Utterly Amazing - Pot Use NOT a Fundamental Human Right?

DrGreenthumb · January 21, 2008

Teens are already hardwired for risky behaviour without drug use:
http://www.webmd.com/parenting/news/200704...-risky-behavior

and they're getting into trouble with police:

http://www.bcfedpolice.com/Portals/9/docs/...ends%202007.pdf

Here is how mj affects the teen brain:

http://theantidrug.com/drug_info/mjmh_intr...on_to_brain.asp

and here's what the expert says:

http://theantidrug.com/drug_info/mjmh_ask_the_expert.asp

Blah blah blah. Nobody who isn't already a mindless sheep is going to attach any credibility to links to a website called "the antidrug.com" The name of the website gives away its obvious bias. Like I said in another thread, you may as well send me to thenazi.com to convince me of the inferiority of jews. I'm not interested in your links to liars, and neither is anyone else who isn't already a misguided drugwar monger like yourself.

If the website or publication recieves money from or profits from prohibition it is not credible. That is why I don't bother linking to cannabisculture.com to prove that pot is harmless, that would be as stupid and pointless as what you are doing. Are you sure you don't want to provide a link to the conservative party website to "prove" how superior conservatism is?

Potential for ome pretty serious consequences for the future, indeed. These people aren't making this stuff up......

Young people who use marijuana weekly have double the risk of depression later in life.1

Teens aged 12-17 who smoke marijuana weekly are three times more likely than non-users to have suicidal thoughts.2

There is evidence of increased risk for schizophrenia in later years in some teens who smoke marijuana.3

and to learn about the effects on the teenage brain that is still developing you can take a virtual tour of the brain here:

http://www.theantidrug.com/drug_info/mjmh_virtual_tour.asp

again more useless links to more useless propaganda. Cops will tell you you need more cops, candle stick makers will tell you you need more candles, what do you expect a cop website to say? Please tell me about how addictions workers, who get paid to "treat" pot addiction are sure that we need more pot addiction councillors, pfffft.

Those of us who can think for ourselves might need a puff or two during the day just to have the patience to deal with all the ignorants in this world who think they know what's best for everyone else. From what I've seen and read, there are quite a few sacks of hammers out there with more intelligence than the average prohibitionist.

BubberMiley · January 21, 2008

Sigmund Freud was definitely influential. Does this mean its safe to operate heavy equipment under the influence of cocaine?

No, your argument is founded on the premise that weed produces the same impairment as alcohol or cocaine (though I have no idea whether or not cocaine impairs motor skills). My premise is that in habitual users, weed does not actually impair motor skills, at least in moderate doses. I've provided anecdotal evidence that supports this; here is some real scientific evidence: http://www.ccguide.org.uk/driving.php

You can try and make comparisons to alcohol, cocaine, or nicotine if you like, but, like your Bach/Armstrong comparison, it's apples and oranges.

Edited January 21, 2008 by BubberMiley

Community Advocate · January 22, 2008

Those of us who can think for ourselves might need a puff or two during the day just to have the patience to deal with all the ignorants in this world who think they know what's best for everyone else.

And that is your choice to make. Others who can think for themelves prefer to think with a clear mind, and yet others do not need assistance from mind-altering substances to remain patient with ignorant people. Whatever floats your boat, s'long as you're not sinking mine.

OFF TOPIC:

Hey, did you know you can choose sections of a post to quote, you don't need to quote an entire post for reference? And if you're not addressing any particular part of the post, did you know you can reply and this board will quote the name of the person you are replying to?

BubberMiley · January 22, 2008

And that is your choice to make. Others who can think for themelves prefer to think with a clear mind, and yet others do not need assistance from mind-altering substances to remain patient with ignorant people. Whatever floats your boat, s'long as you're not sinking mine.

