The only thing the governments have said or say is things that are false. Like killing brain cells, makes you lazy, your friends won't like you, ruins your life, etc.
They even have to change their own studies to make their point because they know the dangers for using cannabis are so low. .
Can you please provide examples of where "the governments" have had to "change their own studies to make their point"?
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
having seen this argument many times I only have a few points to make:
-Some fairly strong evidence exists demonstrating how chronic use does change brain physiology, especially in the developing brain. Similar things could be said for alcohol, but still should be weighed.
-The Economic benefit is not so clear cut. Many very smart people talk in circles about this, though generally it's believed to be positive.
-The savings in incarceration are definitely positive, but again the size of impact is debatable (ie, how many marijuana incarcerations have no other illegal activities involved?)
Overall, I think the case for criminalization is weak, but it's not quite clear cut. As usual, when an issue becomes trendy, emotional statements rule and the complex relationship of all things involved get ignored.
I'm for legalization, but it won't transform our lives like some advocate. I'm Dutch and have lived in Holland and yes, smoked pot there. They still have many of the same issues we deal with here, so the net positive effect is not that apparent
As I mentioned earlier I am undecided, but I would apprecaite a source for that statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by undercoverbrother
Can you please provide examples of where "the governments" have had to "change their own studies to make their point"?
I'll post this as soon as you ask me to answer it in the other thread. I know the only reason you brought this up again was because of that. I ignored the first time because I've been over this many, many times in the past.
Take a look at The Shafer Report 1972 (National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse) and what Nixon did with it, that's all that needs to be said on this front and how the government ignores, changes, etc. to make it fit their narrative. It's no secret why they use the cannabis leaf in all drug campaigns, this isn't about cannabis being bad for the population, it's about it being bad for their personal interests.
The 1999 Institute of Medicine report on cannabis which was another government funded study where they had to use terms like "may" or "should" cause lung cancer. It was a report looking to reschedule for medical purposes, the report said "...except for the harms associated with smoking, the adverse effects of marijuana use are within the range of effects tolerated for other medications.". The government ignored that, kept it a schedule I, and also uses parts of it in misleading ways like ignoring vaporizing, eating, and all the other ways you can use cannabis without smoking it and get medical relief.
Unfortunately there aren't many examples of this because the government won't allow studies outside their arms reach. The two times they have it's come back with the opposite of what they have been selling to the public for the past 100 years.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by henriksedin33
Not at all, as I've said, I would rather start with LA over any of the other WC playoff teams. Bunch of underachievers who look good on paper but don't even deserve to be in the playoffs.
The Following User Says Thank You to HOOT For This Useful Post:
I'll post this as soon as you ask me to answer it in the other thread. I know the only reason you brought this up again was because of that. I ignored the first time because I've been over this many, many times in the past.
Take a look at The Shafer Report 1972 (National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse) and what Nixon did with it, that's all that needs to be said on this front and how the government ignores, changes, etc. to make it fit their narrative. It's no secret why they use the cannabis leaf in all drug campaigns, this isn't about cannabis being bad for the population, it's about it being bad for their personal interests.
The 1999 Institute of Medicine report on cannabis which was another government funded study where they had to use terms like "may" or "should" cause lung cancer. It was a report looking to reschedule for medical purposes, the report said "...except for the harms associated with smoking, the adverse effects of marijuana use are within the range of effects tolerated for other medications.". The government ignored that, kept it a schedule I, and also uses parts of it in misleading ways like ignoring vaporizing, eating, and all the other ways you can use cannabis without smoking it and get medical relief.
Unfortunately there aren't many examples of this because the government won't allow studies outside their arms reach. The two times they have it's come back with the opposite of what they have been selling to the public for the past 100 years.
First thank you for responding.
Second, I don't recall asking you this in the past on this form, and I am sure their might be others that would like this information.
1972 and Nixon, lots have changed since then. I will take a look at that report.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Second, I don't recall asking you this in the past on this form, and I am sure their might be others that would like this information.
1972 and Nixon, lots have changed since then. I will take a look at that report.
I didn't mean you asked, I meant others in the past. It's why I usually post the original article and stay out of these threads. I just say the same thing over and over.
Also if you look at the marijuana laws on the federal level not much has changed since 1972 and the (lost before started) War on Drugs.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by henriksedin33
Not at all, as I've said, I would rather start with LA over any of the other WC playoff teams. Bunch of underachievers who look good on paper but don't even deserve to be in the playoffs.
