Well, two of them, anyway.
Yesterday there was a study published which stated that prescription overdose deaths are lower in states with legal medical marajuana.
http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/writers/steven_elbow/study-finds-fewer-overdose-deaths-in-medical-marijuana-states/article_8ca175e9-36d8-5cfb-9cc2-dca5f8bfe878.html
Today we hear that:
| The researchers discovered that the more often couples smoked marijuana (approximately two or three times monthly), the less frequent husbands engaged in violent behavior against their wives. The corelations between non-violence and pot use was most prevalent among women who had no previous history of antisocial behavior. |
I hear that tomorrow there will be the announcement of a study that elected officials who smoke pot write fewer bad laws--especially about pot.
*****Notice: I don't smoke pot. I'm allergic.
Link - (
New Window )
Now it's too late.
By the way, for those who thought Sarah Silverman was stoned at the Emmys, yeah, she brought liquid THC with her. Perhaps my time has come.
The Pope smokes dope - ( New Window )
Sure it makes people less violent but also makes them lazier, less productive, and more apathetic.
I am not knocking it. I have used it myself to relax but it no doubt causes plenty of problems.
It should be decriminalized nationally, but legalization creates too many issues.
Sure it makes people less violent but also makes them lazier, less productive, and more apathetic.
I am not knocking it.
^^^^^^^^
Wrong(s).
Sure it makes people less violent but also makes them lazier, less productive, and more apathetic.
I am not knocking it. I have used it myself to relax but it no doubt causes plenty of problems.
It should be decriminalized nationally, but legalization creates too many issues.
It can be fairly argued that there are problems with use, but does that overcome making criminals of otherwise law-abiding people, taking drivers' licenses and levying fines and in some instances sending people to jail? Alcohol can make people lazy, indolent, violent, sick, etc and we have decided that it is not appropriate to criminalize its possession for the vast majority of our citizens.
Sure it makes people less violent but also makes them lazier, less productive, and more apathetic.
I am not knocking it. I have used it myself to relax but it no doubt causes plenty of problems.
It should be decriminalized nationally, but legalization creates too many issues.
It actually depends on the person and the amount they smoke at a time...
With me after i smoke i actually like to work out..i dont like to sit on the couch and do nothing and just eat...
Its different for everyone...People who smoke arent all lazy, sit on the couch and do nothing people..
I don't buy that. At undergrad I saw pot become a quasi-addiction for my roommate and a number of my peers, and whether or not it was the only reason they became lazy it was certainly a contributing factor.
The argument that pot is a miracle drug and a cure-all is unnecessary. The issue is whether the problems associated with use outweigh the those associated with its criminalization, and I have yet to see even a mildly persuasive set of facts or arguments suggesting that they do.
Quote:
Any more than, say, the internet does. If either harms your overall productivity in life, you were already those things going in.
I don't buy that. At undergrad I saw pot become a quasi-addiction for my roommate and a number of my peers, and whether or not it was the only reason they became lazy it was certainly a contributing factor.
I could offer personal, anecdotal and current stories that say just the opposite. I know a good number of successful professionals and family people who also happen to smoke pot. So my experience leads me to conclude it's about the individuals. Just as I see with alcohol, the internet, TV, bad relationships, whatever. People looking for excuses to be unproductive will find them everywhere. (Especially, but certainly not exclusively, as undergrads.) People who generally get shit done, do that.
The argument that pot is a miracle drug and a cure-all is unnecessary. The issue is whether the problems associated with use outweigh the those associated with its criminalization, and I have yet to see even a mildly persuasive set of facts or arguments suggesting that they do.
I agree with all of that.
after I have all my responsible stuff done. relaxes me before bed. like the muscle relaxing qualities after I smoke . Good time to stretch out the old aching body.
But I do hate it during the daytime don't like being stupid/stoned in front of people. I ask my wife if she has anything serious to talk about b4 I do so its not a buzzkill.
