Political Crossfire Forums

[mathurin]

Jezebel wrote: Quote: your sample population is too small, and your observation is biased by your own usage, your study is invalid

Like I've said before, with all of my personal experiences with the many, many people I've met who use the drug, I have yet to meet a single one with negative effects. When these studies completely contradict everything I've seen with my own eyes, I question the source.

it becomes a difference of opinion then, because all the users i have met confirm the studies i read, perhaps your bias is affecting your observations

Jezebel wrote:
Quote: which is most harmful, to mislead people into thinking a less than harmful substance they dont need is indeed harmful. or to mislead people into thinking a harmful substance is no, if the current research is lies than explain exactly how they hurt anyone?

You want to lie to people to push your own agenda. I perfer honesty regardless of whether or not it clashes with my personal beliefs.

but you fail to see that their is no truth in the matter, all the research is driven by someone with an agenda, in such a situation honesty is impossible, choosing the option that does the least damage should now be the objective


Jezebel wrote:
Quote:
perhaps we should also watch a micheal moore movie
i dont have time, but if you would mention some of the points i will see whats going on

You apparently have not heard of this movie. :lol:

Read the movie synopsis: http://www.reefer-madness-movie.com/

no i havent heard of itm, read the synopsis, still doesnt give any reason for the gov to lie about drug use

i have no doubt the gov info is misleading, both sides are
Jezebel wrote:
Quote: funny, i do my yoga late at night, and i consider watching TV to be more constructive than substance usage

That is a matter of opinion. Watching Jay Leno is not very constructive IMO while trying to get to sleep so I can make it through another day seems to be very constructive. Exercising too close to bed time can actually make it harder for you to get to sleep, not easier. Yoga also takes awhile to do properly. When I got home at 12:30am, it was not the best idea to spend 45- 60 minutes doing an activity that will then require me to take a shower and can disrupt my sleep.

so i dont go through an entire workout, 20 mins or so, shower, bed, and i usually go right to sleep, which i never do otherwise
Jezebel wrote:
Quote:
because the items you specifed are prescribed or applied by a medical proffesional, someone with objective judgement and training in the chemicals, you do not have objective judgement and i doubt you have any real training in the matter

Perhaps you've heard of Marinol?

I'm not understanding your point. The federal government refuses to acknowledge that marijuana has any medicinal properties (they even list cocaine as having some medical uses) even though there's already a drug approved by the FDA that is the main active ingredient in marijuana.

i have never denied that there could be some medical use for marijuana

my point is that medicine is used to treat illness, you do not have an illness
medicine is prescribed by doctors who can be objective because they are not under the effects themselves
recreational use has one purpose, fun (there are many sleep aids you could have used, so dont give me insomnia)
and it is not watched by someone with objective judgement, you are under the influence so you are not objective in the matter

i was pointing out that your comparison to medical use of drugs is way out of the ballpark
Jezebel wrote:
Quote: marijuana is used to have fun (when not prescribed) prozac and others are used to offset medical conditions, they dont give you enough drugs for your toothache to make you high, they give you enough to dull or remove the pain, medicine is use, recreation is abuse

I believe mental and physical exhaustion is a medical condition. Actually they did give me enough to make me "high" because I had no tolerance to codeine. Also, using it as a sleep aid (keep in mind there are many prescription sleep aids on the market but the major difference being almost all of them are *very* addictive, unlike marijuana) is not for "recreation." Funny thing is I've come across two people in my life in the past two weeks who were given prescription sleep medications that they did not need. At least one of them was smart enough to refuse to take it.

ahh spoke too soon, there are many sleep aids as you said, and the risk of dependence is low when used properly, but for what you are talking about you dont need to go that high powered, dont kid yourself, everyone has dealt with mental and physical exhaustion, you dont need drugs


Jezebel wrote:
Quote: and yet i still say legalize it

Okay.

[Jezebel]

mathurin wrote:
it becomes a difference of opinion then, because all the users i have met confirm the studies i read, perhaps your bias is affecting your observations

I used to believe the hype when I was a kid. I thought people who smoked marijuana were bad people. I ignored the fact that none of the people I knew who did it were suffering the ill effects because it had been drilled into my head for several years that it was bad.

Quote:
but you fail to see that their is no truth in the matter, all the research is driven by someone with an agenda, in such a situation honesty is impossible, choosing the option that does the least damage should now be the objective

You have no right to bend the truth to push your POV. I'll get worse long term side effects from taking too much Ibuprofen than I will from smoking marijuana.

Quote:
no i havent heard of itm, read the synopsis, still doesnt give any reason for the gov to lie about drug use

The film shows the types of propaganda the government used to use with marijuana until people were smart enough not to buy it anymore. I found a lie on a government website yesterday:

http://www.dea.gov/concern/marijuana_factsheet.html#2

It claims that marijuana is physically addictive. While I would accept that it may be mentally addictive to some people who have a predisposition for addiction, it is not physically addictive.

Quote: i have no doubt the gov info is misleading, both sides are

Where have I been misleading? I've never once claimed that marijuana was harmless. That seems to be the basis of your argument.

Quote: so i dont go through an entire workout, 20 mins or so, shower, bed, and i usually go right to sleep, which i never do otherwise

And exercising right before bed has always kept me awake.