Second, I don't recall asking you this in the past on this form, and I am sure their might be others that would like this information.
1972 and Nixon, lots have changed since then. I will take a look at that report.
Take a look at the 1999 study by the Institute of Medicine, "Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base" as well. Here is what the DEA took out of that report and posted in a press release:
Quote:
In 1999 the Institute of Medicine (IOM) undertook a landmark study reviewing the alleged medical properties of marijuana. Advocates of so-called medical marijuana frequently tout this study, but the study's findings decisively undercut their arguments. In truth, the IOM explicitly found that marijuana is not medicine and expressed concern about patients' smoking it because smoking is a harmful drug-delivery system. The IOM further found that there was no scientific evidence that smoked marijuana had medical value, even for the chronically ill, and concluded that "there is little future in smoked marijuana as a medically approved medication." In fact, the researchers who conducted the study could find no medical value to marijuana for virtually any ailment they examined,including the treatment of wasting syndrome in AIDS patients , movement disorders such as Parkinson's disease and epilepsy, or glaucoma.
What the report actually said:
Quote:
Marijuana is not a completely benign substance. It is a powerful drug with a variety of effects. However, except for the harm associated with smoking, the adverse effects of marijuana use are within the range tolerated for other medications. Thus, the safety issues associated with marijuana do not preclude some medical uses.
Quote:
The profile of cannabinoid drug effects suggests that they are promising for treating wasting syndrome in AIDS patients. Nausea, appetite loss, pain, and anxiety are all afflictions of wasting, and all can be mitigated by marijuana. Although some medications are more effective than marijuana for these problems, they are not equally effective in all patients.
Speaks for itself really!
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by henriksedin33
Not at all, as I've said, I would rather start with LA over any of the other WC playoff teams. Bunch of underachievers who look good on paper but don't even deserve to be in the playoffs.
Going back to that DEA press release, take a look at the sentence (or part of one) they use in their press release, and then read the full paragraph from the report...
Quote:
In 1999 the Institute of Medicine (IOM) undertook a landmark study reviewing the alleged medical properties of marijuana. Advocates of so-called medical marijuana frequently tout this study, but the study's findings decisively undercut their arguments. In truth, the IOM explicitly found that marijuana is not medicine and expressed concern about patients' smoking it because smoking is a harmful drug-delivery system. The IOM further found that there was no scientific evidence that smoked marijuana had medical value, even for the chronically ill, and concluded that "there is little future in smoked marijuana as a medically approved medication." In fact, the researchers who conducted the study could find no medical value to marijuana for virtually any ailment they examined, including the treatment of wasting syndrome in AIDS patients, movement disorders such as Parkinson's disease and epilepsy, or glaucoma.
Quote:
Although marijuana smoke delivers THC and other cannabinoids to the body, it also delivers harmful substances, including most of those found in tobacco smoke. In addition, plants contain a variable mixture of biologically active compounds and cannot be expected to provide a precisely defined drug effect. For those reasons there is little future in smoked marijuana as a medically approved medication. If there is any future in cannabinoid drugs, it lies with agents of more certain, not less certain, composition. While clinical trials are the route to developing approved medications, they are also valuable for other reasons. For example, the personal medical use of smoked marijuana—regardless of whether or not it is approved—to treat certain symptoms is reason enough to advocate clinical trials to assess the degree to which the symptoms or course of diseases are affected. Trials testing the safety and efficacy of marijuana use are an important component to understanding the course of a disease, particularly diseases such as AIDS for which marijuana use is prevalent. The argument against the future of smoked marijuana for treating any condition is not that there is no reason to predict efficacy but that there is risk. That risk could be overcome by the development of a nonsmoked rapid-onset delivery system for cannabinoid drugs.
And what the IOM actually concluded:
Quote:
CONCLUSION: Scientific data indicate the potential therapeutic value of cannabinoid drugs, primarily THC, for pain relief, control of nausea and vomiting, and appetite stimulation; smoked marijuana, however, is a crude THC delivery system that also delivers harmful substances.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by henriksedin33
Not at all, as I've said, I would rather start with LA over any of the other WC playoff teams. Bunch of underachievers who look good on paper but don't even deserve to be in the playoffs.