I completely agree that adults should be free to make the decision to smoke weed if it floats their boat, but unfortunately the present government has decided freedom is secondary to maintaining an unregulated, black market economy.

jefferiah · January 22, 2008

No, your argument is founded on the premise that weed produces the same impairment as alcohol or cocaine (though I have no idea whether or not cocaine impairs motor skills).

Then you obviously misunderstood my argument. I never said the impairment was the same. I never even used this argument as an indicator that marijuana does impair. In fact, I think I mentioned in an earlier post that I am well aware that alcohol impairs to a greater degree. I used to smoke pot. I know all this. I know that playing guitar on pot is a lot better than playing under the influence of alcohol. I certainly don't think it is a horrible thing to do. And I don't think of pot smokers as criminals. What I did say was that your assertion about Louis Armstrong being instrumental in the invention of modern music does nothing to suggest that marijuana does not impair. I was pointing out that this is a non-argument.

Simply put, the scope of one's influence says nothing about the good physical affects of the substances they ingested.

This fellow who feels his rights have been violated accepted a position which he knew required regular drug testing.

Edited January 22, 2008 by jefferiah

Pliny · January 22, 2008

I completely agree that adults should be free to make the decision to smoke weed if it floats their boat, but unfortunately the present government has decided freedom is secondary to maintaining an unregulated, black market economy.

The present government - and all previous governments. Why would that be?

The term Conservative implies a maintaining of the status quo - whatever that may be. A conservative in the old USSR would be a communist - one who wished to preserve the communist form of government.

Some people in Canada think things are good and see the social changes offered by the Liberals as unnecessary or even destructive. That is why Conservatives have made a comeback in the last decade. It is a resistance to changes occurring in the country combined with political ineptness and corruption involving the Liberal party.

People are putting the brakes on making big changes and perhaps reversing a few changes the Liberals made would be in order. It doesn't bode well for left wing special interest groups but right wing special interest groups are enjoying the Conservative ride. Quite frankly, I like Harper a lot more than the previous ten Prime Ministers.

He seems up front.

Most of the people in the country realize or are made aware of the fact that we have a drug problem. Proposing to legalize drugs does not appear to them to be a solution. They don't do illegal drugs and they don't understand why anyone should do illegal drugs. They don't understand why someone would want to do drugs in the first place. How would you as a politician approach this problem? Tell the citizens you propose to legalize drugs and you will not likely get elected.

DrGreenthumb · January 22, 2008

That is nonsense, Canadians are not as stupid as you think, if they were presented with all the relevant information most would support drug law reform. Every study done by government experts of any political stripe have concluded that the prohibition of cannabis does more harm than good. Most Canadians are not mean-spirited and would rather not continue down a path that is harming their fellow man. The senate report of 2002 reccomends that pot be legal for anyone over 16. Led by conservative senator Nolin, the committee was presented with all relevant info and came to the conclusion that pot prohibition was harming Canadians, especially young Canadians, more than cannabis itself ever could.

Community Advocate · January 22, 2008

again more useless links to more useless propaganda. Cops will tell you you need more cops, candle stick makers will tell you you need more candles, what do you expect a cop website to say? Please tell me about how addictions workers, who get paid to "treat" pot addiction are sure that we need more pot addiction councillors, pfffft.

Yes, they're all full of crap. There is no crime, there are no addictions, and there are no wars. So, we need no cops, we need no addiction counsellors, and we need no army, navy, nor airforce. Everything is rosy. None of this is really even happening, is it? Ignorance is bliss. Denial is dangerous. Enjoy the bliss while it lasts.

DrGreenthumb · January 23, 2008

Yes, they're all full of crap. There is no crime, there are no addictions, and there are no wars. So, we need no cops, we need no addiction counsellors, and we need no army, navy, nor airforce. Everything is rosy. None of this is really even happening, is it? Ignorance is bliss. Denial is dangerous. Enjoy the bliss while it lasts.

Nobody said there IS no such thing as addiction, only that pot is not physically addictive. Who said anything about wars? You couldn't find a CREDIBLE link so you resort to a little temper tantrum? You must be the most blissful person in history.

