6 month madaTORY for 1 plant

[M.Dancer]

MAPS

Norton indentfied 100 threats from that link.

You realize that CBC is only reporting...that the study is from McGill?

[Wild Bill]

Norton indentfied 100 threats from that link.

You realize that CBC is only reporting...that the study is from McGill?

One study, vs. how many others? And what percentage of people can expect to suffer serious harm, in the real world? And how does this compare to the health damage from alcohol?

[normanchateau]

You realize that CBC is only reporting...that the study is from McGill?

Imagine that, the CBC reporting only on the one study performed in Canada. Bringing Canadian news to Canadians...absolutely shocking.

[M.Dancer]

One study, vs. how many others? And what percentage of people can expect to suffer serious harm, in the real world? And how does this compare to the health damage from alcohol?

I've linked two....here's more...

The study conducted at the University of Melbourne took MRI pictures of the brains of 15 men who had smoked more than five joints daily for more than 10 years.

It found the parts of their brains that regulate memory and emotion, the hippocampus and the amygdala, were significantly smaller than those of non-users.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/04/2264668.htm

Studies of normal brain development reveal critical areas of the brain that develop during late adolescence, and our study shows that heavy cannabis use is associated with damage in those brain regions," said study leader Manzar Ashtari, Ph.D., director of the Diffusion Image Analysis and Brain Morphometry Laboratory in the Radiology Department of The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090202175105.htm

LONDON — New findings on marijuana's damaging effect on the brain show the drug triggers temporary psychotic symptoms in some people, including hallucinations and paranoid delusions, doctors say.

British doctors took brain scans of 15 healthy volunteers given small doses of two of the active ingredients of cannabis, as well as a placebo.

One compound, cannabidiol, or CBD, made people more relaxed. But even small doses of another component, tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, produced temporary psychotic symptoms in people, including hallucinations and paranoid delusions, doctors said.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269256,00.html

Which is sufficient I believe to curtail nonsense such as this...

Studies show that there is NO brain damage from smoking pot.

[Wild Bill]

I've linked two....here's more...

Ok Dancer, you are TECHNICALLY correct! But really, 5 joints a day for more than 10 years??!! How about some links that also say that kicking back a 40 pounder of rum EVERY DAY FOR MORE THAN 10 YEARS causes damage to your liver?

5 joints a day with modern pot is excessive. You remind me of the old story about how a lab was hired to prove that cyclamates as a sweetener were harmful. They needed to show effects over at least 10 years but the problem was that the rats didn't live that long. So they injected a 10 YEAR DOSE under the rats' skins and then reported that yes indeed, cyclamates were harmful.

They caused lumps and tumours!

[M.Dancer]

How about some links that also say that kicking back a 40 pounder of rum EVERY DAY FOR MORE THAN 10 YEARS causes damage to your liver?

I would believe that study...but I'm sure it's the coke that's bad..

[sharkman]

Not a wonder drug but there's no denying it does have useful applications that the law prevents many people from using.

As for becoming dependent on any drug, what gives society the right to tell someone a drug should be illegal? The fact that booze is legal and pot is not is a clear example of how society is simply not qualified to make that decision. Besides, who's life is it anyway?

When society can tell me I can't smoke pot (even though I haven't in years) then why can't I get to tell everyone else they can't drink daiquiris?

Frankly, when YOU define something as a crutch and YOU support denying ALL your fellow citizens a free choice I find that uncomfortably fascist! It's like having Ned Flanders from the Simpsons suddenly appointed Community Commissar with total dictatorial powers!

Step down from that soap box and get a grip, friend.

What gives society the right to tell someone a drug should be illegal? What exactly does that even mean? At any rate, you've just argued against any drug being illegal so I'll leave you to your 'devices'. Meth is just misunderstood, right?

[maple_leafs182]

I don't get why the government is allowed to tell me how I can live my life. Anyone else not disturbed just by that fact.

Probably not, most people think we need the government to babysit us.

Why does the government try to control how people live there lives. Let us experiment, let us make our own choices, let us be. I don't wanna live in a society where one group of people, minority or majority tries to control how the others should live their lives. I want to live in a free and open society.

EDIT:

Not a wonder drug but there's no denying it does have useful applications that the law prevents many people from using.

As for becoming dependent on any drug, what gives society the right to tell someone a drug should be illegal? The fact that booze is legal and pot is not is a clear example of how society is simply not qualified to make that decision. Besides, who's life is it anyway?