They shelved the Transportation study on stoned drivers for I believe 5 years until a whistleblower leaked it and was subsequently fired. The same study that 3 other countries had already done and reached similar or nearly identical results. It wasn't even groundbreaking.
It's been a long time since then, so my memory has gotten 'hazy' on the subject.
Eh? eh? A nice pot pun? Bet I made you all think I was potted up on reefer.
They shelved the Transportation study on stoned drivers for I believe 5 years until a whistleblower leaked it and was subsequently fired. The same study that 3 other countries had already done and reached similar or nearly identical results. It wasn't even groundbreaking.
NHTSA did a study recently that compared stoned drivers to drunks, finding that the drivers under the influence of marijuana were significantly better drivers than their drunk counterparts and that their driving improved if they were regular users.
So I guess that's an example of a study that didn't really prove the governments agenda all too well.
Also proves that it will be quite a hassle figuring out what kind of tolerance is appropriate... That is until MADD comes and cries bloody murder.
NHTSA did a study recently that compared stoned drivers to drunks, finding that the drivers under the influence of marijuana were significantly better drivers than their drunk counterparts and that their driving improved if they were regular users.
So I guess that's an example of a study that didn't really prove the governments agenda all too well.
Also proves that it will be quite a hassle figuring out what kind of tolerance is appropriate... That is until MADD comes and cries bloody murder.
Despite whether you agree or not with the studies, could you ever imagine a day where a government would allow operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of marijuana? It'll never happen.
The Following User Says Thank You to jar_e For This Useful Post:
NHTSA did a study recently that compared stoned drivers to drunks, finding that the drivers under the influence of marijuana were significantly better drivers than their drunk counterparts and that their driving improved if they were regular users.
So I guess that's an example of a study that didn't really prove the governments agenda all too well.
Also proves that it will be quite a hassle figuring out what kind of tolerance is appropriate... That is until MADD comes and cries bloody murder.
Years ago I found test results on a bc government website about drivers high on pot. The end comparision was that stoned drivers tended to be more cautious. And the only significant difference between a sober driver and a stoned driver was in reaction times. That difference was comparable to drivers that had less then a full nights sleep.
I think drivers with lack of sleep should be of concern. Alot of those people don't pay attention.
The Following User Says Thank You to Pacem For This Useful Post:
Despite whether you agree or not with the studies, could you ever imagine a day where a government would allow operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of marijuana? It'll never happen.
They let people drive on medication or under fatigue. All 3 are bad ideas.
They let people drive on medication or under fatigue. All 3 are bad ideas.
I don't disagree with you, but to try to convince the general public to first decriminalize something has been illegal for decades and then to say you're a better driver after you consume it is damn near impossible.
In regards to legalizing it, I'm more a fan of decriminalize it and regulate it through the province much like alcohol is done now. Make it illegal to smoke in public by way of a ticket to curb public perception that Canada is some drug den and at least there is still some enforcement available.
Years ago I found test results on a bc government website about drivers high on pot. The end comparision was that stoned drivers tended to be more cautious. And the only significant difference between a sober driver and a stoned driver was in reaction times. That difference was comparable to drivers that had less then a full nights sleep.
.
Well luckily, reaction time isn't really of any importance on the roads.
The Following User Says Thank You to jayswin For This Useful Post:
Imagine how many cops would be on the street patrolling our neibourhoods if they weren't filing possession paperwork or sitting in court. Imagine the swiftness of justice if court cases declined 30-50%.
The author says a consequence of legalization would be that the, "Hells Angels would become the Seagram's of weed." That implies the Hell's Angels will be the biggest distributor of weed in Canada? Why would they become the biggest distributor if it's legalized and you can pick it up at 7-11 or Mac's?
The author says a consequence of legalization would be that the, "Hells Angels would become the Seagram's of weed." That implies the Hell's Angels will be the biggest distributor of weed in Canada? Why would they become the biggest distributor if it's legalized and you can pick it up at 7-11 or Mac's?
It's a faulty premise.
The Hell's Angels deal in weed because it's an easy cash crop to muscle in on.
Marijuana underwrites the vast majority of their criminal enterprise.
The Hell's Angels have no intention of becoming a legitimate organization because there isn't as much money in it.
They have a monopoly on strip clubs too, and those are legal. They aren't exactly franchising them out.
The Following User Says Thank You to Flash Walken For This Useful Post:
