Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. GrandTheftAuto.net - Website Re-Launch

    1. GTA Online

      1. The Diamond Casino Heist
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Frontier Pursuits
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    3. Crews

      1. Events
    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Redemption

    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

    2. GTA 6

    3. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. The Lost and Damned
      2. The Ballad of Gay Tony
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
    5. GTA Chinatown Wars

    6. GTA Vice City Stories

    7. GTA Liberty City Stories

    8. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    9. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    10. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    11. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    1. GTA Mods

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Red Dead Mods

      1. Documentation
    3. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    4. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Rockstar Games

    2. Rockstar Collectors

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    3. Gangs

    1. Announcements

    2. Support

    3. Suggestions

Hamburger

Why is marijuana illegal?

Recommended Posts

jizzyman

Exactly yet its portrayed as the devil of all drugs. How can you expect teenagers to stay away from heavy drugs such as heroine or cocaine if the entry drug is demonized?. Marijuana is very helpful as a pain killer easing the tension, its already used medically yet why not recreation? After all if it isnt addictive (unlike common cigarets) theres less of a health risk. Actually the way legalized cigarretes are manipulated make it very harmful, I say if they legalize ciggaretes they should legalize marijuana, it makes sense.

 

And to KJB:

 

Im not sure Americas 'war on drugs' in latin america is saving much money, actually its doing the opposite. If you find the real point in drug prohibition please tell me.

Believe it or not ciggarets harbor a larger health risk due to how addictive they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy
Exactly yet its portrayed as the devil of all drugs. How can you expect teenagers to stay away from heavy drugs such as heroine or cocaine if the entry drug is demonized?. Marijuana is very helpful as a pain killer easing the tension, its already used medically yet why not recreation? After all if it isnt addictive (unlike common cigarets) theres less of a health risk. Actually the way legalized cigarretes are manipulated make it very harmful, I say if they legalize ciggaretes they should legalize marijuana, it makes sense.

 

And to KJB:

 

Im not sure Americas 'war on drugs' in latin america is saving much money, actually its doing the opposite. If you find the real point in drug prohibition please tell me.

Believe it or not ciggarets harbor a larger health risk due to how addictive they are.

Actually, when you consider the drug war in the United States, it's a mix of losing money. We as the American people are losing money through taxes that pay for this futile endeavor, whilst others make money off of it. As has been stated previously in this thread, pharmacuetical companies, the DEA, all sorts of industries are making money off marijuana being illegal.

 

 

It's not just marijauana, though. Hell, the CIA has been involved time after time in cocaine smuggling operations. There have even been members of the DEA saying things to the effect of, "About 30% of the time the people we were busting were in fact DEA agents."

 

 

I don't know what it's like in latin america, but in the states it's basically just having money made off of it. And that's precisely the reason why it won't be legalized. People will not buy pot in stores if it's legalized, they will grow it themselves. Especially when you consider how it may be tainted by manufacturers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
j. fed

 

Marijuana is hardly addictive but on the other hand cigarretes are. . .

What do you think?

I'm thinking that you're obviously a moron.

 

EDIT: After further thought I'm changing "moron" to "f*cking moron".

 

user posted image

 

"I just banged it up a knotch!"

Edited by j. fed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy
Marijuana is hardly addictive but on the other hand cigarretes are. . .

What do you think?

I'm thinking that you're obviously a moron.

 

EDIT: After further thought I'm changing "moron" to "f*cking moron".

 

user posted image

 

"I just banged it up a knotch!"

Excuse me, and sorry everyone else for breaking the debate, but that post ins't D&D material at all. You can't simply just insult anyone. If you want to edit your post and explain why you think he's a "f*cking moron", and actually form an argument that has some relevance to what it is he posted, be my guest. But until then, please refrain from posting any further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
j. fed

You seem to be among those types that have a hard time comprehending obvious statements of opinion so I'll try to type a bit slower just for you.

 

The fellow with the mentally stimulating handle of "hamburger" made the argument that marijuana is not an addictive drug. Since medical studies on marijuana cannot be performed in most places of the world this is an outlandish claim that he cannot back up in any place, way, shape, or form.

 

This leaves us only with logic and common sense to use regarding this topic. Sadly, looking at some of the other replies and "essays" in this thread it appears that most of the contributors to this thread agree with Woody Harrelson here. Therefore I make the logical conclusion that "hamburger" and most of his compatriots in this thread are nothing more than "f*cking morons".

 

See? Was that so hard?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GetawayInStockholm

Sorry, I've been looking all over but I can't seem to find the link right now. It used to be on Rense, which is where I read it.

 

Also, it is about vuneralability as SloSten said. It's like comparing a gullible person to...well someone who isn't gullible, you get 2 different reactions. I should also add that, once you stop using cocaine, your body starts producing it later on. Again, this is depending on the person, such as people who get drunk off 3 beers, and people who chug a 2'6 and drink a 6-pack then get buzzed. notify.gif

 

You can tell I'm new to D&D, so please be generous. smile.gif <3JN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy

 

You seem to be among those types that have a hard time comprehending obvious statements of opinion so I'll try to type a bit slower just for you.

 

The fellow with the mentally stimulating handle of "hamburger" made the argument that marijuana is not an addictive drug.  Since medical studies on marijuana cannot be performed in most places of the world this is an outlandish claim that he cannot back up in any place, way, shape, or form.

 

This leaves us only with logic and common sense to use regarding this topic.  Sadly, looking at some of the other replies and "essays" in this thread it appears that most of the contributors to this thread agree with Woody Harrelson here.  Therefore I make the logical conclusion that "hamburger" and most of his compatriots in this thread are nothing more than "f*cking morons".

 

See?  Was that so hard?

Well, unfortunately, your "opinion" was nothing more than an insult. A rather idiotic one, I might add. And if you're ignorant enough to believe that there's not studies being done on marijuana all over the place, then you really need to pull your head out of your ass, and not comment on this subject.

 

 

There are hundreds of universities within the United States alone that have done countless studies on the addictive qualities of marijuana. Just because the governemt didn't tell them they could, doesn't necessarily mean they didn't go ahead and do it anyway. Not to mention the fact that cannabis isn't illegal word-wide, and there's many international studies.

 

 

The furthest you have to look one of the most accessible websites around, erowid.org, for a list of all types of studies done on cannabis, and not just it's addictive potential. It's not our fault that you've chosen to be such a jackass.

 

And to be quite honest, you don't need scientific studies to conlude whether or not marijuana is or isn't very addictive. Of the millions in the United States that smoke it, all you'd really have to do is poll them on whether or not they find it very addictive. And, hey, surprisingly enough, they do. Some report those mild phsyical withdrawals I talked about with chronic use; others who smoke moderately, say a few grams a week, report having no problems with it at all.

 

 

Now that we've established who is the real moron, please just leave. The D&D wasn't meant for mindless insults in the first place, so if you're not going to participate in the argument intelligently, then just refrain from posting at all.

 

EDIT

Also, in a few seconds of going on to Erowid, I found this quite massive list of studies that a fellow referenced in a document he wrote. Yep, one single document contained reports of around 90 studies. There are thousands more than that. Research of cannabis isn't even illegal in the United States, you just have to get permission from the FDA and NIDA.

 

 

1. Grinspoon, L., Marihuana Reconsidered, Cambridge: University of Harvard Press (1971); Kaplan, J., Marijuana: The New Prohibition, New York: World Publishing Company 1970); Brecher, E.M., Licit and Illicit Drugs, Boston: Little, Brown and Company (1972).

 

2. U.S. National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse, Marijuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office (1972); Canadian Government's Commission of Inquiry, The Non-Medical Use of Drugs: Interim Report, Ottawa (1970).

 

3. Himmelstein, J., The Strange Career of Marijuana: Politics and Ideology of Decriminalization in America, Westport, CT: Greenwood Press (1983); Single, E.W., "The Impact of Marijuana Decriminalization: An Update," Journal of Public Health Policy 10:456-66 (1989).

 

4. Carter, W.E. (ed), Cannabis in Costa Rica: A Study of Chronic Marijuana Use, Philadelphia: Institute for Study of Human Issues (1980); Rubin, V. and Comitas, L., Ganja in Jamaica, The Hague: Mouton (1975); Stefanis, C. et al, Hashish: Studies of Long Term Use, New York: Raven Press (1977).