So just out of curiousity how much do you or your husband earn from "councilling" the pot addicted children? Do you get paid by piecework? Do you get a bonus if the children are removed from their parent's custody? Are you a "social worker"? Be honest now, this is your bread and butter isn't it? The only people that profit from prohibition are "community advocates" and gangsters. I know, you are a "foster parent". How much do you make for each kid, the state places in your care? Around here they get about 800 bucks per kid under 16. Do you take them to your church? Do you tell them how sorry you feel for them having addict parents and all? I am betting you are on the take , you have financial reasons for your hateful crusade don't you?

By the way the "chronic" is the name of a strain of weed made famous by dr dre, not an indication of its addictiveness. Scientific studies rate cannabis about as addictive as coffee. I drink coffee every morning, I could quit if I wanteed to, but why would I? I enjoy my morning cup and it has no negative effect on my life. Kind of like pot.

Don't you have someone's life to F$ck with? No kids you would like to send to jail?

BubberMiley · January 23, 2008

The only people that profit from prohibition are "community advocates" and gangsters.

Cops and lawyers do pretty well too. Everybody else pays through the nose though.

Pliny · January 24, 2008

That is nonsense, Canadians are not as stupid as you think, if they were presented with all the relevant information most would support drug law reform. Every study done by government experts of any political stripe have concluded that the prohibition of cannabis does more harm than good. Most Canadians are not mean-spirited and would rather not continue down a path that is harming their fellow man. The senate report of 2002 reccomends that pot be legal for anyone over 16. Led by conservative senator Nolin, the committee was presented with all relevant info and came to the conclusion that pot prohibition was harming Canadians, especially young Canadians, more than cannabis itself ever could.

I am sorry but I believe legalizing pot is still on the fringe. It was a consideration in the NDP platform of the last election which is why Mark Emery sold his political soul and voted NDP. He did not stick to his libertarian principles as someone earlier suggested. He has no libertarian principles, he is politically a single issue, symbolic head of a special interest group. The NDP won 22 seats or something like that(Just a guess).

The Green party may support it, I haven't read their policy on it. The majority still vote Liberal and Conservative who do not have legalization on their platforms.

If it consoles you to believe you are in the majority, or the member of a fast growing minority, towards the liberation of Canada, fine, but I would have to disagree. Change is not on the horizon in Canada except in the US where the State is slowly catching up to Canadians.

I came to the conclusion Nolin did long before his committee was commissioned. When you are calling for the legalization of pot you are asking people to be responsible for themselves, their activities and society, unfortunately the direction is towards dependence upon the welfare/warfare state and less responsibility for self and society. The only way government, and perhaps it is the reason Nolin came to the conclusion he did, would consider the legalization of pot is if it tended to make a more compliant populace.

You can say pot is not addictive but you can't really argue the point while being subject to it's use. It is addictive, probably not much moreso than coffee, but it is an addiction by the definition.

I too believe people are not stupid by the way, they do tend to be ill-informed and ignorant on a lot of issues that they do not wish to take responsibility for and leave to the interests of others, myself included in some categories, so they leave themselves subject to the acceptance of information that they do not confirm for themselves is correct, especially from "authority" and proclaimed "experts" who enjoy and do not wish to compromise their erudite positions with contrary facts and challenging concepts. If they were experts they would know what they didn't know but it can't be exposed that they, as "experts", don't know something - it affects their status and importance -the only way they can admit they don't know something is by saying, "no one knows". That makes it easy for them.

Community Advocate · January 24, 2008

Unless that recreational drug is alcohol, then they serve it to you for free at company staff parties. Then the employees drive home drunk, putting the entire community at risk.

Ahem. West Vancouver Police?

Community Advocate · January 24, 2008

name='DrGreenthumb' date='Jan 22 2008, 08:21 PM' post='288206']

Nobody said there IS no such thing as addiction, only that pot is not physically addictive. Who said anything about wars? You couldn't find a CREDIBLE link so you resort to a little temper tantrum? You must be the most blissful person in history.

