Closure for the marijuana thread.

[cooltuba]

I don't know if I'll get in trouble for this, as the topic was closed, but I have a few things to say:

To everyone who posted that marijuana is the worst thing to ever happen to society:

We aren't going to change each other's minds. You all think it's inherently sinful, we (the people who say it's up to the individual circumstances) don't. We all agree that while it is illegal, it is sinful, though. I propose a suggestion: When you encounter someone in real-life, or on PM, please stick to the illegal=immoral argument. It's the only thing that we can agree on, and it's certainly an effective argument for convincing someone to quit smoking marijuana.

I think the reason I personally am unable to accept the "scientific" evidence that was presented in the other thread is the abundance of propiganda surrounding marijuana use. Many of the "scientific" studies were funded by the government and used very high levels of THC to produce the harmful effects that they noted. Studies done in the Netherlands and many other countries trying to reproduce these effects using actual marijuana smoke (not pure, synthetic THC) are unable to reproduce those effects. For example, the psychoactive dose of pure THC is 3mg for the average adult. In this study: intraperitoneal
rat lowest published toxic dose: 30 mg/kg (1 day male) Reproductive: Effects on fertility: Mating performance (e.g., # sperm positive females per # females mated; # copulations per # estrus cycles),
they used 30mg per kilogram of the animal. That's more than ten times the psychoactive dose (for a 70kg human) being pumped into a rat. And that's the LOWEST levels of THC used in that whole batch of research. How can you tell me that smoking a tenth of what that poor rat was subjected to produces the same or even simillar effects? Check out this one:
unreported route
rabbit lowest published toxic dose: 13 gm/kg (6-18 day pregnant) Reproductive: Effects on embryo or fetus: Fetotoxicity (except death, e.g., stunted fetus)

13 gm=13000mg. 4,333 times the psychoactive dose. To put that in perspective, 5,000 times the psychoactive dose (the equivalent to smoking about 5lbs in an hour, which is physically impossible) is a fatal dose. Basically, they intoxicated this rabbit almost to the point of death, then said "hey, the fetus of this almost dead rabitt is somewhat smaller than those of rabbits that are not almost dead from THC overdose." I'll keep that in mind when I'm doing a THC synthesis in my home-made chem lab, since that's the only way I'd ever be able to damage myself as severely as that rabbit.

Now, I'm not saying that marijuana is not harmful, just that the research done cannot be trusted, so please do not use those arguments; they do more harm than good. Just stick to the reason that we can all clearly see makes smoking marijuana immoral: it is illegal.

Thanks, and God Bless,

Tim

[burnsspivey]

I was a little upset that the marijuana thread was closed. The discussion had not ended, but someone made an executive decision that it had "ceased to be productive" and killed it? That seems kind of antithetical to a debate board, doesn't it?

[Lil Red]

it was my thread...my question was answered and i asked that it be closed...to me, it didn't seem like either side was getting anywhere in convincing anybody. my question was whether it was sinful or not. from a youth ministry point of view, my question was answered. and it seemed like it was getting away from whether it was sinful or not and into a whole other debate. why don't you make a thread about where it was going (from my pov, the whole, is/isn't it healthy/destructive any more than tobacco)

[SirMyztiq]

This might shock many of you.

I will NEVER support, endorse or patronize the legalization of Marijuana. That is one of the few conservative sides of me.

I don't think this country needs yet another substance in which teens, adults and children can escape reality with.

[cooltuba]

[quote name='SirMyztiq' date='Dec 9 2004, 08:48 PM'] I don't think this country needs yet another substance in which teens, adults and children can escape reality with. [/quote]
The problem is that we already have it in this country. If the question was wether or not to bring it in the country, I would agree. Marijuana use in America is quite widespread. In fact, the states that have proposed legalization have used the argument that so many of their citizens are being locked up because of it; causing more harm than the drug itself. Seeing as it's already here, I'm in favor of legalization. At least it could be regulated; drug dealers don't ask for ID they'll sell to a 6 year old if they have the money. Dutch teen marijuana use has dropped from 13.6% to 6.5% since the legalization of marijuana. In comparison, American teen marijuana use statistics offer a high of 52.4% and a low of 15.5. You could also tax the carp out of it, and maybe do something about that impending 8 trillion dollar debt.