Quote: i have never denied that there could be some medical use for marijuana

my point is that medicine is used to treat illness, you do not have an illness

Medicine is used to treat a medical condition, not just an illness. I'm sure if you thought for a couple of minutes, you'd be able to name dozens of drugs off the top of your head that exist purely to treat symptoms or conditions and not an illness.

Quote: medicine is prescribed by doctors who can be objective because they are not under the effects themselves
recreational use has one purpose, fun (there are many sleep aids you could have used, so dont give me insomnia)

1. Most prescription sleep aids require that you dedicate a minimum amount of time for sleep (usually 8 hours). Any less than that and you'll actually make things worse because you would still be under the influence of the drug when you attempt to wake up. My problem was not so much lacking the ability to sleep so much as lacking the time to sleep. Using marijuana made the sleep I did have time for more restful without the serious side effects that go hand and hand with prescription sleep medications that, considering the circumstances, would have had no benefits to them whatsoever.

2. Since my mom was out of work, I didn't have health insurance so getting a prescription for something like that even if it would apply to this situation (which it didn't) was out of the question due to cost.

Quote: and it is not watched by someone with objective judgement, you are under the influence so you are not objective in the matter

I'm under the influence now?

Quote: i was pointing out that your comparison to medical use of drugs is way out of the ballpark

You're trying to claim that nobody can objectively choose to use a substance for a medical condition unless they are a doctor. Unfortunately the FDA disagrees with you or we wouldn't have OTC drugs.

One of the things I find very ironic is that if you research or even just listen to a pharmaceutical commerical, most of the drugs will have not only a longer list but a list populated with much more hazardous side effects than marijuana has ever had (even if we were to take the government's view on the drug at face value).

Let's take Zocor for example: http://www.zocor.com/simvastatin/zocor/consumer/product_information/ppi/side_effects.jsp

Side effects include cancer, memory loss, psychic disturbances, depression, impotence, anxiety

Those were just the ones that you could make a link to marijuana side effects yet with Zocor people downplay those side effects while focusing entirely on those (even though their validity is questionable) with marijuana. Why is that? Would you say that because of the slight risk of serious side effects that people should not use Zocor even when they may have many benefits from using it? This is where that social stigma comes in. Many people would see Zocor as a miracle of modern science while marijuana is seen as a burden on society even though Zocor can actually have worse side effects.

Quote: ahh spoke too soon, there are many sleep aids as you said, and the risk of dependence is low when used properly, but for what you are talking about you dont need to go that high powered, dont kid yourself, everyone has dealt with mental and physical exhaustion, you dont need drugs

Did I ever say that I needed it? Many people take medications that they don't necessarily "need." I don't need to take tylenol when I have a headache but I choose to. I don't need cough syrup when I'm sick but I choose to use it. I don't "need" a lot of things. That's not the point.

[Sukoi]

Mat,

This is the gist of the “Schedule I Lie”:

Schedule I substances are considered by the government as the most dangerous and they put marijuana in the same schedule as that of heroin and LSD, cocaine and PCP are schedule II substances and opium is in schedule III. If marijuana even belongs on the list at all, it should be in schedule V.

(1) SCHEDULE I.

(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.

(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.

(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

This is the big reason to call the classification of marijuana as a "Schedule I Lie" as it has to met the criteria of A, B and C to be classified as schedule I and it doesn't. It obviously doesn't meet the criteria for either B or C, either of which would disqualify it from schedule I status, so even if there is any kind of weak argument over A, it is all but moot.

As far as the government lying goes, you should read this:

Bad Medicine?

There is also a HUGE discussion following the article; some good stuff.

And here's a bit more:

Cannabis Cure Miracle or Myth?

[mathurin]

Jezebel wrote: mathurin wrote:
it becomes a difference of opinion then, because all the users i have met confirm the studies i read, perhaps your bias is affecting your observations

I used to believe the hype when I was a kid. I thought people who smoked marijuana were bad people. I ignored the fact that none of the people I knew who did it were suffering the ill effects because it had been drilled into my head for several years that it was bad.

i am not saying that everyone who smokes dope are bad, but in my personal experience it leads to self destruction, and cleaning up and/or staying clean should be the objective

Jezebel wrote:
Quote:
but you fail to see that their is no truth in the matter, all the research is driven by someone with an agenda, in such a situation honesty is impossible, choosing the option that does the least damage should now be the objective

You have no right to bend the truth to push your POV. I'll get worse long term side effects from taking too much Ibuprofen than I will from smoking marijuana.

how long have you been in politics?
everybody on all sides of the debate on anything lie, thats just the way it goes in politics, your side claims it is less harmful than ibuprofen, how close to harmless is that (pretty damn close)

Jezebel wrote:
Quote:
no i havent heard of itm, read the synopsis, still doesnt give any reason for the gov to lie about drug use

The film shows the types of propaganda the government used to use with marijuana until people were smart enough not to buy it anymore. I found a lie on a government website yesterday:

http://www.dea.gov/concern/marijuana_factsheet.html#2

It claims that marijuana is physically addictive. While I would accept that it may be mentally addictive to some people who have a predisposition for addiction, it is not physically addictive.

it says _may_ cause physical dependency, and i had to read through it twice to even see it, it is simple, you use a drug, your body becomes accustomed to the drug and does not function properly without it, if it is cut off immediatly

now if i understand it right THC stays in your system for sometime, slowly making its way out so that your body becomes accustomed to being without it, unlike other substances, so withdrawals are minimal, but your body is still dependent on it for that period of time

its misleading, but not a lie
Jezebel wrote:
Quote: i have no doubt the gov info is misleading, both sides are