Morally speaking it's no different, and this idea that if marijuana were to become legal a large portion of our population would turn into unproductive stoners and our roads would be filled with intoxicated drivers is just the new Reefer Madness. The fact of the matter is that after a brief period where some people who were on the fringe due to legal hangups tried it things would largely return to normal because the vast, vast majority of people who will smoke once it's legal are already smoking.
The biggest difference would be in tax revenue and could really help with a lot of states budget issues. Colorado pulled in over 200 million in taxes in the first four months, imagine what that kind of money could do in a state like Pa that's seen so many education cuts and urban school closures. It's time for people to take an honest look at the history of marijuana prohibition in this country, which is a farce, as well as take into account that Colorado and Washington (not to mention countless other places all over the world) haven't descended into some state of lackadaisical anarchy since they wised up and let people make their own choices.
But yeah, Dune has the issues right. How many hundreds of thousands of people nationwide--especially black men--are in prison for reasons associated with a drug that may or may not be associated with more harms than benefits? It's nuts.
It makes me more productive...so you're wrong there, chief.
POT HEAD.
By the way, for those who thought Sarah Silverman was stoned at the Emmys, yeah, she brought liquid THC with her. Perhaps my time has come.
just to be clear, it's concentrated THC in oil form, which is vaporized using a coil. there's no combustion involved. much easier on the lungs.
close friend of mine out west has always had a similar issue - severe reaction to any kind of inhaled smoke, and he swears by this stuff.
may be a few years before it's available here in the tri-state area - without a serious medical condition, that is.
I strongly believe that there is a s subset of people who get addicted, and show all of those symptoms. I have known a few.
Then a gain, the proportion of alcohol users who abuse it, with all sorts of negative symptoms, is probably at least as high, and the magnitude of the bad behavior associated with alcohol abuse is probably vastly higher.
This is likely correct - it will be the difference between Vegas (destination) and riverboat gaming (local), but that is well down the road...
That won't stop politicians in other states from "promising" similar revenue boosts from legalization.
Refreshing how quickly attitudes are changing on this, although of course after a multi-decade dragging of the feet by those insistent upon residing on the wrong side of history. What a bunch of freaks. As they sip the drug they like.
Opposing all out legalization is one thing (although still wrong), or decriminalization another (still wrong), but elitist politicians who with fervency oppose medicinal are clueless on a level that makes Lloyd Christmas appear erudite.
I like what Holder and his boss are doing showing some restraint as far as excercising Federal law but show some balls already and come out for fed legalization. Not like it'd pass anyway but it'd get the ball rolling faster. You'll look good in 25 years.
Dunedin is right; the tax revenue bonanzas of certain places suffer from a first-mover effect, a price effect, and a novelty effect.
It's likely that businesses continue to grow and scale, reducing the revenues in that way.
While I agree with most of the other posters defending the issue, this is simply wrong. I run 20 miles per week, go to the gym 6 days a week. If I smoke weed I don't get off the couch unless it's to get food.
Pot has different affects on different people, fact. I have friends that smoke and go work out. I have other friends that smoke and all they want to do is watch tv and eat. I have friends that are normally anxious people until they get high and then it calms them down. I have friends that are normally calm but when they smoke they become incredibly anxious and paranoid.
Weed has many different affects on many different people.
Dude, Cheech and Chong could get elected somehow and the hillbillies 15 miles west of Philly all the way to Pittsburgh (and their equally brain-deficient representatives) would never vote for legalization.
Sure it makes people less violent but also makes them lazier, less productive, and more apathetic.
I am not knocking it. I have used it myself to relax but it no doubt causes plenty of problems.
It should be decriminalized nationally, but legalization creates too many issues.
I don't think smoking pot will render an otherwise ambitious person lazy and apathetic. It's just that a lot of people who smoke pot happen to be so.
The issue is whether you can return to a productive life when the buzz wears off. millions of people who currently smoke and are productive shows that you can. There is a much smaller subset of users who are addicted, and with any addiction comes negative effects on life. When you follow the 'everything in moderation' guidelines, I don't believe that there's any significant degradation of life efficiency for the overwhelming vast majority.
this kind of mentality is partly why weed has been illegal for so long. there's lots of productive things you can do while high. the idea of "it doesn't work for me, thus it doesn't work for anyone else either" is pretty laughable.
