Slashdot Mirror
Marijuana Could Prevent Alzheimer's, New Study
Chickan writes "'A puff a day might keep Alzheimer's away, according to marijuana research by professor Gary Wenk and associate professor Yannic Marchalant of the Ohio State Department of Psychology. Wenk's studies show that a low dosage in the morning of a certain canavanoid, a component in marijuana, reversed memory loss in older rats' brains. In his study, an experimental group of old rats received a dosage, and a control group of rats did not. The old rats that received the drugs performed better on memory tests, and the drug slowed and prevented brain cell death.' My fine university's dollars at work!" Maybe it works even better in combination with brain-preserving sips of coffee.
Marijuana is memory enhancing? What?
I have yet to hear/see a rational reason why marijuana is still illegal.
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
Now they'll be able to remember how to get to the cheese in that maze again! Maybe they should replace the cheese with Cheetos though?
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
looking forward to share a joint with my old grandpa
I'm having a hard time focusing after ... why is this bowl dirty?
Boilerplate, HILARIOUS comment about how I've been smoking weed before reading this article!
"Mommy, I'm really worried about grandma. She couldn't remember my name this morning. Is she sick?" "It's fine honey, that's not alzheimers, grandma is straight buzzin from her medicinal doobie."
"By the time they had diminished from 50 to 8, the other dwarves began to suspect 'Hungry.'" -Gary Larson
I wonder which will be first to market -- marijuana spiked coffee, or coffee-flavored marijuana?
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
But then the mary jane makes you forget everything anyway, so it kind of cancels itself out ;)
The full text of the research paper is available at-- http://faculty.psy.ohio-state.edu/marchalant/pdf/marchalantetalneurobiolaging2008.pdf on the co-author's Departmental website. Might be helpful since TFA is an article out of the University's student newspaper which tends to be a little light on details (speaking as an alumni).
Forgive my spelling from time to time. I'm often posting during short breaks.
O H !!!!
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
taking my meds right now to prevent...
what were we talking about?
Criminalize Pan!
MJ can preempt alzheimers the same way Norton can prevent viruses. If you've got the one you'll never notices a difference when you get the other
wait, what?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Coffee + mary jane is a wonderful way to start your day.
He tried to kill me with a forklift!
And how exactly is this going to work unless the feds get off their butts and de-schedule marijuana?
Oh wait...
Funny thing, since pot is banned, wouldn't that make any scientific studies of it illegal as well?
Ok, someone start a double-blind study of it outside the states or somewhere where it's legal, then publish the results here and use that to pound the feds.
I don't like experiments here, all that does is give the DEA something to pound.
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
The rats given MJ ate more and died of obesity or boredom at watching late night TV. What was nice was the authorities found them safely bundled in their Snuggies with lots of ShamWow's around to wipe up the gooey mess.
flinging poop since 1969
Cannabis/Marijuana is carcinogenic, and about four times as carcinogenic as tobacco.
They say that if tobacco were "discovered" today it would be outlawed straight away.
Alcohol has serious long-term health effects too, but in the short term it also leads to intoxication and injury and death by accidents. Not just road accidents either. That would be banned as well.
Really, the banning of all drugs is absurd. In an ideal world, adults would be responsible for their own actions and deemed wise enough to decide for themselves what and what not to ingest into their own bodies, and for their actions while under the influence of those substances. However, we live in a conservative, irrational, authoritarian world. And besides, have you seen the shockingly childish and ignorant behaviour of many adults?
Stick Men
yeah, cause we all know how good acetaminophen is for your liver, how good ibuprofen is for your digestive track not to mention how good opiods[/ates] are for your brain but thankfully they're completely non-addictive and nobody's ever died from overdose...
please tell me you're a troll...
Just don't smoke before bed so you get all of your REM sleep. Best time is to smoke is after the dishes are done.
..Your ass will follow.
hence it will stay illegal :( Until we're all free people that is
*DrugCheese rants*
I have heard from people in the research community that many papers on effects of marijuana have been suppressed for political reasons over at least the last 15 years. If I had to guess I'd bet that they have been suppressed for several decades regardless of who is in the Whitehouse.
I am hoping that will change with Obama, but won't be shocked if it doesn't. I hate to see real science and medical benefits take second place to "tough on drugs" politics.
Think Deeply.
So the way to not be addled and forgetful from Alzheimer's as an oldster is to be addled and forgetful as a youngster from the reefer.
Thanks, science.
I don't think MJ should be illegal. However, there are studies out recently that show the plaques in the brain have the same DNA as some of the Herpes Simplexes. The thought being that as you age you can no longer fend off the disease, and it infects the brain.
The research seems more promising than the MJ study. In particular since there are already drugs to treat approved for humans you can try out to see if it has any effect.
Not going to knock MJ for other purposes (like having a little bit of illegal fun now and then), but why bother with something that 'maybe helps a little' if you're really trying to prevent Alzheimer's? The science is out: if you want to take something that REALLY helps prevents AD (and also coronary artery disease and Parkinson's, among other things), talk to your doctor about getting started on simvastatin: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070719011237.htm
Listen to what I say, not what I mean...
Your body has special receptors in it for THC. Evolution allowed the mutation that created these receptors to stand. This means, at least to me, that mother nature and God both want you to ingest THC! Please read Genesis 1:11-12 for God's own approval of grass!
So, you can swap possible long-term memory loss for probable short-term memory loss. I'll wait for the large, double-blind study after they've isolated what exactly in the marijuana, if anything, reduces the risk of Alzheimer's. Meanwhile, there have been recent reports that coffee and red wine could reduce the risk of Alzheimer's. Seems like a safer, not to mention legal, alternative to experimenting on yourself by breathing smoke. Most doctors will agree that any smoking is harmful, and before you say that it can be eaten or steeped like tea, carcinogens can still cause cancer even if not smoked.
Make love, not reality television.
Marijuana doesn't prevent Alzheimer's so much as give you little, reversible doses of it with every joint. So when the Big A comes along and tries to eat your brain, your brain just goes, "Oh, this again. Glad I remembered to pick up the Cheese Doodles".
It's a training thing.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
So you are saying that illegal-to-drive-while-baked is difficult to enforce.
That utterly fails to justify making it illegal to use when not driving.
You are merely punishing the law-abiding citizens because a *different law* is difficult to enforce (and will be broken by the criminals anyway).
That is irrational.
dude, you're all crabby.
Go smoke a fatty and you will mellow out and be cool again....
Wow... I said mellow.... Wheres' the cookies?
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I'm not following your logic. Tobacco and alcohol seem to be getting taxed just fine, and marijuana isn't any easier to process than either of them.
I asked law enforcement, and they agreed with me.
Maybe you should stop taking your morning coffee with cream and FAIL?
abides.
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
I'm not surprised that it could prevent studying. Dope seems to reduce learning.
up here in Vermont...
Back in the early 80's the stuff was everywhere and people were growing it in fields, then Ronnie Ray Gun decided he needed another reason to make people afraid and the cops came down all over that.
So nowadays I don't know what the going rate is exactly, but it is quite a bit north of $200 an ounce.
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
our stoned Canuck Overlords!
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
they joke about this in the auto insurance ads. However, we could start seeing the *real* effects of mj use, if there are any.
granddaddy was a drunk in germany and ireland, and so alcohol is familiar
while marijuana was something that was first encountered as something brown-skinned people used, and therefore, exotic and scary and somehow more dangerous
the first american anti-marijuana laws were in the western states in the early 1900s, and they were explicitly pointed at mexican and mexican american behavior:
http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/12/22/whyIsMarijuanaIllegal.html
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
This is a serious topic that people care about. Maybe because it doesn't effect you doesn't mean it's not important to others. How do the 'economic downturns' rank amongst my priorities? Or how about the new administration? Rather low to be honest. The interactions you have with others give the illusion that these things are important. Yet you don't see people complaining about surplus of 'the sky is falling' articles recently.
Maybe MJ actually has medical benefits that we have overlooked and the substance is being harshly and irrationally judged by society. Things need to change. Your attitude is exactly why we are in this position in the first place. Wake up man!