Where have I been misleading? I've never once claimed that marijuana was harmless. That seems to be the basis of your argument.

the gov overstates the danger, you understand it, above you claim ibuprofen has more side effects, most people consider ibuprofen to be as harmless as most drugs come

Jezebel wrote:
Quote: so i dont go through an entire workout, 20 mins or so, shower, bed, and i usually go right to sleep, which i never do otherwise

And exercising right before bed has always kept me awake.

maybe you do yoga differently than me

Jezebel wrote:
Quote: i have never denied that there could be some medical use for marijuana

my point is that medicine is used to treat illness, you do not have an illness

Medicine is used to treat a medical condition, not just an illness. I'm sure if you thought for a couple of minutes, you'd be able to name dozens of drugs off the top of your head that exist purely to treat symptoms or conditions and not an illness.

surely you can see you are nitpicking here, fine, medicine is used to treat illnesses and symptoms of illnesses (the common denominator being the illness and combating it, or at least mitigating the damage to allow your body to better combat it)

happy now, it changes nothing, medicine is for the sick, not the healthy wanting to get high

Jezebel wrote:
Quote: medicine is prescribed by doctors who can be objective because they are not under the effects themselves
recreational use has one purpose, fun (there are many sleep aids you could have used, so dont give me insomnia)

1. Most prescription sleep aids require that you dedicate a minimum amount of time for sleep (usually 8 hours). Any less than that and you'll actually make things worse because you would still be under the influence of the drug when you attempt to wake up. My problem was not so much lacking the ability to sleep so much as lacking the time to sleep. Using marijuana made the sleep I did have time for more restful without the serious side effects that go hand and hand with prescription sleep medications that, considering the circumstances, would have had no benefits to them whatsoever.

2. Since my mom was out of work, I didn't have health insurance so getting a prescription for something like that even if it would apply to this situation (which it didn't) was out of the question due to cost.

note: i never said anything about a prescription


Jezebel wrote:
Quote: and it is not watched by someone with objective judgement, you are under the influence so you are not objective in the matter

I'm under the influence now?

your judgement into your own usage is not objective because you feel the effects, doctors are not (or shouldnt be) allowed to prescribe pain meds for themselves, use generally leads to abuse

my mom has serious medical problems, occasionally she is prescribed predisone (a steroid) for a short time, she always feels good on it, or at least closer to normal, but it has side effects so she, and her doctor limits her usage, but she is thinking of her health, prednisone is bad for bones so she does her best to avoid it unless absolutly neccesary. the side effect is obvious, you claim there are no serious side effects to marijuana, which is why i say your judgement is not objective, you are using to feel good, and to hell with the consequences

Jezebel wrote:
Quote: i was pointing out that your comparison to medical use of drugs is way out of the ballpark

You're trying to claim that nobody can objectively choose to use a substance for a medical condition unless they are a doctor. Unfortunately the FDA disagrees with you or we wouldn't have OTC drugs.

One of the things I find very ironic is that if you research or even just listen to a pharmaceutical commerical, most of the drugs will have not only a longer list but a list populated with much more hazardous side effects than marijuana has ever had (even if we were to take the government's view on the drug at face value).

i am claiming that nobody can objectively use certain drugs, and the FDA agrees with me or there wouldnt be prescription drugs

the lists are made because drug companies are obliged to list any side effects no matter how small, and it is entirely different situation, the people are taking the drug because they have a serious medical condition

people generally smoke pot to feel good
Jezebel wrote:
Let's take Zocor for example: http://www.zocor.com/simvastatin/zocor/consumer/product_information/ppi/side_effects.jsp

Side effects include cancer, memory loss, psychic disturbances, depression, impotence, anxiety

Those were just the ones that you could make a link to marijuana side effects yet with Zocor people downplay those side effects while focusing entirely on those (even though their validity is questionable) with marijuana. Why is that? Would you say that because of the slight risk of serious side effects that people should not use Zocor even when they may have many benefits from using it? This is where that social stigma comes in. Many people would see Zocor as a miracle of modern science while marijuana is seen as a burden on society even though Zocor can actually have worse side effects.


because the positive effects outweigh the negative affects

if you can find a disease which marijuana treats better than any other drug then fine prescribe it.
benefits of zocor:
lower blood pressure, prevent heart attack

benefits of marijuana:
get high, stare at wall for 3 hours

score 1 for zocor
though even zocor patients are supposed to take diet and exercise seriously before going to the drug option, some dont because the drug option is easier

taking the easy way out, sound familiar?
Jezebel wrote:
Quote: ahh spoke too soon, there are many sleep aids as you said, and the risk of dependence is low when used properly, but for what you are talking about you dont need to go that high powered, dont kid yourself, everyone has dealt with mental and physical exhaustion, you dont need drugs

Did I ever say that I needed it? Many people take medications that they don't necessarily "need." I don't need to take tylenol when I have a headache but I choose to. I don't need cough syrup when I'm sick but I choose to use it. I don't "need" a lot of things. That's not the point.
when i dont need to take medicine i dont take it. if i have a headache but am not doing anything i live with it, i dont take anything unless i have need of a clear head, like school, work or studying
if my sore throat is minor i use mouthwash

i limit my substance intake, because i am a healthy strong male at this moment, now when i get older and cannot deal with the problems, i will use more medicine

but now you have fessed up, you do not need drugs at all, and even if the side effects are minor why do you take them if you do not need them, minor is still worse than none

still, i support your choice, i just want to treat it like all other legal drugs are currently treated, how does that make me evil

[mathurin]

Sukoi wrote: Mat,

This is the gist of the “Schedule I Lie”:

Schedule I substances are considered by the government as the most dangerous and they put marijuana in the same schedule as that of heroin and LSD, cocaine and PCP are schedule II substances and opium is in schedule III. If marijuana even belongs on the list at all, it should be in schedule V.

(1) SCHEDULE I.

(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.

(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.

(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

This is the big reason to call the classification of marijuana as a "Schedule I Lie" as it has to met the criteria of A, B and C to be classified as schedule I and it doesn't. It obviously doesn't meet the criteria for either B or C, either of which would disqualify it from schedule I status, so even if there is any kind of weak argument over A, it is all but moot.

As far as the government lying goes, you should read this:

Bad Medicine?

There is also a HUGE discussion following the article; some good stuff.

And here's a bit more:

Cannabis Cure Miracle or Myth?

well i can argree that it needs to be moved down the list, but looking at your own article should show you just how much your side lies as well

it amazes me that people cannot see propaganda, even when it supports them, i know the gov misleads, but i dont think they mislead as much as those who claim it is nearly harmless and i do think that it is not too much to ask to treat it exactly like currently legal drugs

[Sukoi]

mathurin wrote: Sukoi wrote: Mat,

This is the gist of the “Schedule I Lie”:

Schedule I substances are considered by the government as the most dangerous and they put marijuana in the same schedule as that of heroin and LSD, cocaine and PCP are schedule II substances and opium is in schedule III. If marijuana even belongs on the list at all, it should be in schedule V.

(1) SCHEDULE I.

(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.

(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.

(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

This is the big reason to call the classification of marijuana as a "Schedule I Lie" as it has to met the criteria of A, B and C to be classified as schedule I and it doesn't. It obviously doesn't meet the criteria for either B or C, either of which would disqualify it from schedule I status, so even if there is any kind of weak argument over A, it is all but moot.

As far as the government lying goes, you should read this:

Bad Medicine?

There is also a HUGE discussion following the article; some good stuff.

And here's a bit more:

Cannabis Cure Miracle or Myth?

well i can argree that it needs to be moved down the list, but looking at your own article should show you just how much your side lies as well

it amazes me that people cannot see propaganda, even when it supports them, i know the gov misleads, but i dont think they mislead as much as those who claim it is nearly harmless and i do think that it is not too much to ask to treat it exactly like currently legal drugs What lies and propaganda? Please point out what you consider as such.

I agree, it should be treated no different than alcohol and tobacco.

[Jezebel]

mathurin wrote: i am not saying that everyone who smokes dope are bad, but in my personal experience it leads to self destruction, and cleaning up and/or staying clean should be the objective

Self destruction in what way?

Is that also your objective with alcohol or do you think it's alright to have a drink every now and then when you're dining out? Or do people only drink alcohol to be drunk?

Quote:
how long have you been in politics?
everybody on all sides of the debate on anything lie, thats just the way it goes in politics, your side claims it is less harmful than ibuprofen, how close to harmless is that (pretty damn close)

Wrong. Ibuprofen can cause stomach bleeding and liver damage if you take more than directed or you use it too often. There are risks even with "close to harmless" drugs.

Quote:
it says _may_ cause physical dependency, and i had to read through it twice to even see it, it is simple, you use a drug, your body becomes accustomed to the drug and does not function properly without it, if it is cut off immediatly

It has been shown time and time again that marijuana does not cause physical dependence, ever, period. There's no "may" involved. It's the same thing with these cancer claims. Smoking marijuana "may" cause cancer yet nobody has ever died cancer that can be attributed to marijuana smoking, ever.

Quote: now if i understand it right THC stays in your system for sometime, slowly making its way out so that your body becomes accustomed to being without it, unlike other substances, so withdrawals are minimal, but your body is still dependent on it for that period of time

Now you're just making things up. I'd suffer worse withdrawal symptoms from caffeine than anybody has ever had from marijuana.

Quote: its misleading, but not a lie

In your book, misleading is okay. In my book, misleading is the same thing as lying. If you stretch the truth, it's no longer the truth.

Quote:
the gov overstates the danger, you understand it, above you claim ibuprofen has more side effects, most people consider ibuprofen to be as harmless as most drugs come

If used in excess, Ibuprofen can have serious side effects. Even if you take the recommended dosage but take it more often than or for a longer duration than directed, you can suffer from gastrointestinal bleeding.

Quote: surely you can see you are nitpicking here, fine, medicine is used to treat illnesses and symptoms of illnesses (the common denominator being the illness and combating it, or at least mitigating the damage to allow your body to better combat it)

Many medications, especially those designed to be used in conjuction with a viral illness (such as the common cold), treat symptoms only. You were the one nitpicking. You tried to tell me that because I didn't have a specific illness, I shouldn't be allowed to take anything for it. My contention was that there are many drugs on the market that exist purely to treat a specific symptom and not the illness (if a specific one can be detected or even exists) itself.