 

5. Preliminary Estimates From the 1993 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1994).

 

6. Johnston, L.D. et al, Monitoring the Future, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Institute for Social Research (1994).

 

7. Ennett, S.T, et al, "How Effective is Drug Abuse Resistance Education? A Meta-Analysis of Project DARE Outcome Evaluations," American Journal of Public Health 84:1394-1401 (1994).

 

8. ElSohly, M.A. et al, "Constituents of Cannabis Sativa L XXIV: The Potency of Confiscated Marijuana, Hashish, and Hash Oil Over a Ten-year Period," Journal of Forensic Sciences 29:500-14 (1984).

 

9. Perry, D., "Street Drug Analysis and Drug Use Trends, Part II, 1969-1976," PharmChem Newsletter 6 (1977).

 

10. Rubin, V., "Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Therapeutic Uses of Cannabis," pp 1-18 in S. Cohen and R.C. Stillman (eds), The Therapeutic Potential of Marijuana, New York: Plenum Medical Book Company (1976).

 

11. Chang, A.E. et al, "Delta-Nine-Tetrahydrocannabinol as an Antiemetic in Cancer Patients Receiving High-Dose Methotrexate: A Prospective Randomized Evaluation, Annals of Internal Medicine 91: 819-24 (1979).

 

12.Hepler, R.S. and Frank, I.R., "Marijuana Smoking and Intracular Pressure," Journal of the American Medical Association 217: 1392 (1971).

 

13. Petro, D.J., "Marijuana as a Therapeutic Agent for Muscle Spasm or Spasticity," Psychosomatics 21: 81-85 (1980).

 

14. Grinspoon, L. and Bakalar, J.B, Marihuana: The Forbidden Medicine, New Haven: Yale University Press (1993).

 

15. Vinciguerra, V. et al, "Inhalation Marijuana as an Antiemetic for Cancer Chemotherapy," New York State Journal of Medicine 85:525-27 (1988); Dansac, D., "In the Matter of Marijuana Rescheduling Petition," Affidafit filed in Drug Enforcement Adminstration Hearings, Docket 86-22 (1987).

 

16. Doblin, R. and Kleiman, M.A.R., "Marijuana as an Anti-Emetic Medicine: A Survey of Oncologists' Attitudes and Experiences," Journal of Clinical Oncology 19: 1275-1290 (1991).

 

17. Agurell, S. et al, "Pharmacokinetics and Metabolism of Delta-1-Tetrahydrocannabinol and Other Cannabinoids with Emphasis on Man," Pharmacological Reviews 38: 21-43 (1986).

 

18. Cohen, S., "Therapeutic Aspects," pp 194-225 in R.C. Petersen (ed) Marijuana Research Findings: 1976, Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse (1977); Cohen, S. and Stillman, R.C. (eds), The Therapeutic Potential of Marijuana, New York: Plenum Medical Book Company (1976); National Institute on Drug Abuse, Marijuana and Health, Report to Congress (1980).

 

19. "Members of Congress Voice Support for Marijuana/AIDS Research," Newsletter of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies 5,3 (Winter 1995).

 

20. Drug Enforcement Administration, Drug Legalization: Myths and Misconceptions, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice (1994).

 

21. Huber, G.L. et al, "The Effects of Marihuana on the Respiratory and Cardiovascular Systems," pp 3-18 in G. Chesher et al (eds), Marijuana: an International Research Report, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service (1988).

 

22. Tashkin, D.P. et al, "Longitudinal Changes in Respiratory Symptoms and Lung Function in Non-smokers, Tobacco Smokers, and Heavy, Habitual Smokers of Marijuana With or Without Tobacco," pp 25-36 in G. Chesher et al (eds), Marijuana: an International Research Report, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service (1988).

 

23. Sherrill, D.L. et al, "Respiratory Effects of Non-Tobacco Cigarettes: A Longitudinal Study in General Population," International Journal of Epidemiology 20: 132-37 (1991).

 

24. Fligiel, S.E.G. et al, "Bronchial Pathology in Chronic Marijuana Smokers: A Light Electron Microscope Study," Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 20:33-42 (1988).

 

25. Doblin, R., "The MAPS/California NORML/Marijuana Waterpipe/Vaporizer Study," Newsletter of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies 5,1 (Summer 1994).

 

26. Nahas, G.G. et al, "Inhibition of Cellular Mediated Immunity in Marijuana Smokers," Science 183:419-20 (1974).

 

27. Lau, R.J. et al, "Phytohemagglutinin-Induced Lymphocyte Transformation in Humans Receiving Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol," Science 192: 805-07 (1976); White, S.C. et al, "Mitogen-Induced Blastogenetic Responses to Lymphocytes from Marijuana Smokers," Science 188: 71-72 (1975).

 

28. Wallace, J.M. et al, "Peripheral Blood Lymphocyte Subpopulations and Mitogen Responsiveness in Tobacco and Marijuana Smokers," Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 20:9-14 (1988).

 

29. Mishkin, E.M. and Cabral, G.A., "Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol Decreases Host Resistance to Herpes Simplex Virus Type 2 Vaginal Infection in the BGC3F1 Mouse," Journal of General Virology 66:2539-49 (1985).

 

30. Carter, W.E. (ed), Cannabis in Costa Rica: A Study of Chronic Marijuana Use, Philadelphia: Institute for Study of Human Issues (1980); Rubin, V. and Comitas, L., Ganja in Jamaica, The Hague: Mouton (1975); Stefanis, C. et al, Hashish: Studies of Long Term Use, New York: Raven Press (1977).

 

31. Coates, R.A. et al, "Cofactors of Progression to Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome in a Cohort of Male Sexual Contacts of Men with Immunodeficiency Virus Disease," American Journal of Epidemiology 132: 717-22 (1990).

 

32. Plasse, T.F. et al, "Recent Clinical Experience with Dronabinol," Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior 40:695-700 (1991).

 

33. Lynn, A.B. and Herkenham, M., "Localization of Cannabinoid Receptors and Nonsaturable High Density Cannabinoid Binding Sites in Peripheral Tissues of the Rat: Implications for Receptor-Mediated Immune Modulation by Cannabinoids," Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics 268: 1612-23 (1994).

 

34. Kolodny, R.C. et al, "Depression of Plasma Testosterone Levels After Chronic Intensive Marijuana Use," New England Journal of Medicine 290:872-74 (1974).

 

35. Kolodny, R.C. et al, "Depression of Plasma Testosterone with Acute Marijuana Administration," pp 217-25 in M.C. Braude and S. Szara (eds), Pharmacology of Marijuana, New York: Raven Press (1976).

 

36. Mendelson, G.D. et al, "Plasma Testosterone Levels Before, During, and After Chronic Marijuana Smoking," New England Journal of Medicine 291:1051-55 (1975); Schaefer, C.F. et al, "Normal Plasma Testosterone Concentrations After Marijuana Smoking," New England Journal of Medicine 292:867-68 (1975).

 

37. Hembree, W.C. et al, "Changes in Human Spermatozoa Associated with High Dose Marijuana Smoking," pp 429-39 in G.G. Nahas and W.D.M. Paton (eds), Marijuana: Biological Effects, Oxford: Pergamon Press (1979).

 

38. Fijimoto, G.I. et al, "Effect of Marijuana Extract Given Orally on Male Rat Reproduction and Gonads," Proceedings of Sixth Annual Meetings of Endocrinology Society (1978); Okey, A.B. and Truant, G.S., "Cannabis Demasculinizes Rats But Is Not Estrogenic," Life Sciences 17:1113-18 (1975).

 

39. Block, R.I. et al, "Effects of Chronic Marijuana Use on Testosterone, Luteinizing Hormone, Follicle Stimulating Hormone, Prolactin and Cortisol in Men and Women," Drug and Alcohol Dependence 28:121-8 (1991).

 

40. Smith, C.G. and Asch, R.H., "Acute, Short-Term, and Chronic Effects of Marijuana on the Female Primate Reproductive Function," pp 82-96 in M.C. Braude and J.P. Ludford (eds), Marijuana Effects on the Endocrine and Reproductive Systems, Rockville, MD: Department of Health and Human Services (1984).

 

41. Smith, C.G. et al, "Tolerance Develops to the Disruptive Effects of Delta 9 Tetrahydrocannabinol on the Primate Menstrual Cycle," Science 219:1453-55 (1983).