Is the rosesforalgermon some subtle joke having to do with Alzheimer's disease preventing them remembering that it's actually called 'Flowers for Algernon?' If so, brilliant.
Something tells me it wasn't though ;)
Attention deficit disorder is a complicated issue, spanning several major... HEY LET'S GO RIDE BIKES!
The problem with the current legal status of marijuana it that legitimate medical research is hampered. Sure, there is some medical research happening but nowhere as much as there could be. There are many components of marijuana that are not involved with getting you high and these components may have medical benefits. The problem is that we just don't know about them because of all the hysteria generated by "Reefer Madness". We need a calm and rational investigation about all the components of marijuana.
Textile farmers stood to lose a ton if they weren't growing hemp.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
From the fine article: "Stimulation of cannabinoid receptors may provide clinical benefits in age-related diseases that are associated with brain inflammation, such as Alzheimerâ(TM)s disease."
Worse than useless reporting, harmful.
Reminds me of the maze in DarkCityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_City_(1998_film)>
Fine, go get stoned. [...] And stop interrupting serious forums where most folks want to talk about serious topics [...]
OK! But wait, it's illegal and expensive. They are not whining. Are you sure you cannot see a problem with MJ being illegal and demonized, while alcohol, which is much more dangerous and about as addictive, lines up shelves in your neighborhood market and graces billboards all over your highways? Or may be you see it as justice, when one looses employment or freedom for possession of a minuscule quantity of a largely harmless substance? Is War On Drugs not a serious topic? Are billions of dollars they pour into it every year just pocket change? Sheesh.
There are an infinite number of dimensions to the whole argument, and basically there are few, if any, good reasons for MJ being illegal. I'm sure someone will trot out each one.
Hemp would pretty well wipe out cotton as a fiber crop, and might well wipe out many of the oil seed crops as well.
Technically I believe that in most states with the proper permits and using approved commercial seed you CAN grow hemp as a crop legally. The problem then is that the market for it is a lot more limited than that for cotton and there are various hoops you have to jump through.
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
i don't think that they have less memory loss, they just forget that they forgot something, and viola! problem solved!
... how about Alzheimer's? That seem worth worrying about?
This isn't some dreadlocked dude outside the "tobacco accessories" store telling you about an article they read in High Times or equivalent blog. It's a medical study conducted by a university. Maybe there's promise in this particular study, maybe there's not, fact is for some people this is serious. Many people in the medical community see a lot of potential in marijuana, but because "everyone is mean to marijuana", specifically the government, they have had a lot of difficulty studying it.
That sounds like something worth bellyaching about to me. But hey, I guess I should just keep my sophomoric mouth shut and abide the status quo.
The enemies of Democracy are
Chemically induced reality avoidance? You don't need chemicals for that when we've got Fox news.
Seriously, if you feel that discussions about marijuana are less worthy of your attention than other subjects; fine. Don't forget how much of the discussion on serious forums is spent dismissing cranks and senseless, overbearing legislation (eg: the anti-marijuana lobby).
I am confused. If I am young and use marijuana it kills brain cells, but if I am old and use marijuana it fixes them?
Lie number 1: Some strains of cannabis are also relatively big plants. Lie number 2: Cannabis also takes "lots" (is that a metric unit?) of soil.
Lie number 3: Cannabis also has to be dried in a rather particular way. Maybe you shouldn't offer your opinion on subjects you obviously know nothing about.
Define "small space". You have to determine if your plants are male or female, and throw away the males as you don't want the females to be pollinated. You have to pay special attention to the light cycles. You have to watch out for mold. You have to make sure you have air moving around the plants. It is not easy to grow
The fact that there is no immediate intoxication test has no bearing. This is only an argument based on easyness of persecution, NOT on realy damage, or even (gasp) freedom. Anyway there was for a long time no immediate alcohol intoxication test, except trying to make you walk a straight line. Alcohol was still not forbidden as the aforementioned substance is. And why the hell personal freedom should take a BACKSIT to easyness of prosecution ??
Forgetting the freedom discussion, but looking at the damage and illness prevention, alcohol seems all things counted MORE deadly for the persons itself, and MORE deadly for the 3rd party (altercation, car incident etc...) than marijuana is. And if you add possible good side effect at those, it becomes quite clear that there is more to this debate than any rationality whatsoever.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Alzheimers could prevent marijuana!
I can't believe these whistle blowers have fingered the rats for enjoying a blunt or two. Now the rats are going to be targeted by law enforcement for doing nothing that harmed anyone else in the privacy of their own cage.
what's a canavanoid? I think he meant cannabinoid
I Think Thcv is the compound they are talking about, It is a CB1 inverse agonist, like the synthetic cb1 inverse agonist Rimonabant ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rimonabant#Side-effects )
but from a smoker's perspective I think THCV might add a ceiling to your high, which is fine even for recreational use if you like that clear and up high.
I have a friend that's looking into getting into the growing business. The legal side of it, which exists in California for sales of medical marijuana.
It's not at all easy to grow quality weed. It's extremely high tech, everything is computer controlled and there's a big difference in quality(or so I'm told).
So while anyone could grow it in their backyard the quality is going to be a lot less than what you'd be able to buy from dedicated grower that's licensed and taxed by the government.
what were we talking about again?
"I could be just sitting at home with pee stains on my rug."
Alzheimer's is plaque build-up on your brain receptors. While smoking weed - THC binds (then later releases) from these very same receptors. Think of weed as brain cleaner.
yeah, I smoke while I've got it (every night), and when I run out, I don't smoke till some more comes along. (could be months).
I never worked stoned. Just couldn't. But during the day I work away at the console pretty much constantly.
I've been at it for 30 years (30 years smoking, only 12 at the console).
Apart from spiritial realization, it also helps me appreciate slashdot. ;)
Marijuana, Schedule I:
Findings required (from Controlled Substances Act):
(A) The drug or other substance has 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.
None of these conditions are met for marijuana, so why isn't its Schedule I classification being challenged in court?
Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
What most don't know is, the government found a way to make it "legal" but "illegal" to sell without certain credentials. Back when machine guns were banned to having to have a tax stamp, marijuana was given the same thing. The difference is, no tax stamps were issued. One could possess marijuana and sell it if they had a tax stamp, but no stamps could be bought. Also, no judge would force the sale of said tax stamp. I am sure the tax stamp was repealed soon after, but hey, fun with history.
I'm not anti- or pro- anything, but headlines like "Marijuana Cures Herpes!" and "Hemp Can Stop Hangnails!" showing up here are quite disappointing
Then show they're not true. I don't know about those, but this one seems to have good research behind it.
chemically-induced reality avoidance.
So's alcohol, which we legalized. Not because it was good, but because the prevention was worse than the cure.
By the way: I don't smoke it, and I probably wouldn't if it was legal. But I think the "war on drugs" goes against my core values -- people should have the right to be stupid, when it doesn't affect others. And said war does affect others -- the death is no longer in our backyard, so to speak, it's just happening in Mexico.
In fact, I'd rather see all of them legalized. Take coca -- coca leaves are used in coca tea, which is a mild stimulant (less so than caffeine), and helps with altitude. Yet it's illegal because coca can be used to make cocaine. (Unless, of course, you are the Coca-Cola company...)
But stop bellyaching about how everyone is mean to marijuana.
Then quit outlawing shit you don't like just because.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
I'm not clear how replacing memory loss from Alzheimer's with memory loss from THC is a net win. Perhaps it doesn't really prevent memory loss, but rather mellows you out so much that you no longer care that you're being forgetful? Plus, doesn't this suffer the same fatal flaw that all Alzheimer's medications share, namely that the patient will keep forgetting to take their meds?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
A cup of coffee and a doobie, the breakfast of champions!
No, usage individually will not increase. People who smoke pot will smoke the same amount whether it's legal or not - the law didn't stop them. The law has no influence. People are already doing what they want at the levels they want. Your comment is ignorant in a smart way :)
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
the answer is ......
hang on its on the tip of my tongue ...
its a ..
no its a ..
nah , shit its gone
[site]
cancer, whose connection to marijuana use has been strongly suggested but not conclusively proven.
said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.