Peace,

Tim

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

IMHO, it smells horrible and would be worse than smelling cigarettes all the time. I hate marijuana passionately. I've seen it mess up too many of my friends' lives. Did anyone here attend a school where kids use, sell, come to school high/drunk? It's not the harmful effects of THC, it's the attitude it creates in the people that use it. The loss of a bunch of friendships to this junk led me to enroll in another high school.

[jasJis]

way to kill a decent buzz, cooltuba....

If you read the entire thread, you would have noted that not many would have agreed that smoking marijuana was not harmful. The debate was the degree of harm.

I also categorically challenge your statistics concerning pot smoking in the US compared to the Netherlands. Let's site some resources or links we can check.

I think for a really good site for you to check out is a pro-medical marijuana use website. Check out Google and see what you come up with. I tend to give them a lot of weight as being scientifically knowledgeable concerning the physical effects of marijuana, both pro and con. We could address and discuss the issues they raise and consider. It would be edifying for both of us.

Common sense refutes the idea of 'in for a penny, in for a pound' idea that pot smoking is so widespread that it should be legalized. I cannot be controlled effectively to tax. Marijuana is easily grown and processed for consumption by anyone. It is impossible for any 'company' to gear up to supply all of the demand and not have people start growing their own for their own use. It only takes a few seeds and 2 months of sunshine to have seed producing plants. There would be clubs trading seeds, etc. etc. etc. Is High Times magazine still around? Does any body remember Wooden Nickel stores that sold pot paraphinalia? Legalized pot that can be taxed is a joke.

If we want to discuss this rationally, let's choose 3 reasons why pot should be legalized and 3 reasons why it shouldn't be. We can discuss and debate these 6 points and stay focused. This is especially helpful considering that heavy pot smoking causes permanent short term memory loss.... (true statement. i meant to bring it up earlier but i kept forgetting. )

[Winchester]

Legalize it so potheads will just shut the hell up. Since most of them don't have jobs anyway, all they have to do is read conspiracy theories about marijuana.

[Tony]

you know.. I have always wondered if Genesis 1:12 inlcuded marijuana.. but I dont know.. goes into where God gave us all plant that beared seed. I do not have any intentions of smoking pot myself but that has left me scraching my head for years

[cooltuba]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Dec 10 2004, 07:06 AM'] way to kill a decent buzz, cooltuba.... 

If you read the entire thread, you would have noted that not many would have agreed that smoking marijuana was not harmful.  The debate was the degree of harm.

I also categorically challenge your statistics concerning pot smoking in the US compared to the Netherlands.  Let's site some resources or links we can check.

I think for a really good site for you to check out is a pro-medical marijuana use website.  Check out Google and see what you come up with.  I tend to give them a lot of weight as being scientifically knowledgeable concerning the physical effects of marijuana, both pro and con.  We could address and discuss the issues they raise and consider.  It would be edifying for both of us.

Common sense refutes the idea of 'in for a penny, in for a pound' idea that pot smoking is so widespread that it should be legalized.  I cannot be controlled effectively to tax.  Marijuana is easily grown and processed for consumption by anyone.  It is impossible for any 'company' to gear up to supply all of the demand and not have people start growing their own for their own use.  It only takes a few seeds and 2 months of sunshine to have seed producing plants.  There would be clubs trading seeds, etc. etc. etc.  Is High Times magazine still around?  Does any body remember Wooden Nickel stores that sold pot paraphinalia?  Legalized pot that can be taxed is a joke.

If we want to discuss this rationally, let's choose 3 reasons why pot should be legalized and 3 reasons why it shouldn't be.  We can discuss and debate these 6 points and stay focused.  This is especially helpful considering that heavy pot smoking causes permanent short term memory loss....  (true statement.  i meant to bring it up earlier but i kept forgetting.  ) [/quote]
Jas Jis,

The source of the usage statistics:

de Zwart, W.M. et al, Key Data: Smoking, Drinking, Drug Use and Gambling Among Pupils Aged 10 Years and Older, Utrecht: Netherlands Institute on Alcohol and Drugs (1994)

National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Main Findings 1990, Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse (1991); Preliminary Estimates from the 1993 Household Survey on Drug Abuse, Advance Report Number 7, Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse (1994).