I have provided enough links to support the fact that pot can be physically addictive, even from the addicts themselves!. What more do you want? I consider a personal story credible. I also KNOW people who are physically addicted to pot, and they would tell you this themselves. But why bother, you know it isn't possible to be physically addicted, so it would be a lie anyways. My credible link is the people I know. Temper tantrum? I'm far too old for that. I was trying to agree with you, that what you hear in the media is a pile of crap. Paranoid propaganda, I say! It's all lies! You've seen how ridiculous that attempt was?

So just out of curiousity how much do you or your husband earn from "councilling" the pot addicted children?

Zero. Zilch. Nada. Nothing. Do you know what a volunteer is? That' what I am. No money involved. Just a lot of research on unpaid time. But then again, I'm an ignorant liar who does't know what they're talking about, right? So why ask?

Do you get paid by piecework?

See above.

Do you get a bonus if the children are removed from their parent's custody?

See above.

Are you a "social worker"?

No. I wouldn't have the stomach for that.

Be honest now, this is your bread and butter isn't it?

Honestly, no it is not. My bread and butter comes from other places. See above: re" Volunteer.

The only people that profit from prohibition are "community advocates" and gangsters.

Children, parents, families, and entire communities can benefit from prohibition, but about profiting from it, I still don't understand that, other than those dealers who grow the stuff and sell it to others, some even sell it to kids. Again, I don't see how we could ever agree on this, as we see it from different points of view - me, a community advocate trying to help families who have drug addicted children, and you, a pot smoker who is very anti-prohibition. Benefits are different than monetary profit though, but I can understand how you became so jaded and defensive about your right to smoke and grow pot.

I know, you are a "foster parent".

Wrong again. You don't know anything about me, so why keep guessing? Is it entertaining for you to imagine how horrible of a person I am because I want to be a part of the solution for families with drug addicted kids? Have fun then.

How much do you make for each kid, the state places in your care?

The only kids who have been placed in my care are my own. Trust me, there was no money made on them, in fact, they cost a fair amount to keep!

Around here they get about 800 bucks per kid under 16.

That's about what it is around here, I understand. But I wouldn't know by personal experience.

Do you take them to your church?

I don't have 'a church'.

Do you tell them how sorry you feel for them having addict parents and all?

I don't get involved to that degree in any family. I am an advocate, not a foster parent, not a social worker, and not a drug counsellor, or counsellor of any kind for that matter. I am a volunteer advocate who makes no profit by what I am doing, but who makes improvements in my community for families, parents, children, and seniors. Can you believe there is actually people out there who will do these things only for their contribution to society and for no pay? Perhaps that is inconceivable to you, but I have lived my years making contributions in any way I am able. I work for the intrinsic reward - not for cash.

I am betting you are on the take , you have financial reasons for your hateful crusade don't you?

Well, as I've explained previously on many occasions, I have no financial reasons for my crusade and it is not hateful, in fact, the opposite.

By the way the "chronic" is the name of a strain of weed made famous by dr dre, not an indication of its addictiveness. Scientific studies rate cannabis about as addictive as coffee. I drink coffee every morning, I could quit if I wanteed to, but why would I? I enjoy my morning cup and it has no negative effect on my life. Kind of like pot.

That's you, or that's what you say. And the old mantra, "I could quit if I wanted to, but I don't want to" is questionable. It's just words. So, while you have no reason to stop drinking coffee or smoking pot, that is your perrogative, your right, your decision to make. But, I'll bet dollars to do-nuts that you would feel some physical effect if you stopped drinking coffee suddenly, depending on how many cups a day you are used to. Headaches are a big one for many people when caffein is abruptly eliminated. And, we don't always see or feel the long-term negative effects of these things in the short term daily use of them.

Recently, a study was released about pregnant women drinking coffee. They have discovered that even in small amounts, the caffein crosses the bloodstream and enters the placenta, causing harm to the fetus. We didn't know that before. Now that we know this, women can take that into account when they become pregnant, and with all the informaiton, they can make their own informed decision.

Don't you have someone's life to F$ck with? No kids you would like to send to jail?

No. Not at all. Absolutely not. Where did you get this idea that I want to see kids in jail? Drug addiction is a medical condition that requires medical attention - I do not view a youth's drug addiction in itself a criminal issue whatsoever. It is a medical issue.

guyser · January 24, 2008

I have provided enough links to support the fact that pot can be physically addictive, even from the addicts themselves!. What more do you want? I consider a personal story credible. I also KNOW people who are physically addicted to pot, and they would tell you this themselves.

It isnt.

They may be mentally addicted, but not physically. Lots of people believe they are sick, and they aren't.

Community Advocate · January 24, 2008

Cops and lawyers do pretty well too. Everybody else pays through the nose though.

There is no profit for community advocates. They are unpaid vounteers.

Community Advocate · January 24, 2008

It isnt.
They may be mentally addicted, but not physically. Lots of people believe they are sick, and they aren't.

Specially for you:

Addiction: Marijuana can be both physically and psychologically addictive. Withdrawal

symptoms include irritability, sweating, tremors, nausea, uncontrollable cravings,

headaches, depression, and insomnia.

http://www.preventionsource.org/pdf/marijuana.pdf

and for a personal view from a pot addict:

""I don't want to hear the whole "its not physically addicting" thing. Maybe it wasn't at first but this is something I've done everyday for the last 8 years now. Its coming to the point where I need it morning, afternoon, and night. I need it because Im bored just every excuse you can think of. When I do try to quit I just end up smoking more. I also get massive headaches as well act extremely bitchy to everybody around me. I feel the withdrawl (though not as bad as other drugs) I'm getting too old for this, I'm always tired, I have anxiety problems, and I overeat on occasssion....perhaps some doesn't have to do w/ my habit but I don't want to be controlled anymore by this. As for you who will respond with only stronger drugs truely give you physical addiction my response to that is that I have done those stronger drugs (and liked them a lot). I believe I have overcome the other addictions but I really need help overcoming this one...""

So, he's off the hard stuff and addicted to pot? Interesting indeed. Headaches are physical. Being bitchy is a result of stopping an addiction. Happens to many when they stop drinking coffee, smoking cigarettes, and even smoking pot. He's tired, from smoking the pot? (a little too relaxed, perhaps? lack of motivation perhaps?) He overeats (mj munchies perhaps?) He has anxiety (from the lack of pot to relax, perhaps?. The main thing is, "I don't want to e controlled anymore by this." That is an addiction per-se. The sense that it is a physical addiction came from the addict looking for help on a public forum. That, and knowing three people who are physically addicted, or phsycologically addicted for the physical numbing and relaxation, I know it is possible or ome people to become physically addicted to pot. And for the others - those who smoke it every day but are not addicted can quit anytime they want. They just don't want to. I suppose they wouldn't know if they even had a physical addiction until they stopped using. But they don't want to stop, because they like the effects.

guyser · January 24, 2008

Specially for you:
Addiction: Marijuana can be both physically and psychologically addictive. Withdrawal

symptoms include irritability, sweating, tremors, nausea, uncontrollable cravings,

headaches, depression, and insomnia.

http://www.preventionsource.org/pdf/marijuana.pdf

Thank you, Not one link to a study found therein. They merely state it is.

Community Advocate · January 24, 2008

Thank you, Not one link to a study found therein. They merely state it is.

They being the ones who study these things, through the addicts themselves - the very people affected. FACT sheet, vs. THOUGHTS sheet.

That, and the addicts who post on public forums, PLUS the experience of those who I am in close relationship with, is enough for me.

Now, go find me a scientific study that has determined that pot is not addictive.

There are none. But there are people saying they are physically addicted.

Just as there is no compelling evidence that mandatory rehab can work well, there is also no compelling evidence that it does not.

Hearing from one who is addicted first hand, that's enough proof for me, (especially along with medical confirmation from 'they') that it can be addictive for some people. As I say the others won't really know until they try.

Edited January 24, 2008 by Community Advocate

guyser · January 24, 2008

Now, go find me a scientific study that has determined that pot is not addictive.

http://www.dpft.org/duia.htm

or

http://www.marijuanalibrary.org/brain2.html
snippet....

Dr. Miles Herkenham of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and his research teams have made the fundamental discoveries behind these findings, and finally contradicted well-known marijuana cynic Gabriel Nahas of Columbia University. Supported in the 1980s by the antidrug group Parents Research Institute for Drug Education (PRIDE), Nahas has long argued that marijuana affects the middle-brain, justifying its prohibition.

Now Herkenham and his associates have proven that marijuana has no direct effect on dopamine production in the striatum, and that most of the drug's effects occur in the relatively "new" (in evolutionary terms) region of the brain - the frontal cerebral cortex. There is now biological evidence that far from being the "gateway" to abusive drugs, marijuana is instead the other way to get high - the safe way.

BubberMiley · January 25, 2008

Children, parents, families, and entire communities can benefit from prohibition, but about profiting from it, I still don't understand that, other than those dealers who grow the stuff and sell it to others, some even sell it to kids.

You don't see how prohibition actually increases consumption? Not only by creating an unregulated environment that makes it easy for kids to have access to drugs, but by creating a way for kids to achieve "outlaw" status among their peers without the mess of anybody actually getting hurt. Haven't you ever wondered why the hundreds of ways for kids to get high legally, ranging from sniffing gas and glue to smoking dried banana peels and nutmeg, are considered so uncool by kids? Prohibition normalizes taking drugs more than regulated legalization would.

Edited January 25, 2008 by BubberMiley

jbg · January 25, 2008

I am sorry but I believe legalizing pot is still on the fringe.

Perhaps the best balance is struck by my state, the State of New York, where pot possession is a violation akin to a traffic ticket and not a crime. This means that the stuff doesn't get sold from a vending machine or supermarket, but the penalties facing pot users are no longer draconian, and don't make them "official' criminals.

It was a consideration in the NDP platform of the last election which is why Mark Emery sold his political soul and voted NDP.

Hey. Don't pick on the party I'd belong to if I were Canadian. Edited January 25, 2008 by Charles Anthony
fixed quotation

BubberMiley · January 25, 2008

Perhaps the best balance is struck by my state, the State of New York, where pot possession is a violation akin to a traffic ticket and not a crime. This means that the stuff doesn't get sold from a vending machine or supermarket, but the penalties facing pot users are no longer draconian, and don't make them "official' criminals.

And the black market and organized crime can still thrive in an unregulated, highly profitable environment.

jbg · January 25, 2008

And the black market and organized crime can still thrive in an unregulated, highly profitable environment.

Better than having every vending machine on limited access highways having a supply of "bud".

BubberMiley · January 25, 2008

Better than having every vending machine on limited access highways having a supply of "bud".

You think there's no middle ground there? Or is debating just easier when any potential middle ground is assumed to be impossible? :lol:

Pliny · January 25, 2008

There is no profit for community advocates. They are unpaid vounteers.

So altruism is your motivation? Do you prefer prescription drugs? Perhaps by advocating drug testing at schools, intervention and the "proper prescription" can "save" many schoolchildren.

I do have a problem with believing you are being entirely honest. Altruism is a rare trait and it must be differentiated from what can be termed "do-gooder meddling" in the lives of others. Putting plumbing in mud huts in African villages would be classified as do-gooder meddling. Allowing people to live as they are used to and to progress or evolve at a sustainable rate, and protecting them from do-gooder meddling would be altruistic.