*shrug* I don't care.
Quote:
Any more than, say, the internet does. If either harms your overall productivity in life, you were already those things going in.
While I agree with most of the other posters defending the issue, this is simply wrong. I run 20 miles per week, go to the gym 6 days a week. If I smoke weed I don't get off the couch unless it's to get food.
Pot has different affects on different people, fact. I have friends that smoke and go work out. I have other friends that smoke and all they want to do is watch tv and eat. I have friends that are normally anxious people until they get high and then it calms them down. I have friends that are normally calm but when they smoke they become incredibly anxious and paranoid.
Weed has many different affects on many different people.
Your facts aren't 'facts'. You are telling the same anecdotal stories the rest of us are. 'Well, i know with me, this happens. But with my friends, that happens...'
Of course pot effects people differently. So do doughnuts. And video games. And adult responsibilities. People handle their shit or they do not. As I said, if you don't want to be productive, there are any number of excuses available. People love excuses even more than pot or doughnuts (or wasting time on BBI). But in the end, it's on you. If you know that you shouldn't smoke pot if you want to work out that's a story about you . Not about pot.
In any any case, I was responding to someone who said it makes all people 'apathetic and lazy.' That is not true. As your own anecdotes illustrate. Fact.
But honestly, what mystifies me is that people do (give a crap). I can't for the life of me understand why if it's illegal people would take time out of their day to waste ATP on the topic, other than registering an opinion. Not you guys, because it's fine to debate the merits and voice displeasure...but people who would go out of their way to join a group, walk in a march, buy a tee shirt. I mean, it's like if >18 oz soft drinks were criminalized. It might be harmless and not meriting being made illegal. So yeah, I would miss it; I might be a bit miffed. But oh well, it's not an essential or the even least bit important to daily life. Really worth a march???
But honestly, what mystifies me is that people do (give a crap). I can't for the life of me understand why if it's illegal people would take time out of their day to waste ATP on the topic, other than registering an opinion. Not you guys, because it's fine to debate the merits and voice displeasure...but people who would go out of their way to join a group, walk in a march, buy a tee shirt. I mean, it's like if >18 oz soft drinks were criminalized. It might be harmless and not meriting being made illegal. So yeah, I would miss it; I might be a bit miffed. But oh well, it's not an essential or the even least bit important to daily life. Really worth a march???
Why not? It sends people to prison (though the conflation of sentences for weed and those for hard drugs is irritating), it causes interactions with the justice system for people who are not otherwise likely to enter into it, it costs money to administer, and it inhibits freedom. To a small degree? Perhaps, but for those who enjoy it that degree may be much larger.
I think the convictions for pot possession, especially small doses clearly for personal consumption, while increasingly becoming less common, are what has driven people to political action against the laws, more so than the fact that it is illegal.
Sure it makes people less violent but also makes them lazier, less productive, and more apathetic.
I am not knocking it. I have used it myself to relax but it no doubt causes plenty of problems.
It should be decriminalized nationally, but legalization creates too many issues.
Aside from the reasons already provided to rebut this statement, I'll add that the strain one smoke makes, or can make, a large difference in what affect it has.
Sativa generally provides more of an "up" head and can sharpen senses to a degree. Indica tends to provide more of a relaxed "stoner" affect.
These, of course, are general descriptions and vary from person to person and are vastly affected by the amount smoked.
The illegal drug trade fuels a lot of violence and is an enormus burden on law enforcement and the judicial system. Alcohol seems like a lot worse drug to me in terms of impairing people.
Quote:
if it's good or bad. And I personally don't give a crap if it's legal or illegal.
But honestly, what mystifies me is that people do (give a crap). I can't for the life of me understand why if it's illegal people would take time out of their day to waste ATP on the topic, other than registering an opinion. Not you guys, because it's fine to debate the merits and voice displeasure...but people who would go out of their way to join a group, walk in a march, buy a tee shirt. I mean, it's like if >18 oz soft drinks were criminalized. It might be harmless and not meriting being made illegal. So yeah, I would miss it; I might be a bit miffed. But oh well, it's not an essential or the even least bit important to daily life. Really worth a march???
Why not? It sends people to prison (though the conflation of sentences for weed and those for hard drugs is irritating), it causes interactions with the justice system for people who are not otherwise likely to enter into it, it costs money to administer, and it inhibits freedom. To a small degree? Perhaps, but for those who enjoy it that degree may be much larger.
SO I should amend my rant to include it mystifies me how trivia takes on such importance as to make people break the law (and that would include those attendant consequences). If they did out law the big sodas, I'm finding an alternative and not sneaking off into the woods to down a Big Gulp.
Yeah....
I'm glad to see someone use the dreaded "gateway drug" in an accurate and actually meaningful way. Jumping to subject somewhat, I just saw someone state that prescription painkillers are a "gateway drug to heroin."
This is so laughable that it's sad. Yes, abuse of prescription painkillers is a current, serious problem. People don't "move up" to heroin because they want to get even higher; they start doing heroin because they are addicted to the prescription painkillers and for whatever reason cannot get them any more.
Drugs are such a hot-button issue here that there's very little hope of getting by the knee-jerk reaction so we can find solutions other than punitive ones or false equivalencies.
I get what you're saying but people have used drugs recreationally for a long, long time. Doesn't make it right, certainly not all of the time anyway, but I don't find it mystifying that people would break the law.
I get what you're saying but people have used drugs recreationally for a long, long time. Doesn't make it right, certainly not all of the time anyway, but I don't find it mystifying that people would break the law.
Nor does it make it wrong, except in a very narrow sense.
I think you're way overstating the degree of incarceration, particularly for 1st time simple possession of non-dealing weight. We're not dealing with (at least in the vast majority of jurisdictions) long mandatory minimums.
I think Dune's pretty much on target here.
Quote:
people find all sorts of other ways to take the edge off.
I get what you're saying but people have used drugs recreationally for a long, long time. Doesn't make it right, certainly not all of the time anyway, but I don't find it mystifying that people would break the law.
Nor does it make it wrong, except in a very narrow sense.
That mystifies me too. IMO, breaking the law is always wrong. I suppose if it's the choice between life and death, but otherwise...
2) If I beleive that a law is wrong, if the chances of getting caught are minimal, and the implications if caught are also minimal, is it OK with you if I decide to take the risks involved with the behavior? People drank during prohibition. Did they all belong in prison?
3) Drinking and driving is vastly more dangerous, and in many jurisdictions, comes with greater punishment, as it should. People do it anyway. What is so difficult to understand about millions of people ignoring laws that are on the books, particularly when the laws make little sense as in the case of pot possession for personal use?
I have this very strong suspicion than a majority of people who say that they don't understand why anyone would break the law a and smoke pot actually think that it should be illegal.
Whites often have the financial backing to get out of these offenses while blacks often do not. So it is more then just going to jail, it is about the long term effects.
I look at my own life and how luck and timing have played a role and how one incident here or there and my life would totally be in the shitter.
2) If I beleive that a law is wrong, if the chances of getting caught are minimal, and the implications if caught are also minimal, is it OK with you if I decide to take the risks involved with the behavior? People drank during prohibition. Did they all belong in prison?
3) Drinking and driving is vastly more dangerous, and in many jurisdictions, comes with greater punishment, as it should. People do it anyway. What is so difficult to understand about millions of people ignoring laws that are on the books, particularly when the laws make little sense as in the case of pot possession for personal use?
I have this very strong suspicion than a majority of people who say that they don't understand why anyone would break the law a and smoke pot actually think that it should be illegal.
I'm just questioning saying that it's not wrong. Jaywalking is wrong; even if people do it and everything else you say. I guess I would say that all the people who drank during prohibition should have had whatever punishment there was a meted out. I'm not arguing that the law was right or wrong or even that drinking or pot smoking should be prosecuted. But that doesn't change the rightness or wrongness of it so long as it's illegal. And, I truly don't have an opinion on whether it should be legal or illegal; I wouldn't vote on it either way. I just don't see the activity as being so significant as to be worth the effort.
Comparing marijuana to knocking off a convenience store? No, not apt.
Fact is, people march because it's about personal freedom, and no amount of anecdotal evidence about red herrings like laziness or addiction should trump my personal freedom. I'd wager that the vast majority of anyone who is on the non legalization side is on the "don't touch my guns" side as well. Your right to pack a deadly weapon is not and should never trump my right to smoke marijuana, for any reason, medically or recreationally. Carrying a gun is not a g-d given right, g-d didn't make guns man did. Marijuana though? One of the most resilient and useful plants that has ever come out of nature.
This issue is literally the single issue I am most passionate about. I am a smoker for 24 years and own 3 businesses, all fairly successful at the moment and work out extremely hard 5-6 days a week doing Crossfit, one of the most strenuous forms of exercise there is. I smoke recreationally, and smoke medically. I just recently went through a bout of an extreme external hemmorhoid attack. Had 2 surgeries. Only one painkiller was able to give my pain, which I would put at a 10, a rest.
The case , or cases, of young seizure victims such as the famous Charlotte Figi, where seizures were lowered from 75-100 to none for days at a time. Why is that less relevant/important or more anecdotal of someone's college roommates getting high and lazy(not picking on you Dune)?
Does Marijuana have some risks? Sure, but they are WAY lower, unarguably then other recreational fixes such as cigs or alcohol. They are also WAY WAY lower then medical fixes such as OxyContin.
Is it a miracle plant? Miracle is a strong word, but it damn sure clearly obviously has a huge amount of positive uses. Right now we are stuck in the stone ages, with it schedule 1(no medical use like herion, LSD, PCP), unable to even legally medically research it on any real level. It's ridiculous. The moral high horses in the government against it will feel that way until it helps a family member with some kind of crippling disease(although don't get me started on NY states half ass medical legalization).
Almost no one against marijuana even has any fucking clue about the actual plant. There are 66 chemicals in marijuana, called canabanoids. Only one even gets you high!
I reject the "stoner" stereotype, those of us passionate about cannibus are far more educated and knowledgeable about the plant then those who carelessly want it to be illegal. We aren't criminals. We aren't reckless. The ones who are reckless here are the ones who are ok creating criminals, denying sick people medicine(in many cases the only medicine that works!) who are ok with denying of personal freedoms without doing the research into what they are protesting in the first place.
the key point, though, isn't whether or not you can function while high. it's whether getting high today affects your productivity tomorrow. If you can get high and build a bird house, fine. If you want to mellow out and watch Ren and Stimpy, fine. It's recreation time. (If you decide to get high while doing something dangerous or important - non recreational - , you're an idiot). When you wake up in the morning, unless you're a major pot head, you can still go to work and achieve just as well as you could if you didn't smoke. some people here were intimating otherwise.
That mystifies me too. IMO, breaking the law is always wrong. I suppose if it's the choice between life and death, but otherwise...
At various points in American history it has been legal to own human beings, illegal for homosexuals to marry, legal to detain Japanese-Americans, illegal for women to vote...
I am sure if we put our heads together we could come up with 100 clear instances where the law of the land was not morally just. Breaking unjust laws has led to major social progress, MLK is a national hero for advocating civil disobedience which is a policy of peacefully breaking unjust laws to draw attention to social issues.
The drug war is not exactly equivalent to the civil rights movement as people can choose to use or abstain from use, whereas being black or a woman or gay is not something you pick.
However, the deleterious effects of the prohibition of drugs are wide spread and unmistakable. The amount of people we incarcerate for non-violent drug offenses are staggering, as is the social cost in the form of cost to incarcerate, lost productivity, and broken families.
When the cure is worse than the disease something has to change. The progress toward eventual legalization of marijuana is a good thing, and something I view as pretty much inevitable at this point.
Quote:
In comment 11828055 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
people find all sorts of other ways to take the edge off.
I get what you're saying but people have used drugs recreationally for a long, long time. Doesn't make it right, certainly not all of the time anyway, but I don't find it mystifying that people would break the law.
That mystifies me too. IMO, breaking the law is always wrong. I suppose if it's the choice between life and death, but otherwise...
Breaking the law is always 'wrong' as far as the law is concerned, sure. But there are plenty of silly and/or arbitrarily enforced or just outdated laws on the books. So I'd disagree with the blanket statement that breaking the law is always wrong in any moral sense.
I'm on the pro marijuana side, but the whole 'nature' argument always struck me as lame.
besides, modern strains of mj, and the various forms of imbibing in it, are just as natural as guns.
Quote:
In comment 11828055 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
people find all sorts of other ways to take the edge off.
I get what you're saying but people have used drugs recreationally for a long, long time. Doesn't make it right, certainly not all of the time anyway, but I don't find it mystifying that people would break the law.
Nor does it make it wrong, except in a very narrow sense.
That mystifies me too. IMO, breaking the law is always wrong. I suppose if it's the choice between life and death, but otherwise...
Ever hear of a bad law? Ever look into what made up this particular set of laws? You have an exceptionally rigid viewpoint; I don't. Doesn't really mean much, but maybe try looking at it from both sides (I do).
IMO, legalize it - it's not worth the headaches created by making it illegal.
Except be high!
I'm on the pro marijuana side, but the whole 'nature' argument always struck me as lame.
besides, modern strains of mj, and the various forms of imbibing in it, are just as natural as guns.
So, poison ivy gets you pleasurably high? Who knew?
More power to you, mg! Let me know how it works out.
(Yeah, yeah, I know it was sarcasm).
Academic issues - ( New Window )
Journal of Neuroscience - ( New Window )
I can't remember the name of the article - ( New Window )
"None of the users reported any problems with school, work, legal issues, parents or relationships, according to Dr. Hans Breiter, co-senior author of the study and a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine."
"The groups in the study started using marijuana daily between 16 to 17 years of age for about three years."
This article seems to refer to heavy/daily use in teens. Is anyone here proposing to make it legal for use by teenagers? Seems like the data would be inapplicale to all but a very small minority of users.
I'd also be curious how daily use of alcohol would affect teenagers.
If you buy pot in Denver, can you regulate the strength that you're getting or is it somewhat vague? E.g., I know if I have two 12 oz beers that I will be fine driving. I also know that of I have two 8 oz martinis I will have trouble driving even though I am drinking less volume with the martinis.
I don't think anyone would be surprised that completely sober students tend to do better than students that party.
If you buy pot in Denver, can you regulate the strength that you're getting or is it somewhat vague? E.g., I know if I have two 12 oz beers that I will be fine driving. I also know that of I have two 8 oz martinis I will have trouble driving even though I am drinking less volume with the martinis.
Driving under the influence of pot is illegal in WA and CO and would be illegal under any new laws as well I'd presume.
The brain changes when people drink alcohol, coffee (caffein), eat high amounts of sugar/fats, etc.
I think your overall point makes sense (that there's potential risks/drawbacks to cannabis use and that people need to be careful), but there's risks/drawbacks to lots of things in life that people enjoy. The risks/drawbacks to adults using cannabis, by all accounts, appear to be relatively minor when compared to a lot of othert things that are already legal.
I think the strength of marijuana can be measured. I believe some of the stores actually describe what kind of high each sample provides.
The more worrisome issue is the pot edibles. I can imagine you could ingest more than you wanted to without realizing it.
Hell, I've killed and eaten only three people since all that weed caught up to me. Where was it you said you lived?
Well, without compromising myself (or anyone else) too much, I've been in league with Brett and Davisian, processing slightly used kidneys and enjoying the more than occasional platter of long pig.
If the kidneys were good, we didn't bother with doing a Dahmer on them. If the kidneys were bad, however, watch out!
Can that really be ascribed, one way or another, to legalizing pot? I suppose anyone can come up with numbers that support whatever their view, but it's a meaningless question.
Might as well find a way to make our economy boom off it.
Quote:
Is crime lower in Colorado and Washington after legal weed?
Can that really be ascribed, one way or another, to legalizing pot? I suppose anyone can come up with numbers that support whatever their view, but it's a meaningless question.
Yikes, you really don't see the big picture, do you? First of all if marijuana is legal you have can wipe possession related arrests off the board. That alone takes a tremendous strain on lower level courts. Philadelphia moved towards decriminalization about 4 years ago after studies showed the city was spending millions upon millions of dollars to arrest, house, and prosecute people for the possession of small amounts of marijuana.
That's where you will see your short term returns. Long term, it will be interesting to see what effect it has on trafficking and gang related crime.
[quote] stronger than it was in my youth - late 70s / early 80s. Seems that things like car accidents from being under the influence of MaryJ will get / have gotten worse.
If you buy pot in Denver, can you regulate the strength that you're getting or is it somewhat vague? E.g., I know if I have two 12 oz beers that I will be fine driving. I also know that of I have two 8 oz martinis I will have trouble driving even though I am drinking less volume with the martinis. [/quote
& I'm sure you're always perfectly able to calculate how drunk you are according to the law if the difference between the alcohol content of the 12 oz. beer you drink is 4.5 or 7.2, even though it says what the alcohol content is on the bottle. You don't even have that luxury if you buy a few beers on tap at your local bar or club.
From the 100s of people I've known who smoked pot pretty regularly since I was 17 (I'm 54 & virtually everyone who goes to or performs at concerts dsmokes regularly), it matters not a whit how strong the pot they happen to be turned onto. Every single person knows what their capacity is for getting "too" stoned, if there is even such a thing for regular tokers. The people who rarely smoke have no clue at all about how people who do smoke regularly handle their "addiction."
I went to Albany State - 1 of the 2 best schools in the NY state system along with Binghampton - & virtually everyone smoked pot. A lot of it. I knew of only TWO people who didn't graduate. 1 was a roommate the school foisted upon me for 1 semester & he was a completely whacked out transfer student who had done PCP a bunch too many times. The other ate a bunch of acid each day every week for about 2 months.
Some Fan, you have some ENORMOUS reading comprehension problems that are far more serious than any pot related problems that exist in society. The article you posted rather clearly did NOT say that pot related fatalities increased 3 times since pot was legalized. As a matter of fact, the 2 states in which pot was legalized - Colorado & Washington - weren't even included in the study, which ended in 2010, 3 & 4 years before pot effectively became legal in those 2 states. That study was limited to only 6 states, hence it says NOTHING about the country as a whole or the 2 states in which it was legalized. If you can't post something that is remotely relevant or factually true, then just STFU altogether instead of proving what a complete fucking moron you are.
I don't care if people smoke pot. But I wonder what will happen if years from now, there are health issues associated with it (similar to cigarettes). Will that negate all the good of the benefits that we see now? I guess time will tell.
Quote:
In comment 11828393 lawguy9801 said:
Quote:
Is crime lower in Colorado and Washington after legal weed?
Can that really be ascribed, one way or another, to legalizing pot? I suppose anyone can come up with numbers that support whatever their view, but it's a meaningless question.
Yikes, you really don't see the big picture, do you? First of all if marijuana is legal you have can wipe possession related arrests off the board. That alone takes a tremendous strain on lower level courts. Philadelphia moved towards decriminalization about 4 years ago after studies showed the city was spending millions upon millions of dollars to arrest, house, and prosecute people for the possession of small amounts of marijuana.
That's where you will see your short term returns. Long term, it will be interesting to see what effect it has on trafficking and gang related crime.
The factors you mention are obvious. I was responding to Lawguy based on his history of trying to convolute stats to support his particular political viewpoint.
Millions and millions of people smoke it, for a long long time.
Like everything there are pros and cons, marijuana use in moderation does appear to be far less dangerous than most other substances used for recreational effect, including alcohol.
I think as marijuana continues to gain acceptance you will see better and more widely available vaporizers which will further diminish the risk of use by removing the negative effects of inhaling combusted plant material.
3) Drinking and driving is vastly more dangerous.
So you think that getting high does not impair your judgement and/or ability to operate a vehicle AT ALL?
Yeah I really don't see a huge increase in smoking pot due to it being legal or not. The current laws are not stopping any significant amount of kids trying it, and/or continuing its usage. It being legal might increase usage in older individuals who smoked it while younger, but once again that will be a small percentage
marijuana use in moderation does appear to be far less dangerous than most other substances used for recreational effect, including alcohol.
Studies have shown that alcohol in moderation actually provides medical benefits. Of course, the key for all these non-narcotic drugs is the word moderation. Putting marijuana on a pedestal is as wrong as believing the "Reefer Madness" BS of years ago.
Working within these limitations, we do our best to address the question of whether alcohol or marijuana is “more dangerous.” Along the way, you’ll hear Steve Levitt‘s views on the relationship between alcohol and crime. Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron tells us whether prohibition works, and whether the long-standing belief in marijuana as a gateway drug is legitimate. And you’ll hear from the British psychiatrist David Nutt, a one-time “drug czar” who was fired for criticizing the British government’s decision to reclassify marijuana as a more serious drug. Nutt had come to believe that alcohol (and cigarettes) are, on balance, more dangerous than marijuana and other drugs. He and his colleagues calculated the “harm score” of various drugs, taking into account everything from physical damage to lost productivity. As you can see here, alcohol came out at the very top — in large part, to be sure, because of its prevalence:
Link - ( New Window )
Studies have shown that alcohol in moderation actually provides medical benefits. Of course, the key for all these non-narcotic drugs is the word moderation. Putting marijuana on a pedestal is as wrong as believing the "Reefer Madness" BS of years ago.
Yeah, I don't discount the reality of negative consequences for overuse or misuse of marijuana, however my view is that these consequences are generally less severe than most other substances.
For the record, I am an every weekend drinker and I do not use marijuana.
Quote:
As simple a question as this may be, it isn’t so easy to answer empirically. That’s because alcohol is legal, widely available, relatively cheap, and for the most part society smiles upon it — whereas marijuana is generally illegal, less easily available, and often frowned upon. This, of course, is changing, as more places are legalizing marijuana (Colorado and Washington State in the U.S.; Portugal, meanwhile, decriminalized many drugs not long ago.) That said, there is a lot more data on alcohol use than marijuana use, simply because of alcohol’s prevalence.
Working within these limitations, we do our best to address the question of whether alcohol or marijuana is “more dangerous.” Along the way, you’ll hear Steve Levitt‘s views on the relationship between alcohol and crime. Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron tells us whether prohibition works, and whether the long-standing belief in marijuana as a gateway drug is legitimate. And you’ll hear from the British psychiatrist David Nutt, a one-time “drug czar” who was fired for criticizing the British government’s decision to reclassify marijuana as a more serious drug. Nutt had come to believe that alcohol (and cigarettes) are, on balance, more dangerous than marijuana and other drugs. He and his colleagues calculated the “harm score” of various drugs, taking into account everything from physical damage to lost productivity. As you can see here, alcohol came out at the very top — in large part, to be sure, because of its prevalence:
Link - ( New Window )
To their credit, they acknowledge the limitations on these comparisons given the different legal frameworks they operate in. However, count me as incredibly skeptical as to the graph showing that meth is less harmful to the user than alcohol. To begin with, are there any studies showing that use of meth in moderation provides any medical benefits whatsoever?
Its saying that alcohol is more harmful to society because of its wide spread use.
If you equalized usage I'm sure met would trump booze.
Certainly if meth were used at the level that alcohol is, that graph would look a LOT different.
These findings were robust even after controlling for things like demographic variables, behavioral problems, and alcohol use. The authors studied data from 634 couples over nine years of marriage, starting in 1996. Couples were administered regular questionnaires on a variety of issues, including recent drug and alcohol use and instances of physical aggression toward their spouses.
Previous research on the relationship between marijuana use and domestic violence has largely been based on cross-sectional data (that is, data from one point in time), and those findings have been mixed: some studies found links between marijuana use and/or abuse and domestic violence, while others did not. The Buffalo study is one of the few to use data collected over the course of decades to examine the question, putting it on solid methodological ground compared to previous work.
link - ( New Window )