 

42. Copeland, K.C. et al, "Marijuana Smoking and Pubertal Arrest," Journal of Pediatrics 96:1079-80 (1980).

 

43. Tennes, A., "Effects of Marijuana on Pregnancy and Fetal Development in the Human," pp 115-23 in M.C. Braude and J. P, Ludford (eds), Marijuana Effects on the Endocrine and Reproductive Systems, Rockville, MD: Department of Health and Human Services (1984).

 

44. Astley, S., "Analysis of Facial Shape in Children Gestationally Exposed to Marijuana, Alcohol, and/or Cocaine," Pediatrics 89:67-77 (1992); Day, N. et al, "Prenatal Marijuana Use and Neonatal Outcome," Neurotoxicology and Teratology 13:329-34 (1992); Linn, S. et al, "The Association of Marijuana Use with Outcome of Pregnancy," American Journal of Public Health 73:1161-64 (1983).

 

45. Hayes, J. et al, "Newborn Outcomes with Maternal Marijuana Use in Jamaican Women," Pediatric Nursing 14(2):107-10 (1988); Streissguth, A.P. et al, "IQ at Age 4 in Relation to Maternal Alcohol Use and Smoking During Pregnancy," Developmental Psychology 25: 3-11 (1989); Richardson, G.A. et al, "The Effect of Prenatal Alcohol, Marijuana and Tobacco Exposure on Neonatal Behavior," Infant Behavioral Development 12: 199-209 (1989); O'Connell, C.M. and Fried, P.A., "Prenatal Exposure to Cannabis: A Preliminary Report of Postnatal Consequences in School-Age Children," Neurotoxicology and Teratology 13: 631-39 (1991); Fried, P.A. et al, "60- and 72-Month Follow-Up of Children Prenatally Exposed to Marijuana, Cigarettes and Alcohol," Journal of Developmental Behavior and Pediatrics 13: 383-91 (1992); Dreher, M.C. et al, "Prenatal Exposure and Neonatal Outcomes in Jamaica: An Ethnographic Study," Pediatrics 93: 254-60 (1994).

 

46. Buckley, J.D. et al, "Occupational Exposure of Parents of Children with Acute Nonlymphocytic Leukemia: A Report from the Children's Cancer Study Group," Cancer Research 49:4030-37 (1989).

 

47. Fried, P.A., "Postnatal Consequences of Maternal Marijuana Use," pp 61-72 in T.M. Pinkert (ed), Current Research on the Consequences of Maternal Drug Abuse, Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse; Fried, P.A. and B. Watkinson, "12- and 24-Month Neurobehavioral Follow-Up of Children Prenatally Exposed to Marijuana, Cigarettes and Alcohol," Neurotoxicology and Teratology 10: 305-13 (1988)

 

48. Fried, P.A. and B. Watkinson, "36- and 48-Month Neurobehavioral Follow-Up of Children Prenatally Exposed to Marijuana, Cigarettes, and Alcohol," Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics11: 49-58 (1990).

 

49. Fried, P.A. et al, "A Follow-Up Study of Attentional Behavior in 6-Year-Old Children Exposed Prenatally to Marijuana, Cigarettes, and Alcohol," Neurotoxicology and Teratology 14: 299-311 (1992).

 

50. Day, N.L. et al, "Effect of Prenatal Marijuana Exposure on the Cognitive Development of Offspring at Age Three," Neurotoxicology and Teratology 16: 169-75 (1994).

 

51. Heath, B.C. et al, "Cannabis Sativa: Effects on Brain Function and Ultrastructure in Rhesus Monkeys," Biological Psychiatry 15:657 (1980).

 

52. Scallet, A.C., "Neurotoxicology of Cannabis and THC: A Review of Chronic Exposure Studies in Animals," Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior 40:671-82 (1991).

 

53. Slikker, W. et al, "Behavioral, Neurochemical, and Neurohistological Effects of Chronic Marijuana Smoke Exposure in the Nonhuman Primate," pp 219-74 in L. Murphy and A. Bartke (eds), Marijuana/Cannabinoids Neurobiology and Neurophysiology, Boca Raton: CRC Press (1992).

 

54. Weckowicz, T.E. et al, "Effect of Marijuana on Divergent and Convergent Production Cognitive Tests," Journal of Abnormal Psychology 84:386-98 (1975); Hooker, W.D., and Jones, R.T., "Increased Susceptibility to Memory Intrusions and the Stroop Interference Effect During Acute Marijuana Intoxication," Psychopharmacology 91: 20-24 (1987); Waskow, I.E. et el, "Psychological Effects of Tetrahydrocannabinol," Archives of General Psychiatry 22: 97-107 (1970); Dornbush, R.L. and Kokkevi, A., "Acute Effects of Cannabis on Cognitive, Perceptual, and Motor Performance in Chronic Hashish Users," Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 282: 213-22 (1976).

 

55. Darley, C.F. et al, "Marijuana Effects on Long-Term Memory Assessment and Retrieval," Psychopharmacology 52:239-41 (1977); Abel, E.L., "Retrieval of Information After Use of Marijuana," pp 121-24 in E.L. Abel (ed) The Scientific Study of Marijuana, Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers (1976); Abel, E.L., "Marijuana and Memory: Acquisition or Retrieval?" pp 125-32 in E.L. Abel (ed) The Scientific Study of Marijuana, Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers (1976).

 

56. Abel, E.L., "Marijuana and Memory: Acquisition or Retrieval?" pp 125-32 in E.L. Abel (ed) The Scientific Study of Marijuana, Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers (1976); Miller, L. et al, "Effects of Marijuana on Recall of Narrative Material and Stroop Colour-Word Performance," pp 117-20 in E.L. Abel (ed) The Scientific Study of Marijuana, Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers (1976); Dornbush, R.L. et al, "Marijuana, Memory, and Perception," pp 133-40 in E.L. Abel (ed) The Scientific Study of Marijuana, Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers (1976).

 

57. Ferraro, D.P., "Acute Effects of Marijuana on Human Memory and Cognition," pp 98-119 in R.C. Petersen (ed) Marijuana Research Findings: 1980, Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse (1980).

 

58. Satz, P. et al, "Neuropsychologic, Intellectual, and Personality Correlates of Chronic Marijuana Use in Native Costa Ricans," Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 282: 266-306 (1976); Grant, I. et al, "A Neuropsychological Assessment of the Effects of Moderate Marijuana Use," Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 156: 278-80 (1973); Knights, R., "Psychological Test Results," pp 111-20 in V. Rubin and L. Comitas (eds), Ganja in Jamaica, The Hague: Mouton (1975); Page, J.B., "Psychosociocultural Perspectives on Chronic Cannabis Use: The Costa Rican Follow-Up," Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 20: 57-65 (1988); Carlin, A.S. and Trupin, E.W., "The Effect of Long-Term Chronic Marijuana Use on Neuropsychological Functioning," International Journal of the Addictions 12:617-24 (1977).

 

59. Preliminary Estimates from the 1993 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1994).

 

60. Johnston, L.D. et al, Drug Use Among American High School Seniors, College Students and Young Adults, 1975-1990,Vol II, Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1991), p 31.

 

61. Jones, R.T. et al, "Clinical Studies of Cannabis Tolerance and Dependence," Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 282:221-39 (1976).

 

62. Stefanis. C. et al, "Experimental Observations of a 3-Day Hashish Abstinence Period and Reintroduction of Use," Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 282:113-20 (1976); Cohen, S. et al, "The 94-Day Study," pp 621-26 in M.C. Braude and S. Szara (eds), The Pharmacology of Marijuana, New York: Raven Press (1976). < A NAME="note63">

 

63. Deneau, G.A. and Kaymakcalan, S., "Physiological and Psychological Dependence to Synthetic Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in Rhesus Monkeys," Pharmacologist13:246 (1971).

 

64. Martin, B.R., "Marijuana: What It Is and What It Does," Presentation at NIDA's National Conference on Marijuana Use Prevention, Treatment and Research," Arlington, VA (July 1995).

 

65. Gold, M.S., The Good News About Drugs and Alcohol, New York: Villard Books (1991).

 

66. Jacobs, J.B. and Zimmer, L., "Drug Treatment and Workplace Drug Testing: Politics, Symbolism and Organizational Dilemmas," Behavioral Sciences and the Law 9:345-60 (1991).