"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."
Earlier work established that marijuana does contain cancer-causing chemicals as potentially harmful as those in tobacco, he said. However, marijuana also contains the chemical THC, which he said may kill aging cells and keep them from becoming cancerous.
You can't take the sky from me...
Let's play a little game called "Repeat after me":
Cannabis is hard to grow and needs to be dried and aged in order to be smoked.
Cannabis is hard to grow and needs to be dried and aged in order to be smoked.
Cannabis is hard to grow and needs to be dried and aged in order to be smoked.
Keep repeating until you comprehend something you know nothing about.
I agree with you, but remember that this applies to smoking bans as well. Consenting adults. Privately owned establishment. If I own the bar, and I smoke, and I want to smoke in the bar I own, and I want smokers to be able to smoke in the bar I own -- don't pass an ordinance outlawing it in the name of public safety. It's exactly the same mentality that criminalizes pot, strip clubs, swinger clubs, bdsm clubs, or anywhere else where multiple adults get together and do something people think may be harmful -- have sex with strangers, get flogged on a bondage cross, take it up the ass from a gay man, or smoke a fucking cigarette.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
I think his point may be that THC helps, but smoking may hurt worse than the THC helps. So if smoking hurts you for a value of -10, and THC helps you for a value of +2, then your choice is: Take THC in non-smoking form (+2), or smoke pot (-10) which has THC (+2) in it -- but that's still -8. Obviously THC without smoke is better than THC with smoke. But nobody has measured the exact amount, obviously.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
I don't think it makes sense to arbitrarily felonize a statutory violation of a law based on ignorance and fear. If you want to "think of the children!", then promote some "rational" plan. How about if the cops find someone growing more than five plants, then they uproot the surplus?
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
Real scientists have done a much better job at making these comparisons, and come up with a much more accurate conclusion than yours.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Too bad for you that marijuana is a completely non-toxic substance. Chew it 24/7 your entire life and you wont get mouth cancer. Look into it. Find out what an LD50 level is.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
They can tell if you have THC in your body but you could have ingested marijuana in some form or another weeks ago.
I'm going to guess you might have been smoking something when you posted that.
You're thinking of metabolites in urine tests.
And if any of your argument was true we'd have to ban psychoactive medications out-right or presume that no-one could develop and market effective blood or saliva testing (either of which are possible).
I'm not personally a fan of weed or the pocket of culture that's developed around it, but trying to rationalize it's prohibition as logical is about as stupid as the prohibition itself.
Quack, quack.
Tobacco curing is a rather more involved process, than drying out pot faster than it can mold. Maybe you shouldn't offer your opinion on subjects you obviously know nothing about.
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
You are a hilarious person! Too bad you exist.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
If you throw fresh weed in a paper bag, you should bypass the closet, and put it in the compost. If you don't dry it quickly enough, it turns to unusable mold. I have a friend who damaged quite a bit if his Romulan harvest this year because the buds weren't broken small enough to dry throughout. The horror.
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
as a loyal slashdot reader, and IT professional, I'm going to go do my brain a fuckin favor and go grab a blunt from my local gas station, head to "insert dealers name here" and go smoke a blunt. I'm gonna get toasted. And to top it off, I'm doing a favor to my company, so when I hit 50, I won't be anymore demented than I already am (slashdot poster and all). Here's to using chronic to save the insurance industry. Long live... uh... Cheech and Chong, Dave Chapelle, Charlie Murphy, David Carridine... you know what, how about Rude Jude, and Lord Sear too.
You, unbeknownst to them, give them something to make them sick. Then, knownst to them, give them something to cure it, but that will make them sick. Then, knownst to them, give them something to cure it, but that will make them sick. Then, knownst to them, give them something to cure it, but that will make them sick....... and they suffer, and you get paid, and then you suffer and they get paid ...
GP is +Funny and +Insightful. LMAO
Seriously, we need to stop theorizing how something as asinine as hemp prohibition was foisted onto The People, and work out the math of the direct price of drug prohibition enforcement. Joe Six-Pack may be thinking of the children before freedom, but he REALLY hates the hippies with their drug-induced hallucinations of conspiracy &c. Keep it simple: "Prohibition costs too much." & "Let the hippies commit suicide.", should be the slogans, IMHO.
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
There was a study that suggested that Cannabinoids increases neurogenesis (growth of new brain cells) by up to 40%.
Thanks for the link, I haven't seen that article before. I am interested in and have done some research into neurogenesis because I am a surviver of a Traumatic Brain Injury, TBI.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Unless you mean smoking both, but separately, in which case, never mind, good response :)
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
As far as I know, marijuana was brought to the West Indies in the mid-1800's by immigrant laborers from India, hence the biological classification of the subspecies Cannabis sativa indica . Apparently it has been used since antiquity by some Hindus in their religious observances to the goddess Kali (to this day it is known among many Jamaicans as "kali weed"), and the word ganja, the name by which it is commonly called in Indic languages, is originally of Sanskrit provenance.
I was told by a teacher in high school that it was eventually banned by the British colonial authorities when they concluded that productive output among ganja smokers was dramatically lower than that of workers who were non-smokers, and they became concerned when its use spread to black laborers. The slave trade had been abolished by the British in 1834 and slavery itself in 1838, and the only way they could legally compel them to not smoke ganja was to ban its use.
In short, it was by no means a moral issue for the British, although it was couched as such, but one of practical economics for the agrarian colonies of the British West Indies. After all, if the sugar crop wasn't up to snuff because the darkies and the coolies were comporting themselves licentiously with the demon weed, Massa couldn't live in his accustomed style, now could he? And in the British Colonial Empire Massa lived very, very well indeed.
This state of affairs endured until the British started divesting themselves of their former colonies in the '50s and '60s, but the demonization of marijuana was complete, and as a child in the mid-Sixties I still remember how Rastafarians were treated by Jamaican society in general, and by the police in particular. Their belief that Haile Selassie was divine in origin would merely have made them a bunch of nutty, albeit pacifistic, religionists, but it was their use of ganja that caused them to be treated as menaces to society. Bob Marley made the world safe for Rastas, but talk to anyone who had dreadlocks in the Sixties. They'll tell you horror stories of brutal beatings, forced hair cuts by the authorities, and worse. The nadir was the Coral Gardens Massacre in 1963, when a Rasta commune near Montego Bay was attacked by security forces and a number of them killed. The total has never been ascertained, but survivors claim that dozens or hundreds lost their lives.
Personally, I believe that the use of marijuana is still viewed askance because of the vestiges of emotionalism surrounding it, much as how an older generation of Jamaicans still believe Rastas to be some sort of deviant perverts for using it. The fact that its use by young children is part of their religious observances, much like communion in the church, certainly hasn't done anything to win over these critics.
Am I the only one imagining a tiny rodent smoking a tiny joint and listening to Willy Nelson?
Before I start, Who are the real terrorists?
Research led Willie Nelson to the petroleum industry more than black-market. You see, farmers were 'stillin' their own alcohol and hemp to run and oil the farm equipment. As a health product, the hemp seeds from the cannabis plants theirselves were the source of amino acids that can't be bought on the store shelves of Then and especially worse Now; amino acids that can only be found from the Goji Berries cultivated high-up in the Nazi-worded "Roof of the Heavens" upon the Himalayan Mountains on Tibet. There is no money in Good Will and good health; who would name their ENFORCEMENT arm as Food and Drug Administration with good intentions? What kind of sadistic pervert would abridge one's family heritage in heirloom foods to displace it with the end-result of commerce that you can only buy and sell whatever is certified on the shelves of a far-away store in a market? It wasn't the fact that man would naturally test every substance with his mouth, and God-bless women to continue that tradition, but drunkedness and heated-temperance was not the reason Alcohol and Marijuana was being outlawed or heavily taxed: these are foundation key ingredients to self-sufficiency of a growing and developed nation. These are the end-results of one's labor with minimal resource, to PRODUCE verry useful and lawful ingredients to be used elsewhere. Hemp oil and seed for nutrition, Hemp flax used by every *licensed* corporation because all the synthetic fabrics have all been proved to be toxic to the sponge-like characterics of a man's flesh and blood, Alcohol the base ingredient to provide the energy for the force in any locomotion of one's cart or wagon to render the horse for another necessary purpose. It's all across the board on the stunt that was pulled long ago. Religion had nothing to do it, but was a disguise to pick a bigger "bully" to enforce the amendments and legislation enacted with a pervertered form of solidarity against this new "foe."
The cat is out of the bag now. If ever these were revoked from their legal presumption of unlawful activity, many would flock to the first street-corner un-licensed pharmacist to buy their products as the price fluctuates more than toilette-paper. America will binge for a whole year, but eventually religion will root the cause of gluttony and spare the plant and stills. With some fare care, it will no longer be a fad or impressive to one's character to be seen in public smoking or drinking. "Look at those walking chimneys" as I always say. "Look at that man of glass trying to plug his leak with more alcohol" as I always say. There are people that will never learn from themselves, but there are people that will learn from a fool. As for me, my prohibition has been in my living will of good health, not some pervert miles away and dressed in clothing that have no full-contact work ethic under the sun to be productive at a fair rate; a suit and tie doesn't turn a barbarian into a legislature but it makes an animal into a tyrant to monkey his way onto everyone else.
Take names, look for evidence on their intent, and keep fresh rope ready to hang these bastards that seize your property because they don't like the discretion of you and your property. Marc Stevens wrote a book Adventures in Legal Land. He also documented that seizing property, especially houses where "illegal"/"drugs" have been found, is a U$A 17 trillion per-year business, where NO CHARGES ARE FILED.
Forgive me if I am ignorant and mistaken, however I am fairly sure that the chemical compounds you are referring to are called 'Cannabinoids' rather than 'Canavanoids'.
And to address those who are curious about why it is still illegal a couple people up there have it nailed, it was Dupont and the whole story is really rather repulsive. That wood paper company would have suffered a huge loss in profits since hemp is essentially a wondercrop. the seeds are very nutritious, and can be reduced to oils and used to manufacture a wide array of incredibly useful and environmentally positive products (compared to wood paper which pollutes the earth, and utilizes trees which take an entire lifetime to regrow, as opposed to a single season).
Andrew Mellon was the secretary of state and incidentally the primary investor of DuPont. Additionally, he appointed his railroad working no highschool degree having nephew in-law Harry J. Anslinger as the Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Harry had credentials in engineering and business management, not science.
Anyway, Harry is the guy who published vastly falsified and atrociously inaccurate "scientific proof" that the drug marihuana makes people axe murder their families and will always cause violent psychosis.
(marijuana is a bastardized slang mexican term {marihuana} used to disguise the fact that was actually the wondercrop cannibis which they used for damn near everything.)
I could go on and on and on but if youre interested you should check out the intraweb for more.
It is often assumed that, in the US at least, marijuana was made illegal to protect alcohol profits. here is one link: http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/12/22/whyIsMarijuanaIllegal.html
As the link you provide goes over it wasn't just, or even mainly, because of alcohol that hemp was made illegal. Hemp was seen as a threat to a number of rich and powerful industrialists.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Alan Ginsberg wrote a reasonably scholarly treatise a few decades ago called "The Marijuana Papers" detailing the campaign of Harry J. Ainslinger to portray marijuana smokers as some deranged combination of heroin and speed addict. Nobody knew any differently, and the media channel was rather narrow in the late 30's when Ainslinger used the weed as a plank in his senatorial campaign. We would somehow need to unravel and counter that in order to repeal the damage. I'd suggest you're right, that some form of education campaign is in order here.
And marijuana wasn't actually rendered illegal in subsequent legislation, it was simply given an egregiously high federal tax per ounce on its sale. By avoiding the tax, traffickers were able to be pursued by federal rather than state authorities, thus its entrenchment in federal pursuit.
It was postulated that since the perception was that only blacks smoked hemp, the idea of this "social disease" being transmitted cross-culturally implied a form of sanction for racism, and thus appealed to the fearful white anglo-saxon protestant (WASP) that made up most of Ainslinger's voter demographic in 1938.
Anyway, if you can find a copy it makes very interesting reading.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
The definitive reference is "The Emperor Wears No Clothes" by Jack Herer.
wow, trolling and hating.
I may be a stoner but I am a lawyer and my father is a doctor. When you realize that more people in the community light an occasional joint than you think where will you run? Just because your educated doesnt mean you dont abuse substances. I know plenty of alcoholic surgeons! OPEN YOUR EYES you close minded clod.
What are we arguing about, again? I totally spaced.
It was a guy named Henry Anslinger.
He was in charge of a federal outfit called the FBN (Federal Bureau of Narcotics, which went through a couple more names before becoming the DEA in the '60s) and was actually responsible for the production of the movie Reefer Madness. While you'll find it in the Comedy rack today, this was intended as an educational piece to ignite anti-cannabis hysteria among the masses. It _explicitly_ illustrated the tendency for white women to have 'relations' with black men *shudder* and the tendency for white men to commit violent crimes under the influence of marijuana. It _explicitly_ illustrated the tendency of potheads to smoke four or five 'reefers' at once, I suppose to enhance the effect(?)(heck, Hollywood wouldn't film something unless it was _real_, would they?)!
It was 1937. Alcohol prohibition was ending. Heroin was at an all-time low in popularity, and Henry was looking at the possibility that his FBN might be defunded. So he set up the boogeyman of marijuana to provide permanent employment for himself and his minions. Federal Marijuana Prohibition is his legacy.
IIRC Ness worked for the Treasury, and was solidly focused on alcohol.
Exceeding the recommended torque is not recommended.
and taxed
The only tax I've paid when I make homebrew is the sales tax I pay for the equipment and supplies I use. However the ingredients used are not taxed, as food they aren't taxed.
Food is easy to grow at home, but is legal and taxed in some (many?) states.
I have never lived in a state that taxes groceries. There's no tax on food from grocery stores and I haven't paid tax for seeds. Even if I did though, the tax may only be paid once. As an example I just picked up a paper bag with mustard seeds off the floor I saved from last year. In my refrigerator I have tomato and tomatillo seeds. I won't be paying any tax on the seedlings. Last fall I divided my strawberry plants, starting out in the spring with 4 planted in a hanging planter, they rooted and I was able to separate them into about 20 plants most of which I gave away.
Clothes are easy to make at home, but are legal and taxed in some (many) states.
I'm not sure about cloth here, whether it's taxed or not. However while it's easy to sew clothes it's much harder, takes longer, to spin thread and weave cloth.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Been smoking Irish hemp?
The substance was a specifically extracted cannabinoid type pharmaceutical. It was NOT THC, the main psychoactive component of cannabis. Cannabis containing THC, taken in daily doses, generally causes an increase in psychiatric disease and also causes a slight to mild memory impairment; this has been demonstrated with many other sedative style drugs in large doses, notably alcohol and benzodiazepines.
Why would MJ hurt memory if taken daily, and yet this newly derived cannabinoid help preserve memory in rats used daily? Cannabis is a complex herbal substance, which probably contains multiple similar components which may be partially agonists and partially antagonists at the same or similar sites in the brain. So it's likely that taking an extractive that helped Alzheimers would be like smoking sawdust for your typical pot user. Most likely it would give them no buzz at all.
The pharmaceutical community is always looking for ways to derive good medications from herbal poisons. This is not really that different a situation.
Misspelling - it's "cannabinoid" and not "canavanoid." I've worked in these fields (both Alzheimers and in endocannabinoids), and not to seem condescending, but I don't see any mention of this work being published in a well-respected scientific journal.
industrial hemp is not devoid of THC, but it's extremely dilute, and was not smoked by anyone. and even if it was smoked, there would be no effects, so dilute is THC in industrial hemp. which again points to the stupidity of american law: industrial hemp is a valuable agricultural product with many uses, including as a biofuel, which is such a hot topic in the usa right now. but no one can grow it in the usa. fucking retarded
but back on topic: sorry, but the founding fathers were not kicking back and toking on weed, they were trading in industrial fibers. the idea of smoking cannabis was alien to them, especially since the plant strain they grew had no pharmaceutical properties
it's like you are saying european americans were familiar with ostriches, just because they had chickens. both are flightless birds, but they are very different. likewise, cannabis for smoking and cannabis for rope and ship sails are just completelty different, like ostriches and chickens. familiarity with chickens means you don't know what ostriches are like. cannabis as a drug was an alien concept to the founding fathers and colonists
i am 100% for the legalization of marijuana. but we don't have to completely misinterpret or lie about history in order to justify legalization. enough solid facts about history support legalization. the idea that the founding fathers were growing marijuana is not true, and not necessary to prove marjiuana should be legal
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
What's canavanoid? Was this supposed to be cannabinoid, a compound found in Cannabis?
There are people that are allergic to marijuana, or at least one of its major components. For these people, it would take a relatively small amount to kill them. This does not justify banning it any more than it justifies banning peanuts or shellfish. It may justify labeling it clearly (as is case with any known-to-be-allergenic consumable), but that's a reasonable thing to do with psychoactive substances as well. Double win.
For just about everyone else, the only plausible way marijuana would kill you is to have a bale dropped on you from a smuggler's plane. Nothing will stop people from getting stoned and doing stupid things. Banning getting stoned obviously doesn't have this effect. Instead, take away the "asshole on drugs" loophole for anti-social behavior. A drunk who pukes on my couch is only a miserable drunk for so long before he becomes "that asshole who puked on my couch". Unfortunately, this requires being responsible for one's own behavior, including that performed in an altered state. Unless someone gets drugged without their consent or knowledge, or it causes effects which they are not aware of (like sleep drugs and sleepwalking), it just shouldn't be an excuse for anything. Some people are quite reluctant to give up this loophole.
Mal-2
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
Paraphernalia or marijuana in the passenger compartment, along with suspicion of intoxication is enough to lose your license for 30 days in Minnesota. Typically, an eye-tracking test can be used to determine if someone is severely intoxicated on marijuana, although if the test recipient knows what the officer is looking for (shaking eyes), I believe the test can be beaten (I have beaten it, although I was drunk).
Marijuana possession over 1 ounce should be illegal, however the government should sell weed it seizes. Make selling it illegal. People will still continue to produce it, but the government will reap the profits.
I was driving cross country last summer and I got busted in Kansas... I thought I'd be royally screwed b/c there were all these religious billboards advertising churches, drive thru confessions, etc. The cops scared the crap out of me, called in some more cars, cuffed me and made me get in their car, but in the end just made me dump my stuff by the side of the road and let me go. I'm actually really glad it happened b/c it helped me re-examine my stereotypes of people and I realized that cops can be reasonable, ie just busting people with unreasonable amounts of herb or harder drugs like tweek. Not that I have that bad of stereotypes of people from KS... Most of my friends from there have smoked and don't support intelligent design any more than a freedom to believe whatever you choose. Also, I hear that hemp was grown extensively in KS.
/.ers have similar experiences? Maybe I was just ridiculously lucky or maybe the tides are changing....
Still, I didn't expect the cops to let me go. Besides the fact that the cops were extremely reasonable, I had some other explanations. Maybe I'm just getting old (I was older than some of the cops). When I was a kid in a small town in WI the cops seemed to have nothing better to do than bust young people. Or maybe that I'm relatively white (still, I have a middle eastern sounding name). I was also pretty courteous to them, which always helps. Also I had a bunch of CS and math books piled in the back seat, so they might have thought I was a productive member of society. Anyways, it was an experience that raised my awareness and heart rate a bit.
Any other
Beer is doable, but not all that easy to make at home.
Beer sure is easy to make at home. I started making beer, at home, more than 20 years ago.
You have to build at least a minimal apparatus
The minimal equipment needed to brew beer cost about $60 for a compleat kit. You can assemble the equipment for less though.
you have to employ some fairly stringent (for a home environment) anti-contamination protocols.
Again not really. To sterilize the equipment and bottles wash them with a solution of sanitizer like sodium methabiluphite. Unless it's dirty most any home kitchen should be clean enough to make beer.
It takes time, and the end result usually ends up tasting a little better than horse piss.
With the exception of my first batch every batch of brew I made people told me it was good. Those who tried that batch didn't want to try anymore, but did and liked it. Many wanted me to show them how they could make beer themselves. If a brew tastes bad it's usually because the equipment was not properly sanitized, the mash was mishandled, or it was not properly transfered from the primary fermentation vessel to the second or from the second to the bottles. One wild strain of yeast can turn a batch bad.
It's fun (and mine quit tasting like horse piss after a few tries)
It probably got better because you got better with sterilizing and bottling.
but not something that will ever be common
That's how beer and wine used to be made. There weren't any centralized brewing facilities, instead there were literally hundreds, thousands, of what we call today microbreweries. When I was in Germany in the early '80s each city, town, and village had it's own breweries. Sure there were brand name beers but there were also a number of local brews.
Food is food. Apart from subsidies, the growth of food is not very regulated
Ah, if you want to cut government spending cut farm subsidies. I don't know what they are this year but last year the US congress passed a farming bill with nearly $300 million in farm subsidies. Passed it by a veto proof margin.
There are a number of reasons why cannabis was illegalized - and most of the common ones you hear are actually true to one extent or another, but none stand out much on their own. Taxation, immigrant paranoia, easy enforcement results, propaganda, and actual honest public health issues.
There were no health issues when hemp was made illegal. Dr. James Woodward testified before congress for the AMA saying "there is no evidence that marijuana is a dangerous drug". Drug warriors promptly ridiculed him and the AMA.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Try this link, for example. More reefer madness than refer, folks. Another study found a NEGATIVE link between marijuana & lung cancer. Are you a DEA SHILL?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729_pf.html
Hemp was The Reason The British Founded The American Colonies!
From the 1500s up to WWII, the British Empire operated the largest navy on the planet. Before the development of steamships (late nineteenth century?) this meant sailing ships with masts and rigging and sails - hundreds of miles of rope and acres of fabric for a big ship. If you used cotton for this it wouldn't last a year. Hemp is superior, you might get a couple of years out of a rig made of hemp. The British navy required the stuff by the ton, to the extent that it was a strategic material.
There isn't much farmland in Britain, and they needed it to grow food. On the other side of the pond was America, with a labor shortage to be sure, but comparatively limitless tracts of land. There was a period where British military officers were pensioned with grants of land in the colonies. Colonial farmers were _required_ to keep a (probably generous) fraction of their land cultivated in hemp, producing much more than was needed in the colonies, in order to keep its market price down. By the late eighteenth century, guys like George Washington (and his friends, who were growing dissatisfied with Home Rule) were pulling nasty tricks, like planting their required hemp on the north side of a hill or structure, where, starved for sun, it would grow squatty and flowery and less useful for rope. George Washington's memoirs indicate that he preferred to grow short hemp and to "Let It Go To Pot", rather than grow quality hemp to feed the British navy. He would give the useless hemp to his "niggers", who would smoke it, "dance and sing", and be somewhat easier to manage.
Look at Napoleon's motivations for conquering Europe and Russia. One of the things he wanted from Russia was hemp - for the French navy.
Why do you think they call it 'canvas'?
Exceeding the recommended torque is not recommended.
there is the issue you are selling things for consumption...you don't think the FDA will require you to get a distribution license?