Quote: happy now, it changes nothing, medicine is for the sick, not the healthy wanting to get high

Are you calling me a liar? I never once said the reason I used it was to get high. If it made it easier for me to function through the day by getting a better night's rest, I don't see the issue with using it. Your below story, do you fault your mom for feeling good on that specific drug? Because she happened to get a high from it, did that change her reasons for using it or was it and added effect that she could enjoy? If she enjoyed it, does that make her or that drug irresponsible?

Quote: note: i never said anything about a prescription

It was implied: "there are many sleep aids you could have used, so dont give me insomnia."

I never even said I had insomnia (it's quite obvious that I didn't).

Quote: your judgement into your own usage is not objective because you feel the effects, doctors are not (or shouldnt be) allowed to prescribe pain meds for themselves, use generally leads to abuse

With something that is physically addictive or you easily develop a tolerance to, I would see it how it *could* lead to abuse depending on the user and the specific drug. Marijuana is not physically addictive and users do not develop a tolerance to it. Many studies show that chronic users actually develop a lower tolerance to marijuana.

Quote: my mom has serious medical problems, occasionally she is prescribed predisone (a steroid) for a short time, she always feels good on it, or at least closer to normal, but it has side effects so she, and her doctor limits her usage, but she is thinking of her health, prednisone is bad for bones so she does her best to avoid it unless absolutly neccesary. the side effect is obvious, you claim there are no serious side effects to marijuana, which is why i say your judgement is not objective, you are using to feel good, and to hell with the consequences

I was using it to sleep better. If you're going to debate me, I'd appreciate not having words put in my mouth. Your mom did, however, use this drug when the benefits outweighed the possible risks, correct? The benefits, at the time, outweighed any of the (minimal) risks. You might have noticed in my original post I mentioned that I don't smoke it much. The last time I smoked was over 6 months ago. If I was using during that time period only because I wanted to be high, don't you think I would have continued to smoke it just as much even after my circumstances changed? But I didn't.

Quote: i am claiming that nobody can objectively use certain drugs, and the FDA agrees with me or there wouldnt be prescription drugs

You're now adding modifiers when I find holes in your arguments. Now it's only "certain" drugs. Apparently you are the best judge of what "certain" is seeing as the FDA does not regulate the use of marijuana.

Quote: the lists are made because drug companies are obliged to list any side effects no matter how small, and it is entirely different situation, the people are taking the drug because they have a serious medical condition

Not all prescription drugs are used to treat a "serious" medical condition.

Quote: people generally smoke pot to feel good

People generally drink alcohol to feel good. Does that make alcohol a bad thing even when used responsibly? Most people would say no because society views having an occasional drink at a party as harmless where as the occasional use of marijuana, no matter the reason, is wrong and dangerous. Even if it's not, we should lie and say it is to protect people from themselves.


Quote: because the positive effects outweigh the negative affects

Exactly.

Quote: if you can find a disease which marijuana treats better than any other drug then fine prescribe it.
benefits of zocor:
lower blood pressure, prevent heart attack

Marinol is a prescription drug. Actual marijuana works better (which can be due to many factors including the method of absorption and the fact that marijuana has more chemicals in it besides THC) and is cheaper than it's prescription counter part.

Quote: benefits of marijuana:
get high, stare at wall for 3 hours

:lol: It would really help your argument if you actually had some background information on the topic that you show a complete lack of in this statement (or you are purposely forgetting the facts).

We can start with the benefits that even the FDA has given the green light to through the prescription drug Marinol (which is THC):

Quote: MARINOL® is a unique prescription medicine that may relieve multiple symptoms. The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved MARINOL® to treat nausea and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy in patients who have failed to respond adequately to conventional treatments.

The FDA also approved MARINOL® to treat appetite loss associated with weight loss in people with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). Your health care professional may prescribe MARINOL® to help stimulate your appetite so you’ll want to eat again.

http://www.marinol.com/marinol01.html

Quote: IS MARINOL® safe?

MARINOL® has been proven to be safe and generally well tolerated. The most frequently reported side effects during clinical studies involved the nervous system and included dizziness, feelings of exaggerated happiness, paranoid reaction, drowsiness, and thinking abnormally.

Important note: Be sure that there is a responsible person nearby when you first start taking MARINOL® (or if your health care professional decides to change your dose) in case any of these side effects occur. Do not drive a car or operate machinery until you know how MARINOL® affects you. Exercise caution when taking sedatives, hypnotics, or other mind-altering substances, or drinking alcohol while taking MARINOL®. There is a potential for additive central nervous system effects such as dizziness and drowsiness.

The effects you get from MARINOL® are determined in large part by the amount of the medication you take. These effects can vary considerably from one patient to another.
Your health care professional will work closely with you to determine the dose of MARINOL® that is best for you.

Your MARINOL® dosage may need to be adjusted to maximize its benefits or to decrease any side effects.

Depending on your dose, you’ll often find that these types of side effects (if they occur at all) generally decrease or stop after you’ve taken MARINOL® for 1 to 3 days. Your health care professional may suggest other ways (such as reducing the dose or taking MARINOL® in the evening or at bedtime) to minimize any side effects you may notice.

http://www.marinol.com/marinol04.html

Don't see any "may cause slight self destruction or feelings of apathy" in there.