When society can tell me I can't smoke pot (even though I haven't in years) then why can't I get to tell everyone else they can't drink daiquiris?

Frankly, when YOU define something as a crutch and YOU support denying ALL your fellow citizens a free choice I find that uncomfortably fascist! It's like having Ned Flanders from the Simpsons suddenly appointed Community Commissar with total dictatorial powers!

Never saw this post, I agree with with you.

Edited April 28, 2010 by maple_leafs182

[DrGreenthumb]

I don't get why the government is allowed to tell me how I can live my life. Anyone else not disturbed just by that fact.

Probably not, most people think we need the government to babysit us.

Why does the government try to control how people live there lives. Let us experiment, let us make our own choices, let us be. I don't wanna live in a society where one group of people, minority or majority tries to control how the others should live their lives. I want to live in a free and open society.

Exactly! It is none of the government's business how I use my body, until I use it to cause harm to another. It really IS that simple. Alcohol poses a much higher risk of its users harming others than most illegal substances. Certainly a hundredfold of the risks posed by cannabis users to others.

[GostHacked]

LOL, I live a sheltered life, don't know a soul who uses that crap.

So it's against the law, suck it up, you want to be a doper, pay the price.

I am paying the price. But it seems to be cheaper here in Canada than most other countries.

[Wild Bill]

Step down from that soap box and get a grip, friend.

What gives society the right to tell someone a drug should be illegal? What exactly does that even mean? At any rate, you've just argued against any drug being illegal so I'll leave you to your 'devices'. Meth is just misunderstood, right?

Well, I can see how we have our differences. I lean towards being a libertarian. Frankly, I think one of the major reasons society should not have the right to tell me what to do about such things is because society just doesn't seem to be competent!

Have you ever seen the movie "Reefer Madness"? The social authorities who produced that film actually were sincere but they were so ridiculously over the top that they succeeded only in hurting their own credibility.

To me, in the final analysis the decision for one's own body belongs to yourself. Society may provide education. In fact, often you'd be a damn fool not to consider it! Still, it's your life, not society's.

Society also tells terminally ill patients with untreatable pain to "Suck it up! It's good for you! You have no right to a painless euthanasia!"

If I were ever in that position I think I would hate whoever stopped me from choosing my own death worse than I could hate Adolph Eichmann.

I would allow people to freely choose meth, if they were bound and determined to do so. I might try to talk them out of it. I would have a problem with someone encouraging a minor, simply because I don't believe a minor is likely mature enough to make such a decision. However, if it were a responsible adult I would say "It's your life!".

At the same time, I wouldn't want any portion of my tax money paying for his funeral.

You either believe in personal freedom or you don't. Anything else is just a variation of telling your neighbour how to live his life by YOUR standards! To me, a nanny state is something to be feared. Once it gets going it can be impossible to stop. You can end up perfectly safe and healthy but so bored and unfulfilled that you would consider suicide!

[maple_leafs182]

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine" - Thomas Jefferson

To me, a nanny state is something to be feared. Once it gets going it can be impossible to stop.

We do live in a nanny state, both the War on Terrorism and the War on Drugs seem to be propelling it.

[BubberMiley]

The prob with pot is you become dependent on it to improve your reality.

Edited August 27, 2010 by BubberMiley

[Wild Bill]

We do live in a nanny state, both the War on Terrorism and the War on Drugs seem to be propelling it.

Oh dear. It hurts when people rub it in!

Meanwhile, as for both wars, I guess success speaks for itself...NOT!

[sharkman]

I don't get why the government is allowed to tell me how I can live my life. Anyone else not disturbed just by that fact.

Probably not, most people think we need the government to babysit us.

Why does the government try to control how people live there lives. Let us experiment, let us make our own choices, let us be. I don't wanna live in a society where one group of people, minority or majority tries to control how the others should live their lives. I want to live in a free and open society.

Are you serious? The government tells you how fast you can drive. It tells you to buy car insurance. It tells you to wear clothes. It tells you to attend school until grade... It tells you not to steal. It molds and shapes your life in literally thousands of ways, you're just another who's found one you don't like. Oh, and get off that cell phone while you are driving.

[sharkman]

No. Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about. The beauty of pot is you never become dependent. I've stopped cold turkey during extended visits to the U.S. after years and years of chronic use. Rather than some minor craving, there were no other recognizable physical effects. You do, however, improve your reality, and that's why I'll always go back. I don't have to, but I feel I would be stupid not to.

