, equate it to other drugs that were once deemed safe and were used as medicine.

I'm sure you can see that argument. Who made that argument?????


I'm all for legalization. The current plan ain't working and it's fairly harmless stuff.

But to suggest it isn't responsible for at least one death is the exact type of propaganda vomited by those who oppose legalization. Of course there's no overdose deaths, there's none for cigarettes or trans fats. Doesn't mean they aren't all health hazards. The type of epidemiological studies required are virtually non existent, so we'll just have to go with "speculation".

[AcGold]

I explicitly stated "I'm not even saying there are no deaths ever" so I don't know what else to tell you.

[FlamesAddiction]

With portable vapourizers becoming more common and affordable, fewer people are actually smoking their marijuana these days.

I can't say that inhaling vapour is harmless as I really don't know, but I know that at least the short term negative side effects from inhaling smoke are pretty much a declining factor.

[HelloHockeyFans]

A graphic that came out in the Economist a few years ago.