The FDA does not license farmer's markets or Farmers markets. Some states do though, apparently New Mexico does. Now that's not to say a license is not needed, a farmer may need a business license to operate such a market.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
These plants & entheogens...cannabis (THC), peyote (Mescaline), Mushrooms (Psilocybin) & ayahuasca (DMT) have been used by various cultures since the dawn of time, and have influenced our evolution alot, though some people seem to overlook this. These 'sacred and magical' plants may have been responsible for the mystical experiences of Moses & many other 'prophets' in religious texts. Users claim they connect you to the world around you, give you a deeper understanding of the universe & expand your mind, opening your third eye. Anyone who doubts the validity of the experiences these chemicals offer must remember that hallucinogenic drugs such as DMT are produced in our brain via our pineal gland when we sleep, and alot of these chemicals resemble certain neurotransmitters. We are under the influence of them all the time! Do alot of Google-ing and you'll be surprised!
http://nathanlindsell.blogspot.com/
Get an herb dryer or turn on the oven at low heat with the door open.
Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
"Canavanoid" = cannabinoid. If the professor himself described the substance in that manner I am skeptical of the conclusions of his research as it would seem that, after exposure to all of that chronic, he has forgotten how to spell!
Reading the title you probably know but most people do not know that the word "canvas" as painters used it came from hemp, cannabis. Rembrandt, Van Gogh, and other painters painted on hemp canvas.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
That didn't refute anything I said. It's legal to make at home, it's legal to be sold in stores, and it's taxed.
Homebrew is only taxed if more than 100 gallons is removed from a single adult residence or 200 gallons if 2 or more live in the residence. I live alone and can make 100 gallons of beer and wine a year without having to pay a tax. Personally I couldn't, wouldn't want to, drink that much myself unless I distilled it. On the other hand, maybe I could brew a lot and sell cases of it to others. In that case I should pay taxes. I've been thinking about doing something like that, but instead of selling the beer use it to trade for other things. Of course, legally I'd still have to pay taxes.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Few people would try to make valid counterpoints, due to lack of experience on either/both sides of the track. This is what you need to know.
Negative effects:
- Loss of consequence.
- Transitive zombiesque infectiousness.
- Linearization of ambitions and capabilities.
- Dependency of vacated psychological checkpoints.
- Vague recklessness.
The first point defines the slick ice that forms under ones' mental inertia. Are you even going anywhere? If not, gaining any traction to move forward is very difficult. If already in motion (i.e. actively stimulating the brain, like work or research), the velocity persists. However, changing pace is not within control.
The second point describes the overall growing, widespread usage. The "One Of US" mentality dominates upon infection. The host procures the spread, or fights for survival of the infection. Examples - Procuring is the tantalizing mellow offering to mailable kids, even by mockery. Survival is hating on this post.
The third point recognizes that any decision made post-smoking is now short-sighted and mostly executed through thick tunnel-vision. "Factors" and "details" are usually no longer considered. Steps 1 to 3 have been reduced to steps 1 (Do it) and 2 (it just gets done, or doesn't).
The fourth point reflects the perceived necessity of perpetually operating in this mode. Some will call this an addiction, but it's actually a derivative of fear - sociological atrophy occurs, leaving a person unable to handle patience (without smoking), or making fast decisions with many variables in the balance (without smoking).
The fifth quantifies the overall de-prioritization given to anything that doesn't support the infection. Smoking around toddlers - sure, they seem happy! Let's talk about something, but don't worry it won't matter in the next..minute. Do something bold and crazy! Now you're on youtube or maybe even holding a Darwin. Attempting to become a meaningful pothead is like crowd-surfing. What could go wrong?
Final note, fuck those retarded "above the influence" ads. Here's a slogan even the hippies can relate to:
Be free. We are not.
Put the dank down, then try to live the same life. But the infected must survive.
I may have alzheimers, but at least I don't have alzheimers.
Allow someone to grow, say, three plants at home and make it a $1,000 penalty. More than three and it's a felony. It would divert lots of money away from the black market (with some going to Home depot). The mexican cartels would take a serious hit as would all grow-ops.
Even better would be to just relegalize marijuana and get repeal the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. Allow people to legally grow, own, and possess any amount of hemp. Making hemp illegal was the opposite of what Thomas Jefferson thought of, he proposed requiring all farmers to grow hemp.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
That's something I don't hear talked about much--the health affects caused by smoking pot, as in smoke and tars being sucked into the lungs. I'm assuming it's as bad as tobacco?
Actually marijuana isn't as bad cancer wise as tobacco. Marijuana Does Not Raise Lung Cancer Risk. It may be worse for other things, but as the story the thread links to says, it also provides some benefits.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I'm the IT Director for a decent sized casino. How's that for a professional career, for a stoner?
Eating a lot of things that are legal aren't healthy either, do you propose to make them illegal as well?
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
There is no real reason that industrial hemp can't be highly potent and in the past there were potent varieties. Just political expediency has forced industrial hemp growers to develop low potency strains and market industrial hemp on the basis that it is totally different from psychoactive varieties.
As for George Washington, he was interested in separating the male and female plants and commented on Aug 7 that he was to late.
Hemp is not usually separated and seed production is usually encouraged, especially in the past as the seed oil is very valuable.
Of course hemp for ingesting is much more potent if not fertilized.
Cannabis has long been known for its medicinal qualities and it stands to reason that any educated person of the 18th century would of been familiar with this fact.
Here is a scan from the George Washington Papers site, unluckily it was the best I could quickly find and seems to be out of a school book. http://memory.loc.gov/mss/mgw/mgwd/wd01/0398.tif
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
I'm of the opinion that all driving while intoxicated laws are inappropriate. Either you're driving recklessly or not. If you are, go to jail. If not, go home and sleep it off.
Really! Sometimes the indication that someone is driving recklessly is when they plow into the side of a car, killing and maiming the occupants.
I was hit by one of those reckless drivers, though he wasn't drunk, high, or stoned. I was hit and spent days in a coma because a diabetic did not take care of himself. That was more than 10 years ago and my life has been a living hell since.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
The Jews want to decrease the IQ of the American population by keeping them stoned so they can stay in power forever.
"The New Age. The New Beginning."
While I was humored and possibly slightly enamored with the sheer amount of posts this topic was receiving, I couldn't even bring myself to read more than ten posts.
I'm no stellar communicator by any means, but most of the replies seem to read like my 8th grade debate class.
The main question arising in me - why do so many people *seem* to have such relevant bukh, such strongly sardonic laced rebuttals for a story that affects such a small percentage of people?
Hate to say the easy topics bring out the riff raff, but...
An intelligent debate about marijuana? About as far of a stretch as "yoko ono - singer/vocal artist".
she was the daughter of a wealthy florentine pogen read em and weep was her adjustable slogan
Marijuana possession over 1 ounce should be illegal, however the government should sell weed it seizes. Make selling it illegal. People will still continue to produce it, but the government will reap the profits.
BS, the US is supposed to be the land of the free not the Soviet Union. Marijuana should be legalized again.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
That's a good book everyone on this thread should read. I've pulled out my 1985 paperback edition about 5 tymes to reply to a post on this thread.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
the world would be a far better place if the roles of pot and booze were reversed (that pot was legal and booze was not). having experienced both enough to know this subject quite well, I stand firmly on my statements. if you don't have any experience in this (first-hand) then you should LISTEN to those that do have direct experience.
I have experience with both too. I was also born in the Land of the Free and believe there should be no victimless crimes. Neither drinking or smoking should be illegal. What should be, and is in some cases, is the consequences of drinking or smoking. You cause an accident drunk or stoned and you pay, same with any other harm.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Drug testing very much has to do with legality. Drug testing only got started when Reagan started pushing for drug testing as part of his War on Drugs.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
One reason could be commercial influence on the AMA
Actually the AMA opposed criminalization of hemp AKA marijuana:
"Dr. James Woodward testified before congress on behalf of the AMA when they "debated", it wasn't a real debate, the Marijuana Tax ACT of 1937 which made marijuana illegal. This is what he said, "there is no evidence that marijuana is a dangerous drug". He called federal testimony "tabloid sensationalism" and said hemp had been used more than 100 years as a drug by doctors safely. What was his and the AMA's reward? They were ridiculed.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
marijuana is still illegal.
Because it's a drug and then you become a junkie and kill people.
And I'd really like that reason to be just a joke.
Unfortunately not only is it not a joke, it's actually a lie. Marijuana does not make people violent despite what "Reefer Madness" depicts. Instead it makes users tranquil.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/viewresource.asp?resourceID=141
You included the cons from a Pros and Cons page but did not include the pros. However I'll address some of those cons.
"Smoked marijuana damages the brain, heart, lungs, and immune system."
"Heavy Marijuana Use Doesn't Damage Brain"
"Does marijuana damage the heart?"
"Marijuana is More Damaging to the Lungs Than Tobacco"
"4. Marijuana suppresses the immune system"
"3-4 Cannabis cigarettes a day are associated with the same evidence of acute and chronic bronchitis and the same degree of damage to the bronchial mucosa as 20 or more tobacco cigarettes a day."
"No drug is always safe for everybody, but after 150 years of scientific study, the only proven health problem from cannabis is that its smoke can be linked to bronchitis"
""The most compelling concerns regarding marijuana smoking in HIV/AIDS patients are the possible effects of marijuana on immunity."
Actually cannabis has been shown to be helpful:
"The effectiveness of cannabis for treating symptoms related to HIV/AIDS is widely recognized."
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
This thread just reminded me of a guy I met last December (2008) at Barcelona where I went to spend new year with some friends.
One night we went to a bar, a friend of mine (a girl from Mexico) invited one of her best friends (a girl from ther USA), she told me that the american's boyfriend was an Indian guy (that is, a guy from India) who has a PhD in Economics.
That night I met the booyfriend, who had a PhD in Economics /from Oxford/ and who is head of a university department in Spain.
The guy gave to my friend a bag with some mariguana. And according to what she told me some days after, the guy likes smoking and he make such gifts to some his friends (the ones that like it).
I personally have never tried it, but I really find it stupid to have so much fear and worry of a plant.
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
Interesting read but the Alternet article leaves holes. For instance it says nothing about the Rothschild and Rockefeller oil magnates. He then admits Hearst did rail against hemp however he dies not say Hearst owned thousands of acres of forest which he used to harvest trees to make paper. Instead it says he had to sale his "prized art collection to avert foreclosure" because of a debt owned to Canadian paper producers. It also doesn't say "The family continued to own forest products and petroleum properties".
Perhaps racism had something to do with making hemp illegal afterall his "Reefer Madness" did rail against Mexicans smoking "marijuana" the "Devil Weeds", he railed against Blacks, and during the Second World War as part of his "yellow peril" he not only pushed to have the Japanese interned but Chinese as well. However he could have opposed hemp for economic reasons as well.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Um, ignoring the marijuana perspective for a minute, major breakthroughs were made in alzheimers recently:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081207134109.htm
Reseachers have figured out that HSV-1 (herpes virus) is found in the amyloid plaques in the brain, and it is likely that HSV-1 outbreak later in life due to weakened immune system may be a trigger. So many people haven't heard about this, but it has been baking for quite some time as researchers confirmed it with some solid results. HSV-1 plays a huge role in destroying the brain.
So back to marijuana - is the article here saying that marijuana is an anti-viral? Or it somehow slows the progression of HSV-1? You can't treat the symptoms. You need to treat the cause. I have little faith in doctors who say that Omega-3 oil and doing math puzzles will stop alzheimers - it won't, sure it might help the brain a bit, but the damn virus is still partying in your neurons.
Yes, it's illegal when it shouldn't be. And it's not cheap because it's not legal.
Make it freely available, usage will soar and the damage WILL be greater than tobacco.
Alcohol and tobacco are freely available but where's all the damage from them? Fact is is alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana. And while smoking tobacco causes cancer, smoking marijuana "Does Not Raise Lung Cancer Risk". "Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection. However "The effectiveness of cannabis for treating symptoms related to HIV/AIDS is widely recognized."
Should there be a Law?
Well now if you're going to phrase it that way, then what's wrong with using alcohol responsibly?
Notice I'm not putting down hemp or saying it should remain illegal, actually in previous posts I've stated I think it should be legalized. It never should have been made criminal to begin with.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Hemp has HUGE advantages over cotton. Fiber is fiber to a large extent. Cotton is one of the most difficult crops to grow and has some of the highest water, pesticide, and fertilizer needs. Hemp will grow on almost any land, requires minimal water, no/little fertilizer, and has few pests.
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
I've *had* to drive while both stoned and under the influence...
I can categorically say that if I had been in a situation in which I needed to react to prevent an accident, I would not have been able to do so. If that meant trying to avoid a pedestrian or cyclist, said person would have died or car wrapped around a tree/pole.
That's not to say that *I* was driving recklessly - I don't believe I was - just that my ability to react like a person unaffected by drugs was completely absent. It isn't your ability to drive that is a problem when tired/drunk/high, it is your ability to react to situations.
If you want to know who's driving under the influence of "something", late at night, look for those cruising along the streets at 10 or more *under* the speed limit.
And the problem with "go home and sleep it off" is that sometimes "drive" is the way to get to/from home, especially in countries that don't have adequate public transport around the clock.
Oh, btw, a "0.8 bac" would probably mean you are dead. In California, the legal BAC limit is 0.08, ten times less than what you've stated. At 0.1, you're in danger of alcohol poisoning, sometimes I've seen news articles about people at 0.12, but never even as much as 0.2.
So, to summarise, a "baked" driver may look "ok" driving on the road until something happens that requires reflexive action. At that point, it is likely that someone or something is going to be "toasted", not just "baked".
Given the enforcement difficulties that attend distinguishing between marijuana cultivated locally and marijuana grown elsewhere, 21 U.S.C. 801(5), and concerns about diversion into illicit channels, the Court has no difficulty concluding that Congress had a rational basis for believing that failure to regulate the intrastate manufacture and possession of marijuana would leave a gaping hole in the CSA
If you can prove the strain you are growing (through genetic drift analysis or direct genetic engineering maybe?) and you maintain GMP style documentation than Congress will be resaonably assured that it was not derived from interstate commerce and will not enter interstate commerce.
Like I said, almost impossible to do...but if you weren't stoned out you might be able to do exactly that.
A headline in my little town's paper said that seven local people, including two children, had died recently from overdoses of oxycontin, a legal prescription drug available mostly from workers compensation patients who sell their stash or trade for cocaine. Had these people died from marijuana use, this story would have elicited fear, panic and media hysteria; instead it was greeted with a yawn and quickly forgotten. Govenment and industry propaganda have turned the populace into zombies who can be manipulated like sheep into believing any crap the political correctness nazis desire.
Your brain expects a connection to remain viable permanently.
Actually neurons, brain cells constantly make and break connections. Dendrites and axons form new connections through synapses. Some of these connections are temporary. Heck, new neurons even grow in the adult brain and definitely form new connections.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
If people knew the torture of living with schizophrenia then they wouldn't be so quick to jump on the "let's-all-smoke-cannabis-and-have-an-awesome-time" band-wagon.
First off I want the choice to do whatever I want to to my own body as long as I do not harm others.
Now, do you suffer from memory problems? Because I survived a Traumnatic Brain Injury, TBI, I do have problems with my memory. And I would like to have the choice to use a drug that may help me.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
marijuana is not hemp. hemp is not marijuana. confusing them and rewriting history is not going to help get marijuana legalized today. so why are you so hellbent on rewriting history?
the point, as far i understand it, as far as i want it, as far as i think you want it, is that marijuana, today, should be legal, right?
then why do you think historical revisionism is going to help us do that?
it is propaganda and lies to to say that hemp and maijuana share the same history in the united states. they have ocmpletely different uses. confounding the two plants and creating a historical lie about founding fathers toking weed does not advance marijuana's image today. in fact, it looks kind of weird and desperate, as no one serious about their history believes it, because its bullshit
there was no libertarian marijuana utopia in the american past, ever. there were, in fact, pretty hard core puritans in the american past. the same puritanical movements that founded this country also gave birth to the temperance movement that culminated in prohibition in the 1920s. so do you still really believe anything that can be found in american history is any help to the marijuana legqalization movement today? historical truth: there's nothing in american history that suggests friendliness to marijuana. really. please understand this, and move past the bullshit revisionism attempt of yours. at best, you're a bad unconvincing propagandizer. thats not what the marijuana lebalization movement needs
marijuana is not hemp. hemp is not marijuana
please stop trying to confound the history of hemp in the united states and trying to somehow in desperation pull out some bullshit rationalization for the legalization of marijuana today from the american past
marijuana should be legal. the history of hemp does not help that cause. get it right
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I love all these
"Well..... I heard this stupid scare monger fact that I'll just pass on here. So THERE!"
type posts from people who obviously are talking out of their ass. :)
I have Asperger's Syndrome.