It's true what they say on Family Guy that everything is better with a bag of weed.

We have a winner, folks. Someone who is dependent on the reality that pot provides, preferring it over the real one. Carry on wayward son.

[maple_leafs182]

Are you serious? The government tells you how fast you can drive. It tells you to buy car insurance. It tells you to wear clothes. It tells you to attend school until grade... It tells you not to steal. It molds and shapes your life in literally thousands of ways, you're just another who's found one you don't like. Oh, and get off that cell phone while you are driving.

Well this one is personal to me and millions of others. It isn't just a law to protect society it's a law attacking our freedoms and way of life. I get it, you don't smoke pot, I don't care, I do and this matters to me.

[normanchateau]

Well this one is personal to me and millions of others. It isn't just a law to protect society it's a law attacking our freedoms and way of life. I get it, you don't smoke pot, I don't care, I do and this matters to me.

One of the unfortunate consequences of having a socially conservative Prime Minister is that Stephen Harper is now even out of step with police chiefs in his utterly anti-libertarian view on this issue. The police themselves now acknowledge that they have more important tasks and little interest in arresting people for possession of marijuana:

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Police+chief+supports+marijuana+decriminalization/2950487/story.html

[BubberMiley]

We have a winner, folks. Someone who is dependent on the reality that pot provides, preferring it over the real one. Carry on wayward son.

I can understand the jealousy of those who resent my more pleasurable world and don't feel they have the self-control to enter it themselves.

[M.Dancer]

One of the unfortunate consequences of having a socially conservative Prime Minister is that Stephen Harper is now even out of step with police chiefs.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Police+chief+supports+marijuana+decriminalization/2950487/story.html

How is he out of step if he believes that weed is dangerous just like this ONE chief...?

[maple_leafs182]

One of the unfortunate consequences of having a socially conservative Prime Minister is that Stephen Harper is now even out of step with police chiefs in his utterly anti-libertarian view on this issue. The police themselves now acknowledge that they have more important tasks and little interest in arresting people for possession of marijuana:

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Police+chief+supports+marijuana+decriminalization/2950487/story.html

He believes in decriminalization, that doesn't take the crime out of it. Legalization would take the money away from gangs.

I can understand the jealousy of those who resent my more pleasurable world and don't feel they have the self-control to enter it themselves.

I'm with you on this.

[sharkman]

He believes in decriminalization, that doesn't take the crime out of it. Legalization would take the money away from gangs.

Legalization would see a flurry of gangs starting businesses(they already have legitimate businesses so they certainly have the know how). They would already have the grow-op infrastructure; buildings housing grow-ops, dealer network and people skilled in the various areas needed. You think that if they legalize pot the gangs would just go, "Oh well, it was good while it lasted!"? Come on. They would fight to keep that revenue stream, and probably fight dirty. And since it would be legal, of course consumption would go up creating more demand.

[bloodyminded]

Legalization would see a flurry of gangs starting businesses(they already have legitimate businesses so they certainly have the know how). They would already have the grow-op infrastructure; buildings housing grow-ops, dealer network and people skilled in the various areas needed. You think that if they legalize pot the gangs would just go, "Oh well, it was good while it lasted!"? Come on. They would fight to keep that revenue stream, and probably fight dirty. And since it would be legal, of course consumption would go up creating more demand.

I think these are really good points (mob activity went up, not down, after the end of prohibition).

However, there's no evidence for your last statement; and some evidence against it. Pot-smoking per capita is about the same in San Francisco as it is in Amsterdam. True, it's only one study...but that's superior to the zero studies which provide evidence of your claim here.

Edited April 30, 2010 by bloodyminded

[sharkman]

Per capita use in Amsterdam and San Francisco can not be directly compared. Different cultures, different norms and different historical usage. One study does not end the matter.

Did booze consumption go up when prohibition ended? Human nature being what it is, what makes you think pot use won't go up. It'll also get cheaper. Any first year economics student can tell you what that will do to demand.

[bloodyminded]

One study does not end the matter.

No...as I very openly and explicitly conceded.

However, you seem to be under the impression that zero studies is more compelling evidence than one.

Did booze consumption go up when prohibition ended?

The two situations aren't even faintly related...because alcohol was legal before it was illegal. It was perfectly common and part of the cultural habit.

A proper analogy would be to think of a substance that was always (or at least for generations) illegal..and then became legal.

Human nature being what it is, what makes you think pot use won't go up.

Are the citizens of Amsterdam not human?