 

67. Annual Emergency Room Data, 1990, National Institute on Drug Abuse Statistical Series, Series I, Number 10-A, Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse (1991); Annual Emergency Room Data, 1992, National Institute on Drug Abuse Statistical Series, Series I, Number 12-A, Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse (1993); Preliminary Estimates from the Drug Abuse Warning Network, Advance Report Number 8, Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse (1994).

 

68. McGlothlin, H.W. and West, L.J., "The Marijuana Problem: An Overview," American Journal of Psychiatry 125:1126-34 (1968); Smith, D.E., "The Acute and Chronic Toxicity of Marijuana," Journal of Psychedelic Drugs 2:37-48 (1968).

 

69. Brill, N.O. and Christie, R.L., "Marijuana Use and Psychosocial Adaptation," Archives of General Psychiatry 31:713-19 (1974); Kupfer, D.J. et al, "A Comment on the Amotivational Syndrome in Marijuana Smokers," American Journal of Psychiatry 130:1319-22 (1973).

 

70. Kleinman, P.H. et al, "Daily Marijuana Use and Problem Behaviors Among Adolescents," International Journal of Addictions 23:87-107 (1988).

 

71. Mellinger, G.D. et al, "Drug Use, Academic Performance, and Career Indecision: Longitudinal Data in Search of a Model," pp 157-77 in D.B. Kandel (ed), Longitudinal Research on Drug Use: Empirical Findings and Methodological Issues, Washington, DC: Hemisphere (1978).

 

72. Mellinger, G.D. et al, "The Amotivational Syndrome and the College Student," Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 282:37-55 (1976).

 

73. Miranne. H.C., "Marijuana Use and Achievement Orientations of College Students," Journal of Health and Social Behavior 20:194-99 (1979).

 

74. Cohen, S., "The 94-Day Cannabis Study," Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 282:211-20 (1976).

 

75. Mendelson, J.H. et al, "The Effects of Marijuana Use on Human Operant Behavior: Individual Data," pp 643-53 in M.C. Braude and S. Szara (eds), The Pharmacology of Marijuana, Vol 2, New York: Raven Press (1976).

 

76. Campbell, I., "The Amotivational Syndrome and Cannabis use with Emphasis on the Canadian Scene," Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 282:33-36.

 

77. McBay, A.J. and Owens, S.M., "Marijuana and Driving," pp 257-63 in L.S. Harris (ed) Problems of Drug Dependence 1980, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office (1981); Teale, J.D. et al, "The Incidence of Cannabinoids in Fatally Impaired Drivers: An Investigation by Radioimmunoassay and High Pressure Liquid Chromatography," Journal of the Forensic Science Society 17:177-83 (1978).

 

78. Terhune, K.W. et al, The Incidence and Role of Drugs in Fatally Injured Drivers, Washington, DC: Department of Transportation (1994).

 

79. Brookoff, D. et al, "Testing Reckless Drivers for Cocaine and Marijuana," New England Journal of Medicine 331:518-22 (1994).

 

80. Kv'alseth, T.O., "Effects of Marijuana on Human Reaction Time and Motor Control," Perceptual and Motor Skills 45:935-39 (1977); Hansteen, R.W. et al, "Effects of Cannabis and Alcohol on Automobile Driving and Psychomotor Tracking," Annals of New York Academy of Sciences 282:240-56 (1976); Moskowitz, H. et al, "Marijuana: Effects on Simulated Driving Performance," Accident Analysis and Prevention 8:45-50 (1976); Moskowitz, H. et al, "Visual Search Behavior While Viewing Driving Scenes Under the Influence of Alcohol and Marijuana," Human Factors 18:417-31 (1976).

 

81. Stein, A.C. et al, A Simulator Study of the Combined Effects of Alcohol and Marijuana on Driving Behavior-Phase II, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation (1983).

 

82. Robbe, H. and O'Hanlon, J., Marijuana and Actual Driving Performance, Washington, DC: Department of Transportation (1993).

 

83. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Main Findings 1990; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Preliminary Estimates from the 1993 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse.

 

84. Johnston, L.D. et al, Monitoring the Future, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Institute for Social Research (1994).

 

85. Cohen, P.D.A., Cannabisgebruikers in Amsterdam, Jaarbeurs Congrescentrum Utrecht (1995).

 

86. Leuw, E. and Marshall, I.H. (eds)., Between Prohibition and Legalization: The Dutch Experiment in Drug Policy, Amsterdam: Kugler Publications (1994).

 

87. Netherlands Institute for Alcohol and Drugs, "Cannabis Policy Fact Sheet," Netherlands Alcohol and Drug Report 1 (1995); Leuw, E., "Initial Construction and Development of the Official Dutch Drug Policy," pp 23-40 in E. Leuw and I.H. Marshall (eds), Between Prohibition and Legalization: The Dutch Experiment in Drug Policy, Amsterdam: Kugler Publications (1994).

 

88. de Zwart, W.M. et al, Key Data: Smoking, Drinking, Drug Use and Gambling Among Pupils Aged 10 Years and Older, Utrecht: Netherlands Institute on Alcohol and Drugs (1994). 89. National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Main Findings 1990, Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse (1991); Preliminary Estimates from the 1993 Household Survey on Drug Abuse, Advance Report Number 7, Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse (1994).

 

90. National Survey Results on Drug Use, from the Monitoring the Future Study, 1975-1993, Volume I, Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse (1994).

 

91. de Zwart, W.M. et al, Key Data: Smoking, Drinking, Drug Use and Gambling Among Pupils Aged 10 Years and Older, Utrecht: Netherlands Institute on Alcohol and Drugs (1994).

 

92. "The Drug Policy in the Netherlands," Joint Report of the Ministry of Welfare, Health and Cultural Affairs and the Ministry of Justice (1994).

 

 

Oh, also

 

 

Join Erowid and help change the way the world thinks about Psychoactives.

 

 

Marijuana Myths, Claim No. 9

 

CLAIM #9: MARIJUANA IS AN ADDICTIVE DRUG

 

It is now frequently stated that marijuana is profoundly addicting and that any increase in prevalence of use will lead inevitably to increases in addiction.

 

THE FACTS

 

Essentially all drugs are used in "an addictive fashion" by some people. However, for any drug to be identified as highly addictive, there should be evidence that substantial numbers of users repeatedly fail in their attempts to discontinue use and develop use-patterns that interfere with other life activities.

 

National epidemiological surveys show that the large majority of people who have had experience with marijuana do not become regular users.

 

    In 1993, among Americans age 12 and over, about 34% had used marijuana sometime in their life, but only 9% had used it in the past year, 4.3% in the past month, and 2.8% in the past week. 59

 

    A longitudinal study of young adults who had first been surveyed in high school also found a high "discontinuation rate" for marijuana. While 77% had used the drug, 74% of those had not used in the past year and 84% had not used in the past month. 60

 

    Of course, even people who continue using marijuana for several years or more are not necessarily "addicted" to it. Many regular users - including many daily users - consume marijuana in a way that does not interfere with other life activities, and may in some cases enhance them.

 

There is only scant evidence that marijuana produces physical dependence and withdrawal in humans.

 

    When human subjects were administered daily oral doses of 180-210 mg of THC - the equivalent of 15-20 joints per day - abrupt cessation produced adverse symptoms, including disturbed sleep, restlessness, nausea, decreased appetite, and sweating. The authors interpreted these symptoms as evidence of physical dependence. However, they noted the syndrome's relatively mild nature and remained skeptical of its occurrence when marijuana is consumed in usual doses and situations. 61 Indeed, when humans are allowed to control consumption, even high doses are not followed by adverse withdrawal symptoms. 62

 

Signs of withdrawal have been created in laboratory animals following the administration of very high doses. 63 Recently, at a NIDA-sponsored conference, a researcher described unpublished observations involving rats pretreated with THC and then dosed with a cannabinoid receptor-blocker. 64 Not surprisingly, this provoked sudden withdrawal, by stripping receptors of the drug. This finding has no relevance to human users who, upon ceasing use, experience a very gradual removal of THC from receptors.

 

The most avid publicizers of marijuana's addictive nature are treatment providers who, in recent years, have increasingly admitted insured marijuana users to their programs. 65 The increasing use of drug-detection technologies in the workplace, schools and elsewhere has also produced a group of marijuana users who identify themselves as "addicts" in order to receive treatment instead of punishment. 66

 

 

The numbers designate which footnotes they're referencing, in case you have a hard time figuring that out.

 

Edited by SagaciousKJB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
j. fed

I'm taking a VERY deep breath as I prepare to make SagaciousKJB my bitch. I've got my bending-over chair [(c.) j. fed 2005 all rights reserved offer not valid in Puerto Rico]. SloStenRacing is standing over in the corner with the baby oil ready and the camcorder primed for this EXCLUSIVE TO GTAFORUMS.COM OWNING~!

 

 

The furthest you have to look one of the most accessible websites around, erowid.org, for a list of all types of studies done on cannabis, and not just it's addictive potential. It's not our fault that you've chosen to be such a jackass.

 

Exhibit A to the fact that you're a f*cking moron to be classified with hamburger up there.

 

I actually took you seriously until this line. When I saw this every iota of credibility you had went out the window. Why? Let's look at the parent page of the webpage you cited, which can be found here.

 

The headline of this page: Exposing Marijuana Myths:

A Review of the Scientific Evidence. Gives you a hint as to how nonpartisan this website is, doesn't it? This website is nothing more than propaganda to fuel the pro-cannabis kool-aid drinkers.

 

I can hear the stoners (hereafter grouped into the same category as hamburger and SagaciousKJB as...you guessed it, "f*cking morons") right now: "But j. fed! What of the studies cited by SagaciousKJB and erowid? Where the f*ck are my Chili Cheese Fritos?"

 

Perhaps I misspoke when I said studies on Cannabis could not be performed. You are correct when you say that only the FDA and NIDA can authorize clinical studies on Marijuana. Most intelligent Americans knows what the FDA is but NIDA is an acronym that is a bit less common. It stands for the National Institute for Drug Abuse, an government organization cited no less than SEVEN times in the imposing list of references you gave.

 

If you'll look at the reference page you'll notice that the NIDA's research is suspiciously absent from the section related to the addictive qualities of Marijuana. Why? Could this this be any reason why?

 

 

Long-term marijuana use can lead to addiction for some people; that is, they use the drug compulsively even though it interferes with family, school, work, and recreational activities. Drug craving and withdrawal symptoms can make it hard for long-term marijuana smokers to stop using the drug. People trying to quit report irritability, sleeplessness, and anxiety(38). They also display increased aggression on psychological tests, peaking approximately one week after the last use of the drug(39).

 

 

The numbers designate which footnotes they're referencing, in case you have a hard time figuring that out.

 

And just what reference is cited there? Footnote 39 refers to Haney M, Ward AS, Comer SD, et al: Abstinence symptoms following smoked marijuana in humans. Psychopharmacology 141:395-404, 1999, which can be found here. And let's take a look at another quote from that LEGITIMATE MEDICAL STUDY:

 

 

The present study provides empirical evidence that abstinence from marijuana is associated with increases in anxiety, irritability and stomach pain, and decreases in the amount and frequency of food intake.  These symptoms are similar to the pattern of abstinence effects following oral THC administration (Jones et al. 1976, 1981; Haney et al. 1999), and are similar to the effects seen in laboratory participants smoking marijuana repeatedly for at least 3 weeks (Nowlan and Cohen 1977;  Georgotas and Zeidenberg 1979; Mendelson et al. 1984).  The present findings are also consistent with interview data obtained in daily marijuana smokers, who report feeling "nervous, tense, and restless" when abstinent from marijuana (Wiesbeck et al. 1996).

 

And one more note about erowid's reference page: Either they or marijuana.com are lazy researchers since they cite the exact same sources for their "evidence". Another strike against erowid if they still wish to claim to be nonpartisan.

 

And I know what you're saying to yourself right now...Marijuana smokers are lazy? SHUT THE f*ck UP!

 

I know, I was shocked as well.

 

Anyway, let's take a look at the data used in your example that were cited:

 

 

In 1993, among Americans age 12 and over, about 34% had used marijuana sometime in their life, but only 9% had used it in the past year, 4.3% in the past month, and 2.8% in the past week. 59

 

Irrelevant to the conversation.

 

A longitudinal study of young adults who had first been surveyed in high school also found a high "discontinuation rate" for marijuana. While 77% had used the drug, 74% of those had not used in the past year and 84% had not used in the past month. 60

 

This is the only piece of evidence this page gives to indicate that Marijuana is not addictive and it's obvious to me that you can't build an argument around this "fact".  I tried to find the study for myself to see how far out of context this information was taken and there isn't a single copy of this study to be googled.  Isn't that convenient?

 

Of course, even people who continue using marijuana for several years or more are not necessarily "addicted" to it. Many regular users - including many daily users - consume marijuana in a way that does not interfere with other life activities, and may in some cases enhance them.

 

There is only scant evidence that marijuana produces physical dependence and withdrawal in humans.

 

When human subjects were administered daily oral doses of 180-210 mg of THC - the equivalent of 15-20 joints per day - abrupt cessation produced adverse symptoms, including disturbed sleep, restlessness, nausea, decreased appetite, and sweating. The authors interpreted these symptoms as evidence of physical dependence. However, they noted the syndrome's relatively mild nature and remained skeptical of its occurrence when marijuana is consumed in usual doses and situations. 61

 

Works against your argument.  It establishes that THC produces physical dependence symptoms.  Their postscript, if not taken out of context (which I highly doubt) cannot be considered evidence since it's merely a theory that hasn't been pursued.

 

Indeed, when humans are allowed to control consumption, even high doses are not followed by adverse withdrawal symptoms. 62

 

No study could be googled to show that this study exists.  Even more convenient.

 

Signs of withdrawal have been created in laboratory animals following the administration of very high doses. 63

 

Irrelevant to the conversation.

 

Recently, at a NIDA-sponsored conference, a researcher described unpublished observations involving rats pretreated with THC and then dosed with a cannabinoid receptor-blocker. 64 Not surprisingly, this provoked sudden withdrawal, by stripping receptors of the drug. This finding has no relevance to human users who, upon ceasing use, experience a very gradual removal of THC from receptors.

 

Even though this is cited as a source it is by no means a study.  It is a reference to a UNNAMED researcher (red flags should have gone off here) on a subject that is irrelevant to the conversation.  This makes me wonder how many of the 92 footnotes you gave are actual studies that result in an empirical conclusion from empirical evidence.  I'd be shocked if it was three.

 

The most avid publicizers of marijuana's addictive nature are treatment providers who, in recent years, have increasingly admitted insured marijuana users to their programs. 65

 

Irrelevant to the conversation and by no means empirical research as you asserted.

 

The increasing use of drug-detection technologies in the workplace, schools and elsewhere has also produced a group of marijuana users who identify themselves as "addicts" in order to receive treatment instead of punishment. 66

 

Nothing more than an opinion with no empirical evidence to be seen.

 

 

 

Boy, you're really building a strong case for yourself, aren't you? You cite 92 sources to support your claim. As I said before I'd be surprised if you could produce three studies in these footnotes that provide empirical evidence that shows Marijuana isn't illegal. I'd be shocked if you provided ONE study at all. You've cited 92 sources here. Give me one that says Marijuana isn't addictive. I f*cking dare you.

 

In conclusion:

 

1. hamburger is a f*cking moron because he makes bullsh*t claims that he can't back up with evidence.

 

2. SagaciousKJB is a f*cking moron because he continues to blindly follow his bullsh*t theories in the face of actual evidence from actual studies.

 

3. The mods of this forum should take the filter off the word f*ck. It's f*cking annoying.

 

4. Nobody should ever challenge me when I make an opinion. I will rape you with logic and facts.

 

5. user posted image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy

 

I'm taking a VERY deep breath as I prepare to make SagaciousKJB my bitch.  I've got my bending-over chair [(c.) j. fed 2005 all rights reserved offer not valid in Puerto Rico].  SloStenRacing is standing over in the corner with the baby oil ready and the camcorder primed for this EXCLUSIVE TO GTAFORUMS.COM OWNING~!

 

 

The furthest you have to look one of the most accessible websites around, erowid.org, for a list of all types of studies done on cannabis, and not just it's addictive potential. It's not our fault that you've chosen to be such a jackass.

 

Exhibit A to the fact that you're a f*cking moron to be classified with hamburger up there.

 

I actually took you seriously until this line. When I saw this every iota of credibility you had went out the window. Why? Let's look at the parent page of the webpage you cited, which can be found here.

 

The headline of this page: Exposing Marijuana Myths:

A Review of the Scientific Evidence. Gives you a hint as to how nonpartisan this website is, doesn't it? This website is nothing more than propaganda to fuel the pro-cannabis kool-aid drinkers.

 

I can hear the stoners (hereafter grouped into the same category as hamburger and SagaciousKJB as...you guessed it, "f*cking morons") right now: "But j. fed! What of the studies cited by SagaciousKJB and erowid? Where the f*ck are my Chili Cheese Fritos?"

 

Perhaps I misspoke when I said studies on Cannabis could not be performed. You are correct when you say that only the FDA and NIDA can authorize clinical studies on Marijuana. Most intelligent Americans knows what the FDA is but NIDA is an acronym that is a bit less common. It stands for the National Institute for Drug Abuse, an government organization cited no less than SEVEN times in the imposing list of references you gave.

 

If you'll look at the reference page you'll notice that the NIDA's research is suspiciously absent from the section related to the addictive qualities of Marijuana. Why? Could this this be any reason why?

 

 

Long-term marijuana use can lead to addiction for some people; that is, they use the drug compulsively even though it interferes with family, school, work, and recreational activities. Drug craving and withdrawal symptoms can make it hard for long-term marijuana smokers to stop using the drug. People trying to quit report irritability, sleeplessness, and anxiety(38). They also display increased aggression on psychological tests, peaking approximately one week after the last use of the drug(39).

 

 

The numbers designate which footnotes they're referencing, in case you have a hard time figuring that out.

 

And just what reference is cited there? Footnote 39 refers to Haney M, Ward AS, Comer SD, et al: Abstinence symptoms following smoked marijuana in humans. Psychopharmacology 141:395-404, 1999, which can be found here. And let's take a look at another quote from that LEGITIMATE MEDICAL STUDY:

 

 

The present study provides empirical evidence that abstinence from marijuana is associated with increases in anxiety, irritability and stomach pain, and decreases in the amount and frequency of food intake.  These symptoms are similar to the pattern of abstinence effects following oral THC administration (Jones et al. 1976, 1981; Haney et al. 1999), and are similar to the effects seen in laboratory participants smoking marijuana repeatedly for at least 3 weeks (Nowlan and Cohen 1977;  Georgotas and Zeidenberg 1979; Mendelson et al. 1984).  The present findings are also consistent with interview data obtained in daily marijuana smokers, who report feeling "nervous, tense, and restless" when abstinent from marijuana (Wiesbeck et al. 1996).

 

And one more note about erowid's reference page: Either they or marijuana.com are lazy researchers since they cite the exact same sources for their "evidence". Another strike against erowid if they still wish to claim to be nonpartisan.

 

And I know what you're saying to yourself right now...Marijuana smokers are lazy? SHUT THE f*ck UP!

 

I know, I was shocked as well.

 

Anyway, let's take a look at the data used in your example that were cited:

 

 

In 1993, among Americans age 12 and over, about 34% had used marijuana sometime in their life, but only 9% had used it in the past year, 4.3% in the past month, and 2.8% in the past week. 59

 

Irrelevant to the conversation.

 

A longitudinal study of young adults who had first been surveyed in high school also found a high "discontinuation rate" for marijuana. While 77% had used the drug, 74% of those had not used in the past year and 84% had not used in the past month. 60

 

This is the only piece of evidence this page gives to indicate that Marijuana is not addictive and it's obvious to me that you can't build an argument around this "fact".  I tried to find the study for myself to see how far out of context this information was taken and there isn't a single copy of this study to be googled.  Isn't that convenient?

 

Of course, even people who continue using marijuana for several years or more are not necessarily "addicted" to it. Many regular users - including many daily users - consume marijuana in a way that does not interfere with other life activities, and may in some cases enhance them.

 

There is only scant evidence that marijuana produces physical dependence and withdrawal in humans.

 

When human subjects were administered daily oral doses of 180-210 mg of THC - the equivalent of 15-20 joints per day - abrupt cessation produced adverse symptoms, including disturbed sleep, restlessness, nausea, decreased appetite, and sweating. The authors interpreted these symptoms as evidence of physical dependence. However, they noted the syndrome's relatively mild nature and remained skeptical of its occurrence when marijuana is consumed in usual doses and situations. 61

 

Works against your argument.  It establishes that THC produces physical dependence symptoms.  Their postscript, if not taken out of context (which I highly doubt) cannot be considered evidence since it's merely a theory that hasn't been pursued.

 

Indeed, when humans are allowed to control consumption, even high doses are not followed by adverse withdrawal symptoms. 62

 

No study could be googled to show that this study exists.  Even more convenient.

 

Signs of withdrawal have been created in laboratory animals following the administration of very high doses. 63

 

Irrelevant to the conversation.

 

Recently, at a NIDA-sponsored conference, a researcher described unpublished observations involving rats pretreated with THC and then dosed with a cannabinoid receptor-blocker. 64 Not surprisingly, this provoked sudden withdrawal, by stripping receptors of the drug. This finding has no relevance to human users who, upon ceasing use, experience a very gradual removal of THC from receptors.

 

Even though this is cited as a source it is by no means a study.  It is a reference to a UNNAMED researcher (red flags should have gone off here) on a subject that is irrelevant to the conversation.  This makes me wonder how many of the 92 footnotes you gave are actual studies that result in an empirical conclusion from empirical evidence.  I'd be shocked if it was three.

 

The most avid publicizers of marijuana's addictive nature are treatment providers who, in recent years, have increasingly admitted insured marijuana users to their programs. 65

 

Irrelevant to the conversation and by no means empirical research as you asserted.

 

The increasing use of drug-detection technologies in the workplace, schools and elsewhere has also produced a group of marijuana users who identify themselves as "addicts" in order to receive treatment instead of punishment. 66

 

Nothing more than an opinion with no empirical evidence to be seen.

 

 

 

Boy, you're really building a strong case for yourself, aren't you? You cite 92 sources to support your claim. As I said before I'd be surprised if you could produce three studies in these footnotes that provide empirical evidence that shows Marijuana isn't illegal. I'd be shocked if you provided ONE study at all. You've cited 92 sources here. Give me one that says Marijuana isn't addictive. I f*cking dare you.

 

In conclusion:

 

1. hamburger is a f*cking moron because he makes bullsh*t claims that he can't back up with evidence.

 

2. SagaciousKJB is a f*cking moron because he continues to blindly follow his bullsh*t theories in the face of actual evidence from actual studies.

 

3. The mods of this forum should take the filter off the word f*ck. It's f*cking annoying.

 

4. Nobody should ever challenge me when I make an opinion. I will rape you with logic and facts.

 

5. user posted image

God, you tickle me, j. fed. To make this very clear, THIS IS NOT THE PIT! This is the D&D, and you've degraded this topic to the point where it's nearly collapsing upon itself.

 

 

I wonder if you realize that me citing those refferences, and that documetns, was a way of me showing you that there are actual studies out there being done on cannabis. Did you miss that? I guess so.

 

 

You probably may've also missed myself reporting on many of the same withdrawal symptoms spoken of in those studies, including the ones you posted from NIDA. Quite interesting how you assume that I'm just a biased pothead who trusts anything good he reads about pot.

 

The truth is, though, I don't trust NIDA, and I wouldn't for the world. Why?

1. The pot they supply to have tests done on is very low-quality, mostly leaves and stems. It has a potency of about 2.5%

2. Almost any study now days that is proposed to expose benefits of marijuana, or disprove negative "facts" attributed to it is usually denied with no cause by NIDA.

 

I've been studying pot for a long time, buddy, and I have an open-mind. I look at both sides of the stories, and I decide for myself. I don't find marijuana to be addicting. The other side of that story is that I also don't smoke 1-3 grams a day. And, hell, if you want to get off the subject, the symptoms of marijuana withdrawls aren't even nearly as bad as many other drugs. I mean, hell, you can severe headaches from caffeine withdrawal.

 

 

So, to put quite simply, you're full of sh*t, buddy, and you're treating this way too much like it was the pit. And as a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure you're a previously banned member. The D&D wasn't meant for such childishness.

 

 

Now, the simple fact is that any information you show me on marijuana, I've probably already seen before, and I've made my decision. Marijuana isn't 100% safe, and if you had bothered to read all my posts, you would've sen me said that already. It can cause problems with some people, it can be addicting to some people. It can cause respirtory problems. The phrase that stands truest is, "Moderation is key". Too much of anything is bad for you, but ironically, as much as people want to prove how harmful marijuana is, they just make it look better when compared to most other things out there.

 

 

So, now, we can either get back to the topic at hand (finally), which is why it's illegal, or you can sit here and act like you actually know what you're doing.

 

By the way, if you're still confused why you can't find any of those studies searching google, it's probably beacuse the latest of any of them was in 1995, and they're not really that large of publications to begin with. Even goole is going to have a tough time finding something as obscured.

 

Oh, also, while you do dwell on, "Why marijuana is illegal," go back and read my opinions on it and post a proper retort. Maybe that will bring some progress to this hopelessly idiotic quarrel we have going on here. And, hey, maybe you can even "pwn" me like you seem so intent on wanting to do. At least then the thread will be partially back on track.

 

Edited by SagaciousKJB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
j. fed

 

I wonder if you realize that me citing those refferences, and that documetns, was a way of me showing you that there are actual studies out there being done on cannabis. Did you miss that? I guess so.

 

 

Perhaps I misspoke when I said studies on Cannabis could not be performed. You are correct when you say that only the FDA and NIDA can authorize clinical studies on Marijuana.

 

Did you miss that? I guess so.

 

 

Quite interesting how you assume that I'm just a biased pothead who trusts anything good he reads about pot.

 

After the verbal rape I gave you how could you NOT be just a biased pothead at this point? Your argument holds on by the thinnest of strings. A smarter man would have acquiesced by now.

 

 

The truth is, though, I don't trust NIDA, and I wouldn't for the world. Why?

1. The pot they supply to have tests done on is very low-quality, mostly leaves and stems. It has a potency of about 2.5%

2. Almost any study now days that is proposed to expose benefits of marijuana, or disprove negative "facts" attributed to it is usually denied with no cause by NIDA.

 

1. Cite evidence or you're a liar.

2. Cite evidence or you're a liar.

 

 

I've been studying pot for a long time, buddy, and I have an open-mind. I look at both sides of the stories, and I decide for myself.

 

As do I. I'm for the legalization of Marijuana. What I'm against is uninformed simpletons spreading their lies like a child molestor handing out Snickers outside the local grade school. You've been studying pot for a long time? I've been studying it for FIFTEEN MINUTES and look at who's winning the debate. That says enough.

 

 

So, to put quite simply, you're full of sh*t, buddy, and you're treating this way too much like it was the pit. And as a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure you're a previously banned member. The D&D wasn't meant for such childishness.

 

22 February 2005 was the first time I ever visited this message board. Don't believe me? Have a mod check the IP's.

 

Trust me, I'll probably find a shinier piece of tin foil in a few days and move on. You won't have to deal with me for that long.

 

This wasn't meant for such childishness? My childishness has a very valid point that, once again, is backed by EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. I just like to spice it up a little so the other people reading this thread aren't bored. I wish you could offer the same convenience.

 

I don't know if you noticed but I offer scientific data to back up my assertions and the links to published studies that document them. You just provide lists without links and say that's good enough for you. I take the time to explore said list and show how inaccurate your information is to begin with. Who would you believe?

 

Ball's in your court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Forty
Try to keep the tempers cooled in here, fellas. We like to keep this a high brow affair in the D&D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
j. fed

I'm high brow as NPR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy

 

I wonder if you realize that me citing those refferences, and that documetns, was a way of me showing you that there are actual studies out there being done on cannabis. Did you miss that? I guess so.

 

 

Perhaps I misspoke when I said studies on Cannabis could not be performed. You are correct when you say that only the FDA and NIDA can authorize clinical studies on Marijuana.

 

Did you miss that? I guess so.

 

 

Quite interesting how you assume that I'm just a biased pothead who trusts anything good he reads about pot.

 

After the verbal rape I gave you how could you NOT be just a biased pothead at this point? Your argument holds on by the thinnest of strings. A smarter man would have acquiesced by now.

 

 

The truth is, though, I don't trust NIDA, and I wouldn't for the world. Why?

1. The pot they supply to have tests done on is very low-quality, mostly leaves and stems. It has a potency of about 2.5%

2. Almost any study now days that is proposed to expose benefits of marijuana, or disprove negative "facts" attributed to it is usually denied with no cause by NIDA.

 

1. Cite evidence or you're a liar.

2. Cite evidence or you're a liar.

 

 

I've been studying pot for a long time, buddy, and I have an open-mind. I look at both sides of the stories, and I decide for myself.

 

As do I. I'm for the legalization of Marijuana. What I'm against is uninformed simpletons spreading their lies like a child molestor handing out Snickers outside the local grade school. You've been studying pot for a long time? I've been studying it for FIFTEEN MINUTES and look at who's winning the debate. That says enough.

 

 

So, to put quite simply, you're full of sh*t, buddy, and you're treating this way too much like it was the pit. And as a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure you're a previously banned member. The D&D wasn't meant for such childishness.

 

22 February 2005 was the first time I ever visited this message board. Don't believe me? Have a mod check the IP's.

 

Trust me, I'll probably find a shinier piece of tin foil in a few days and move on. You won't have to deal with me for that long.

 

This wasn't meant for such childishness? My childishness has a very valid point that, once again, is backed by EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. I just like to spice it up a little so the other people reading this thread aren't bored. I wish you could offer the same convenience.

 

I don't know if you noticed but I offer scientific data to back up my assertions and the links to published studies that document them. You just provide lists without links and say that's good enough for you. I take the time to explore said list and show how inaccurate your information is to begin with. Who would you believe?

 

Ball's in your court.

Well, quite honestly, I can't be bothered to go and track down every little bit and piece that I've read. The conclussions I've come to aren't just from one thing, it's a collective thing. If you really think that I'm going to bother tracking down every little place on the intenret, every book I've read, every documentary that I've watched, you're insane.

 

 

Like I've said, I've been studying pot for a long time. Two years straight now has been spent practically just scouring all the information I could find on it, and it's been a lot. If you want to read about NIDA's notoriously low-potent pot, there's google. If you want to read how NIDA denies a lot of studies, there's google. Hell, I'll give you a break, 'cause I just read about one that got shot down about 30 mins. ago on a site called MAPS.

 

 

You're basing your opinion of marijuana on things you think are strong scientific fact. I'm basing my opinion on what I've read, and what I've experienced, and practicallity. Now, obviously logic shows up better on paper, and if I could actually remember all the places I've read what I do know about cannabis, I might share it with you just for the sake of argument, but probably not.

 

 

This thread's turning into a back-and-forth match of crap, and I'm getting tired of participating in it. So, if you really want to put it into technical terms, and since I hold so true to the D&D, I'll give it to you, and reserve my opinions on the matter.

 

However, I really can't help but argue the case that these things you simply pass off as biased pothead lies are more significant than that. Like I said, I like to base things on not only what I've read, but experience and practicallity. A plant that people have been using for thousands of years is really a risk, even though millions world-wide use it right now as we speak. The only REAL danger I would ever attribute to marijuana is its effect on the psyche. On some people, it could be negative, and therefore it could have negative repercussions on the rest of society. However, in terms of how dangerous it is for the human body, there is far worse things out there, and no, I'm not saying it's good for you. I haven't through this whole thread. I guess that must be what makes you believe that I'm following blindly.

 

Anyway, something you might like to know about NIDA: Many of their studies were performed by Dr. Nahas, who actually denounced all of his studies after heavy scrutiny by the scientific community. So, when you attack the credibillity of the studies that those erowid documetns were written on, think about that when you imply that NIDA is the true information. A person like you could've been convinced that THC is what caused the change in brain structure in those rheus monkeys, when really, it was the fact that Nahas f*cked up and killed them with asphyxiation.

 

 

So, here's it. We can either go back in forth betwen the little information there is on the internet, from places like NIDA, and the ONDCP and what have you, which honestly I don't trust, or we can agree to disagree. Because, honestly, this thread is about why it's illegal, which is actually well-documented, and something I've already shared my views on.

 

 

Maybe if I was trying to convince congress to legalize it, I'd track down every source of everything I know of it, but for this topic, I don't think so.

 

If you want something to chew on, however, try, 'The Emporer Wears No Clothes," by Jack Herer. It's available online for free to read, has quite a bit of information itself. That and Erowid are just about the only main-site locations on the internet that I can remember where I've gotten my info. The rest was spent Googling for a long time, and renting books out of the library.

 

Oh, and I guess if you really want it that bad: Oh noes, I was pwned. smile.gif

 

Good debate, but seriously, I don't have the energy to actually prove my side of the story to you. Maybe something that can suppor the validity of amotivational syndrome... lol

 

 

Edited by SagaciousKJB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
j. fed

Please stop trying to belittle me. Let's be fwiends now, okay?

 

C'mon, kid. I'll take you out for a slurpee and we can catch a late movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy
Please stop trying to belittle me. Let's be fwiends now, okay?

 

That wasn't me intention. Honestly, new found respect for you since you've actually driven me to the point where I'm just going to give up. tounge.gif Sure, I don't especially admire the hostility in the way you did it, but I had to trade snaps.

 

 

Anyway, yeah, I'm going to step out of this thread now. I think I've said just about all I need to say on the matter.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
j. fed

Nah, I don't care either. I was just looking for some good clean fun.

 

EDIT: If you want a good reconciliatory gesture I could hook you up with some of those phone numbers found in Paris Hilton's cell phone if you're not all over it already. I already tried Ashlee Simpson but I got her answering machine. I think she lip synched on it.

 

Two month old humor is always the funniest.

Edited by j. fed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stilton
Nah, I don't care either. I was just looking for some good clean fun.

 

EDIT: If you want a good reconciliatory gesture I could hook you up with some of those phone numbers found in Paris Hilton's cell phone if you're not all over it already. I already tried Ashlee Simpson but I got her answering machine. I think she lip synched on it.

 

Two month old humor is always the funniest.

You're lucky a more 'moderate' moderator dealt with this thread before I got here. Do not repeat this crap again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SloStenRacing

 

1. The pot they supply to have tests done on is very low-quality, mostly leaves and stems. It has a potency of about 2.5%

 

smoke 1-3 grams a day

 

So if it is low potency and high quantity then the same effects (if not worse because of methods of growing and harvesting) would come out of a high potency low quantity test, right?

 

So lets take some of the best pot in the world (around 25% THC) and since you really only needed one gram (or around 1/3 of an eighth) to see effects from the other test and we times the potency by ten lets divide the quantity by ten and we come up with a new test:

 

Quality:25% THC

Quantity: About 1/10th of a gram

 

BASED ON THE STUDIES OF NIDA and YOUR accusations that they do not use the right potency and use outrageous quantities on their tests we have used theirs and simple math to make an ideal test with help from your ideas. Now if you use common sense you will see that it is logical to expierience the same effects from their tests as with this one.

 

However to keep this topic going lets see someone test out this theory. Avid smokers lets bust out the good bud in small quantities, all you need to smoke is 1/10th of a gram a day for at least a couple months if not a couple years, then just up and quit and post back to let us know what kind of symptoms have been produced from withdrawl.

 

Testers will be awarded some cookie.gif and breadfish_by_Moto.gif for their envolvement with this gtaforums.com scientific experiment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jizzyman

yes now back on topic of its legalization, first of all the war in latin america is obviously a publiciy stunt (ive lived in mexico and brasil i know) a quite expenisve one on that note, but legalizing drugs would always mean that very little profit wold come out of it. now there is a solution but this could only be found with a monopoly over the marijuana trade, only real way to gain profit

 

and yeah people would grow their own

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SloStenRacing

I say legalize the purchasing of all drugs in the united states BUT keep manufacturing and growing illegal to the general public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jizzyman

Thats exactly the same thing as a monopoly, oh and are you saying that drubs shouldnt be available legally for purchase in say... brasil, or mexico, i mean wtf, and please keep th debate strong, dont post one or two liners

 

Besides people would not accept a monopoly there would possibly be revolt, a solution would be false competition within the same distributor, its a good method, used many times before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SupremeBeing

Well i am actually mentally dependant on marijuana. I cant go more than a week without toking, i wish i could but i cant, my body craves the high and from knowing this and understanding why it happens i can see why its illegal also when stoned and in Public you put yourself in alot of danger - well my group of stoners do anyway. However i completly support the use of canabis, its a cool mellow social drug, and i have to say - its worth a try. Also quick question, is it true in America/Canada - weed is all thats avalible and you dont use roaches, and use no tobbaco in joints? Or is that my friend making sh*t up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skins

If you're asking if people smoke hash here, then not regularly. About a year ago some friends of mine had some, but that's the only time I've seen it.

 

People use roaches here. Usually just put them in a bowl, and smoke em up.

 

And we don't use tobacco in joints.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy
If you're asking if people smoke hash here, then not regularly. About a year ago some friends of mine had some, but that's the only time I've seen it.

 

People use roaches here. Usually just put them in a bowl, and smoke em up.

 

And we don't use tobacco in joints.

I don't think he means roaches as in the almost burned up roach. He means the UK style of rolling a joint, with a little roll of paper in the botom as a filter or something.

 

 

Most Americans don't, but it is just a nifty way of rolling one so there are some to do. Most people that smoke pot here also don't mix with tobacco, unless they just have a desire to smoke tobacco with it. It's not the standard that it seems to be in the U.K.

 

 

That's why I also wonder if maybe the reason you can't not toke more than a week, is 'cause you're addicted to the tobacco? I see a lot of U.K. informational sites saying that addiction rates in the U.K. are mostly due to the tobacco they use in joints.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SupremeBeing
If you're asking if people smoke hash here, then not regularly.  About a year ago some friends of mine had some, but that's the only time I've seen it. 

 

People use roaches here.  Usually just put them in a bowl, and smoke em up.

 

And we don't use tobacco in joints.

I don't think he means roaches as in the almost burned up roach. He means the UK style of rolling a joint, with a little roll of paper in the botom as a filter or something.

 

 

Most Americans don't, but it is just a nifty way of rolling one so there are some to do. Most people that smoke pot here also don't mix with tobacco, unless they just have a desire to smoke tobacco with it. It's not the standard that it seems to be in the U.K.

 

 

That's why I also wonder if maybe the reason you can't not toke more than a week, is 'cause you're addicted to the tobacco? I see a lot of U.K. informational sites saying that addiction rates in the U.K. are mostly due to the tobacco they use in joints.

 

 

 

Its interesting find out about the different 'styles' of smoking. Maybe your right about the addicted tabacco, but i have no symptoms of that i just have a mental dependancy. Also, i dont understand how the joint can stay lit? when we try and roll without tobbaco (a purey) they do not smoke very well, they are hard to toke and go out easily. Maybe theres a secret, you can let me in on... lol

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ping
Jesus says smoking weed is bad.

And what's his opinion on Blasphemy?

 

 

Ontopic; never heard of tobacco mixing with weed. When smoking a J, I usually light a cigarette at the same time to help weaken the sharp pot smell from my parents sub-human nostrils. mad.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leftcoast

 

Its interesting find out about the different 'styles' of smoking. Maybe your right about the addicted tabacco, but i have no symptoms of that i just have a mental dependancy. Also, i dont understand how the joint can stay lit? when we try and roll without tobbaco (a purey) they do  not smoke very well, they are hard to toke and go out easily. Maybe theres a secret, you can let me in on... lol

 

I hear you there, though it has never realy been an issue, you probably just need to keep passing and puffing before it has time to go out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
T.J.E.

I personaly am divided on the topic.

 

I dont know if any americans have heard(I am sure some of you have, but i just want to say this anyway.) We in Canada just had the largest shooting of RCMP officers(RCMP being our national Police force.) and it was because a guy came home when the cops were searching his barn(quanset, i can`t spell it) and he shot and killed all four of them(i knew the youngest, he was 25, Const. Peter Schiemann.)

 

anyway, I think if it was legalized, things like this would be less likly to happen(Canada is now considering to fully legalize the growth, sale, and possesion of It) and it would save lives of police officers from having things happen like what happened on wedsnday (3/02/05).

 

but on the other hand, if it is legalized, then we may have a bunch of pot-heads running around, stoned out of their minds, and causeing trouble, which could put police/public in dangers.

 

just my 2 cents.

 

T.J.E.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leftcoast

 

but on the other hand, if it is legalized, then we may have a bunch of pot-heads running around, stoned out of their minds, and causeing trouble, which could put police/public in dangers.

 

just my 2 cents.

 

 

I understand where you are coming from, my 2 cents. The people that would be roaming around stoned out of their minds causing trouble would still be high legal or not (Trust me, I know many of these people). Legalization would address some of these problems rather than lump them into areas where they don't belong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.