I've found the following sativa dominant strains to be helpful when a constant level of ingestion is used.
Cinderella-99
Sour Diesel
Princess Diesel (Ice Princess X Sour Diesel)
Lemon Diesel
Lemon Skunk
Skunk #1 (Though it brings a bit of fog)
There are other strains but those have been the most effective.
They promote focus, energy, creativity, low-anxiety and they tend to clear out that background confusion that I get during verbal communication.
Anyone who doesn't believe that CANNABIS should be legal is not in full possession of the facts.
Do your homework people and then demand from your legislators that they face up to the truth and make things right.
A list of informative links to start with.
http://forum.grasscity.com/medical-marijuana/314173-granny-storm-crows-list-2009-a.html
responsibly doesn't mean the same as in moderation (although it might in some circumstances). I don't see driving and being stoned as being responsible for example same as drink driving. I really meant theres a time and a place to be stoned and being responsible you would keep your use to those times and places.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
I don't see driving and being stoned as being responsible for example same as drink driving. I really meant theres a time and a place to be stoned and being responsible you would keep your use to those times and places.
Actually I don't see driving while stoned the same as driving while drunk either. Being drunk is more dangerous. At least when stoned a person is likely to be more careful. And while reaction tymes are slower than when not stoned reaction tymes when drunk are even slower. Stoned drivers are more "risk adverse".
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
"What was done with the seed saved from the India Hemp last summer? It ought, all of it, to have been sewn again; that not only a stock of seed sufficient for my own purposes might have been raised, but to have disseminated the seed to others; as it is more valuable than the common Hemp." - George Washington in a letter to his plantation manager
Indian hemp, or Cannabis indica did not have more or better fiber, but some indica strains had been bred over a long period for THC. The European C. Sativas of Washington's period had been bred exclusively for fiber.
Washington also had the female plants separated from the males, which is helpful mostly for getting drug-grade flowers.
So yes, there is an excellent chance that Washington used cannabis as a drug.
It was not listed in the U.S. Pharmacopeia (USP, official dispensable/prescribable pharmaceuticals list) until 1870, and it was not dropped until 1941.
The use of marijuana as a drug goes back far longer than that. Here's a recent discovery:
"An ancient Caucasian people, probably the Indo-European-speaking Yuezhi whose fair-haired mummies keep turning up in Xinjiang province, seem to have buried one of their shamans with a whopping 789 grams of high-potency pot 2,700 years ago. ...
The ancient Greek historian Herodotus relates how the Scythians, Iranian-speaking nomads who roamed the steppes to the west of the Yuezhi in the first millennium B.C., liked to throw marijuana onto bonfires to induce trancelike states. It's possible the buried shaman followed similar practices."
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
I like the term risk adverse, driving whilst stoned can be positively scary while driving while drunk your less aware of how impaired your driving is neither are a good state to be in whilst behind the wheel of a car.
You can straighten up a lot faster from being stoned than being drunk but I honestly think your fooling yourself if you think your driving skills are as good as when you are sober.
I love drivings funny little statistic that over half the drivers surveyed think they are better than the average driver. which really means that most people over estimate their abilities as a driver. It's pretty likely some people drive better stoned than some drive sober, but you really should drive to the best of your abilities since your going to encounter many bad drivers and your skill can save lives.
I'm pro legalisation but surely its better to get a few hours sleep prior to getting on the road.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
you seriously consider this substantative proof george washington used cannabis as a drug?
really?
look, here's the truth: washington smoked doobage.... or: washington never smoked the stuff. either way: COMPLETELY IMMATERIAL TO THE TASK AT HAND. which is, get marijuana legal now
unfortunately, there seems to be this weird quasireligious sort, like yourself, who believes this goal is achieved by proving that the american past was some sort of drug utopia, and all modern anti-drug efforts are strictly the product of some capitalist corporate conspiracy straight out of a bad hollywood movie
fucking insane
#1: the american past is chocka-block with theological fascists, puritans
#2: the modern opposition to drug use is based on fears of drug addiction, primarily. which is a 100% valid concern with any drug, but completely wrong when it comes to marijuana. you convince people who are concerned about marijuana by educating them that marijuana is DIFFERENT
but you can't educate decent folk about how marijuana is DIFFERENT when you are dealing with loud ignorant voices arguing for marijuana legalization that ALL drugs should be legal too. decent folk know thi sis bullshit, because they know something like methamphetamine should NEVER be considered in the same breadth as marijuana, no matte rhow little they know about marijuana, they at least know that drugs are DIFFERENT
so how does marijuana remain illegal forever? with nitwits who wish to confound marijuana with drugs mike methamphetmaine, cocaine, heroin: drugs which are orders of magnitude more addictive, and, if ever made legal, should in no way have ANYTHING to do with marijuana legalization
meanwhile, if you focus on the PHARAMCOLOGICAL FACTS of marijuana, marijuana will eventually be legalized out of common fucking sense, since it is barely addictive. alcohol is many times more harmful to the human body than marijuana, for one, and many times more addictive
if marijuana is not legalized, it is because of the very loud, very dumb voices who wish to conflate marijuana legalization with part of a larger "all drugs should be free dude" head in the sand bullshit mentality, or part of some bizarre fanboy historical ficiton revisionist propaganda
that's really the fucking truth
want to make marijuana legal?
1. stop conflating it with other drugs
2. stop rewriting history
if you can do neither thing, all of your rhetorical efforts serve to keep marijuana illegal by convincing anyone sane listening to you that marijuana legalization proponents are wack jobs
REALLY
focus on pharamcological facts
FORGET OTHER DRUGS
FORGET RETARDED HISTORICAL FANTASY SEQUENCES
if you can't do that?
marijuana legalization is doomed
by showing that marijuana leglization proponents are fruitcakes, rather than sane, common sense oriented folks. COMMON SENSE dictatates marijuana should be legal. so stick to common sense, and forget your ideological grudges and larger issues. because you definitely have issues
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
You can straighten up a lot faster from being stoned than being drunk but I honestly think your fooling yourself if you think your driving skills are as good as when you are sober.
Oh, I don't believe someone stoned can drive as well as when they're sober but they can drive better than if they're drunk. To tell the truth I don't think anyone impaired by whatever method should drive, whether that be by being drunk, stoned, or by not taking care of their diabetes. I specifically say diabetes because I was hit while riding my bike by a diabetic. I was in college and was riding my bike after class when someone who was weaving all over the road hit me. I now have a permanent disability, I survived a Traumatic Brain Injury, TBI. Witnesses to the accident had to chase down and force the driver to stop. It's said he was a diabetic and had a diabetic seizer while driving. The thing is is that he had caused accidents before he hit me for the same reason, he didn't take care of his diabetes. He moved from one state to mine because the state he moved from issued a warrant for his arrest.
Notice that while I am pro-legalization and do not believe in victim-less crimes, whether it be drinking, using drugs, or prostitution, I do believe as I've said a number of tymes people should be held accountable. In legal drugs I said "You cause an accident drunk or stoned and you pay, same with any other harm." It comes down to personal responsibility.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
LMAO! Cannabinoid is the word the summary author was looking for. It's funny how you can tell that someone is one of "those" people who has never even let themselves think about drugs. But seriously, if you're gonna write about a subject at least learn how to spell the important jargon.