Quote: score 1 for zocor
though even zocor patients are supposed to take diet and exercise seriously before going to the drug option, some dont because the drug option is easier

taking the easy way out, sound familiar?

Yes, by working 30 hours a week, going to school full time, paying bills, making good grades, and basically taking over the role as the head of the household from my mother, I was taking the easy way out.

Quote: when i dont need to take medicine i dont take it. if i have a headache but am not doing anything i live with it, i dont take anything unless i have need of a clear head, like school, work or studying
if my sore throat is minor i use mouthwash

Why do you think I needed better sleep? Was it perhaps to have a clearer head for school, work, and studying. Unlike many sleep aids and alcohol, marijuana does not cause any kind of hangover effect in the morning. The fact that I got more restful sleep when I used marijuana actually made me more clearheaded than I would have been without it. In fact, such a thing actually happened. For a couple of weeks I didn't smoke anything. Towards the end of those two weeks, I got progressively worse. I used to listen to music in the morning when I got dressed. One day, I was putting my makeup on. I was sitting in my room trying to put eyeliner on which requires me to hold one I closed and watching with the other one to draw the line. The music started to warp in the background and I almost fell asleep because I closed one eye. I almost passed out right there. When I got to the school, the minute my friend saw me she asked if I had been drinking because I actually looked drunk because I had a hard time walking normally and I couldn't keep my eyes open all the way. The rest of the day I continued to have audio hallucinations.

Quote: i limit my substance intake, because i am a healthy strong male at this moment, now when i get older and cannot deal with the problems, i will use more medicine

That's your choice but I wouldn't hold it against you for using Advil if you had a headache every day for six months.

Quote: but now you have fessed up, you do not need drugs at all, and even if the side effects are minor why do you take them if you do not need them, minor is still worse than none

I don't recall saying I couldn't function without it, just that it made it easier to function and allowed me to be more successful as a worker and student (because I wasn't walking around like a drunken zombie). Maybe you should actually read what I'm saying and not judge me based on your own views without knowing the whole story. Why do people take Advil for headaches? Is there something wrong with wanting a headache to go away? Is there something wrong with wanting a better night's sleep?

Quote: still, i support your choice, i just want to treat it like all other legal drugs are currently treated, how does that make me evil

Where did I call you evil?

You support my choice but still judge me on a personal level.

[Nielad]

John Galt wrote:
You're right -- legalize murder too while we're at it.

What a terribly unintellegent reason.

Well how is this for a reason? Marijuana doesn't directly affect other's safety. Sure you can give an example of a family that was torn apart and had to go on wellfare, but the same example could be given for alcohol. Muder on the other had, keeps people from living. Marijuana doesn't do this.


ET Brit wrote:
The following list is published by the American Council for Drug Education

Marijuana Dangers

Impaired perception
Diminished short-term memory
Loss of concentration and coordination
Impaired judgement
Increased risk of accidents
Loss of motivation
Diminished inhibitions
Increased heart rate
Anxiety, panic attacks, and paranoia
Hallucinations
Damage to the respiratory, reproductive, and immune systems
Increased risk of cancer
Psychological dependency


Interesting how alcohol has almost all the possible same effects. Alcohol also has another possible side effect: death. Marijuana does not.

mathurin wrote:
ok, there is one exception to the rule, that certainly disproves the whole ball of wax, like finding one person who survived a fall froma tall building disproves the idea that falling off a tall building will kill you


Yes, but falling off tall buildings isn't illegal. Nor is suicide.

As for people that connect marijuana with lowlifes...Alcohol is worse for you, yet most successful people drink it on occasions. Anyone who smokes marijuana in excess already has a lifestyle of excess, if they weren't smoking marijuana they would be drinking, driving fast, or finding some other legal thrill to abuse. The only reason we don't hear of more successfull people that smoke weed is because its illegal. Some don't care about flaunting it, like my avatar.

Marijuana is not an aggressive drug such as alcohol, pcp, cocaine, etc. Those drugs are dangerous to others that may or may not use them. Marijuana can only be potentially harmful to the user.

SweetJeebusChrist wrote:
So you would tell me that because some other person might do something stupid on the drug, I'm not allowed to? Are we a nation of babies? Can we not take responsibility for our actions? The gun phrase is just as applicable to drugs: Drugs don't kill people. People kill people. A responsible person can take these drugs and not harm others. We can't just ban things because of potential danger to others. Should we ban tobacco for second hand smoke? Alcohol for drunken rampages? Cars for car accidents? Guns because people kill people with them? Shall we ban knives and stoves because of kitchen accidents while we're at it? How about airplanes, and fireworks, and scissors, and pencils, and protractors, and forks, and matches? We can't protect everybody from everything, and it isn't very fair to single a few things out just because some people deem them to be dubious. That is the real reason people ban drugs: They view drugs as evil and dirty, and use the "they're dangerous" thing as something to say as to why they're banned. There are things out there that are several times as dangerous as drugs that we use all the time, but they're not banned. Cell phones kill a lot more people than drugs in car accidents, but we haven't banned cell phones.

It just seems idiotic that anybody should be able to tell me what I can put in my body. America wasn't meant to be a Fascist society. Is the government going to start telling us what else we can't eat? Chicken? Chocolate? Anything that makes us fat? They have to protect this good nation from obesity, of course. If we allow this "danger" excuse to pass, the government can ban anything they want and get away with it. I wouldn't put it past the politicians we have now-a-days. I can't wait until the day that The United States lives up to the standards of freedom we sing about in our most patriotic songs.

We shout Democracy across the world, but our most basic rights as human beings are violated on our home front.

Exactly, except for the part about cell phones. New York has banned them while driving, so will North Carolina this December. But there are way more car accidents involving a cell phone then not. But once again, car accidents effect others than just the initial person being careless.

My point is, Marijuana should be legalized. It isn't the government's right to restrict something that isn't even really that harmful.

[Nielad]

nice sig by the way jezebel. i love that game.

[mathurin]

Sukoi wrote: mathurin wrote: Sukoi wrote: Mat,

This is the gist of the “Schedule I Lie”:

Schedule I substances are considered by the government as the most dangerous and they put marijuana in the same schedule as that of heroin and LSD, cocaine and PCP are schedule II substances and opium is in schedule III. If marijuana even belongs on the list at all, it should be in schedule V.

(1) SCHEDULE I.

(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.

(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.

(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

This is the big reason to call the classification of marijuana as a "Schedule I Lie" as it has to met the criteria of A, B and C to be classified as schedule I and it doesn't. It obviously doesn't meet the criteria for either B or C, either of which would disqualify it from schedule I status, so even if there is any kind of weak argument over A, it is all but moot.

As far as the government lying goes, you should read this:

Bad Medicine?

There is also a HUGE discussion following the article; some good stuff.

And here's a bit more:

Cannabis Cure Miracle or Myth?

well i can argree that it needs to be moved down the list, but looking at your own article should show you just how much your side lies as well

it amazes me that people cannot see propaganda, even when it supports them, i know the gov misleads, but i dont think they mislead as much as those who claim it is nearly harmless and i do think that it is not too much to ask to treat it exactly like currently legal drugs What lies and propaganda? Please point out what you consider as such.

I agree, it should be treated no different than alcohol and tobacco.

Quote:
Although Chong's son Paris was the chief architect of the company Chong Glass -- as well as its Nice Dreams series of smoking pipes -- it was Tommy (the stoner icon that helped make Cheech and Chong one of 20th-century counterculture's funnier experiments) that "was the more responsible corporate officer, because he financed and marketed the product," U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan told LA Weekly. The punishment came down on Chong, ironically enough, on September 11, 2003: Nine-month prison bid, $20,000 fine and more than $100,000 in personal assets seized.

they are making it appear as if he was targeted solely for his acting role
if he was the decision maker of the company, the CEO or something close, then he was responsible for the companies actions


and in general it demonizes anybody who opposes drug legalization, name calling and claims of nepotism

it basically tells the entire story from one side only, with some inaccurance and misrepresentation, propaganda

[mathurin]

jez this is getting tedious, so to shorten it down, just answer me one question

why should marijuana be treated any different from currently legal drugs like tobacco and alcohol?

both are legal and both are demonized to high heaven, what makes marijuana different



nieland, i support legalization, just because i dont think the gov has the business to tell us that
it looks like i oppose it because i still think it is a stupid and self destructive path, and i am all for keeping up the anti-drug propaganda, the same way we do with tobacco and alcohol, i see marijuana as no different, we should stay as close to the truth as possible, but i would rather fudge on the side that makes it appear more dangerous than on the other side, which would entice more people to it. i dont condone outright lying, but it is better than the other sides list of effects, which really do make it appear harmless to most people

[Jezebel]

mathurin wrote: jez this is getting tedious, so to shorten it down, just answer me one question

why should marijuana be treated any different from currently legal drugs like tobacco and alcohol?

both are legal and both are demonized to high heaven, what makes marijuana different

I would say legality wise, treating the drug the same is fine because it's necessary (ie illegal to drive while intoxicated, have age limits, heavy taxation).

Marijuana is different though. Alcohol and tobacco are proven killers. Marijuana is not. The use of marijuana has actually gone down in Amsterdamn and they didn't need a demonizing ad campaign to do it.

[mathurin]

didnt you yourself say that marijuana caused lung problems just as or nearly as serious as tobbacco, how can tobacco be a proven killer yet marijuana is not?

[Jezebel]

mathurin wrote: didnt you yourself say that marijuana caused lung problems just as or nearly as serious as tobbacco, how can tobacco be a proven killer yet marijuana is not?

Nobody has ever died of cancer that they developed from smoking marijuana. The real problem with cigarettes is people smoke SO many of them every single day, year after year. How many cigarettes are in a pack usually? Imagine smoking that many joints a day for a year. Imagine smoking anything that much, even just plain rolling paper. Do you think that if you purposely inhaled smoke several times a day, every day, that it might cause some type of damage. Nobody ever smokes that much marijuana.

Also, marijuana can be eaten and that negates any lung problems you might have.

[y_not_peace?]

heres what i think:


becuase nobody has ever died from smoking weed, becuase it calms and sooths the body, becuase it is allowed in the bible



LEGALIZE IT!

[TheBaldMan]

Jezebel wrote: Nobody has ever died of cancer that they developed from smoking marijuana.

This is because people usually don’t admit to a doctor that they smoke weed. When the CDC does a report, any lung cancer deaths go down as a smoking related illness. Therefore, the numbers are skewed. If you smoke weed for 30 years, develop lung cancer and die, you are listed as a smoking related death.

With all this being said, I think pot should be legal. Cigarettes and alcohol are legal and do just as much damage. Money taken from the sale of legal marijuana could be used for rehab instead of non-pot-smoking Americans footing the bill. It would also allow the government to waste, I mean utilize, our money in other areas.







www.carnellknowledge.com/

[Norrin Radd]

minyard wrote: Legalization of marijuana is a hopeless battle for now.

Too many people have not given even the idea of legalized marijuana, or even for that matter any place in society for marijuana, a reasonable chance. It's still "evil" in the minds of a lot of people, and they won't even consider hearing arguments in its favor. If they won't even listen, what chance does it have?

For example, look at medicinal marijuana. In my opinion, there is a practically water-tight case for marijuana in medical treatment. However, neither the US congress nor the supreme court will give it a fair shake in the free market of ideas. Even the party that supports states' rights snubs its collective nose at states' rights when it comes to medicinal marijuana.

I would love to see marijuana given a fair shake in debate even if it ultimately remains illegal. At least we could say that a rational decision was made and that the will of the people is represented.

Here's a question, what would your grandmother say about legalizing marijuana?

Very well said.

[Norrin Radd]

mathurin wrote: i only ask that those who use drugs be prevented from receiving any kind of gov aid, my money is to go to people who use their time more wisely than that, in the words of south park

drugs make you feel good with being bored, when you should be out doing something, learning some new skill, if you use drugs you might grow up to find you really arent good at anything


of course having never used i dont know from personal experience, but most of the people i know who do drugs are worthless incompetents

So, you don't want the government to give money to people who use drugs, but you will gladly fork over your cash to some lazy sob who sits in his chair all day watching t.v. and drinking beer?

I would rather my money go to someone who doesn't watch Southpark as I want my money to go to people who use their time more wisely than by watching cartoons.

Or, we could follow the constitution and cut off aid to all people who are able to work. How about that?

[Norrin Radd]

mathurin wrote:

does not mean they are allowed to outright lie
it means that their statements must more or less make sense, now if they claimed smoking MJ made you burst into flames immediatly i imagine they could get smacked for it

however, who is more credible, the gov that has little reason for lieing (in what way would it benefit them) or those who are most likely addicted to the substance they want legalized

govs reason to lie: if what they claim is true, to prevent people from falling into self destruction, thus promoting their health and happiness, and creating a more productive society, and they get more taxes (that must be the same reason they offer college grants)

those wishing for legalization: to use a substance which brings false joy and happy feelings

so one side is looking at long term for society, the other wants a quick feel good
if the gov lies people are banned access to a less than harmful substance, which they dont need
if the legalization people are lying people will be allowed access to a highly addictive and damaging product they dont need
see the picture i am seeing

besides, there is a legal side too, if DARE overstates the danger, fine no biggie
but if DARE understates the danger then the gov will get lawsuits from people who assumed they were giving true information, used based on that information, and suffered damage

sukoi:
"So you would rather believe admitted and sanctioned liars over those who present factual information? Do you also find that those who say that the holocaust never happened and that man has never set foot on the moon equally credible? You should take a closer look at who you trust for factual information; if you are looking for factual information about illicit substances, then the government is the one place that you should NEVER look."

so let me see if i get this, in each of your examples (holocaust, man on moon) the gov has the credible information (do you think civilians were the first to the death camps, was there an independent reporter on the moon?) and i should believe them over the nutjobs who claim otherwise, except in this circumstance where i should not believe the gov, who are obviously lying to me (for no reason you have given) and i should instead believe you and the evidence provided by those who want to use the drug, i got news for you, this case compares well to those above, except you are the crackpot
i trust the gov little, but when i have no need of the substance, and they have no reason to lie, i believe them

whose interests are you after?
i ask you again, for what reason do they mislead us?

The reason marijauna was first made illegal is because of the thousands of products that can be made from hemp and the industries those products would compete against.

If you look at the history of hemp, the invention of a new machine which according to Popular Mechanics was going to revolutionize the Hemp industry, as well as the timing of the invention of nylon, and a government paper which suggested that hemp be used for paper production instead of trees, it all fits.

I can provide links if you are interested.

Now, besides the interests of those industries, we also have the interests of the drug industry.

Would you want your aspirin sales cut by 10%? Just to name one possible scenario if marijauna is legalized.

Over 80 million people have admitted to trying pot.

Al Gore, Newt Gingrich and numerous other Congressmen have admitted to using it.

Most government reports downplay any health risks from pot.

I can post evidence for all of this, just ask.

The case for medical marijauna is overwhelming. The evidence against it is weak, yet the government will not allow the dozen or so states which have passed medical marijauna laws to prescribe marijuana. Why? We all know pot is less harmful than say oxycontin, or many other prescription drugs, so why this animosity toward a plant?

To answer you must go back in time to 1937.

If you are not willing to do the reading, then you will never understand.

[Norrin Radd]

mathurin wrote:
well i can argree that it needs to be moved down the list, but looking at your own article should show you just how much your side lies as well

it amazes me that people cannot see propaganda, even when it supports them, i know the gov misleads, but i dont think they mislead as much as those who claim it is nearly harmless and i do think that it is not too much to ask to treat it exactly like currently legal drugs

You could not be more wrong.

If you would like the hundred or so links which prove you are wrong, I would be happy to provide them