National Survey Results on Drug Use, from the Monitoring the Future Study, 1975-1993, Volume I, Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse (1994).

I would be happy to discuss this rationally with you, but you must promise not to resort to name-calling, insinuations of illegal drug use, or other demeaning insults. Your track record in the other thread does not speak well of you; what you called those people was very un-Christian of you.

Reply with your assurance that this will be discussed maturely and I will be happy to discuss with you.

Sincerely,

Tim

*edit* P.S. I am not saying that marijuana has no harmful effects. Research shows that the effects of smoking marijuana are similar to cigarettes. Ingestion (eating it) however, produces none of these effects.

Edited December 10, 2004 by cooltuba

[Guest]

[quote name='Winchester' date='Dec 10 2004, 08:43 AM'] Legalize it so potheads will just shut the hell up. Since most of them don't have jobs anyway, all they have to do is read conspiracy theories about marijuana. [/quote]
lol

[jasJis]

[quote name='cooltuba' date='Dec 10 2004, 03:07 PM'] Reply with your assurance that this will be discussed maturely and I will be happy to discuss with you. [/quote]
I yam what I yam.


Nicely yes.

Maturely......maybe.

For the record. I did no 'name calling'. I asked questions only. In some circles, it would have been taken as humorous, but some people mistake humorous with tumorours and avoid it.

[cooltuba]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Dec 10 2004, 07:20 PM'] I yam what I yam.


Nicely yes.

Maturely......maybe.

For the record. I did no 'name calling'. I asked questions only. In some circles, it would have been taken as humorous, but some people mistake humorous with tumorours and avoid it. [/quote]
For the record : "Put the bong down, sober up, and read the dang articles" is not a question.

BTW, I'd rather not argue the legalization issue, as I am more concerned with the lies you've been told/read about the severity of the health risks of marijuana, but you want to do this, so I'll play along.

Summary of reason for leagalization #1: Legalization will seperate marijuana users from the harder, more dangerous drugs.

In 1976, following the recommendations of two national commissions, the Dutch government revised many aspects of its drug policy. While not legalizing marijuana, it adopted an "expediency principle," which directed police and prosecutors to ignore retail sale to adults as long as the circumstances of the sale do not constitute a public nuisance.

This change in policy was based on several factors, including:

a principle of tolerance toward alternative lifestyles
a finding that, compared to other illegal drugs, marijuana poses little risk to users
a desire to protect marijuana users from the marginalization that accompanies arrest and prosecution
a belief that separating the retail markets for "soft" and "hard" drugs decreases the likelihood that marijuana users will experiment with cocaine or heroin

Following the policy change, marijuana sales emerged openly in coffee shops, which were required to follow a set of regulations, including a ban on advertising, sale of no more than 30 grams at a time, and a minimum purchase age of 18. The sale of other drugs on the premises is strictly prohibited, and constitutes grounds for immediate closure by the police. Local officials were also authorized to create additional regulations to protect the interests of the community - for example, limiting the number of coffee shops concentrated in any one area.

Source: Netherlands Institute for Alcohol and Drugs, "Cannabis Policy Fact Sheet," Netherlands Alcohol and Drug Report 1 (1995); Leuw, E., "Initial Construction and Development of the Official Dutch Drug Policy," pp 23-40 in E. Leuw and I.H. Marshall (eds), Between Prohibition and Legalization: The Dutch Experiment in Drug Policy, Amsterdam: Kugler Publications (1994).

While marijuana use-rates have increased in the Netherlands, cocaine use-rates have not - indicating that separation of the "hard" and "soft" drug markets has prevented a "gateway effect" from developing. In 1992, about 1.5% of 12 to 18 year-olds had ever tried cocaine and only .3% had used it in the past month.

Source: de Zwart, W.M. et al, Key Data: Smoking, Drinking, Drug Use and Gambling Among Pupils Aged 10 Years and Older, Utrecht: Netherlands Institute on Alcohol and Drugs (1994).

Summary of reason #2: Marijuana is not physically addictive.

Essentially all drugs are used in "an addictive fashion" by some people. However, for any drug to be identified as highly addictive, there should be evidence that substantial numbers of users repeatedly fail in their attempts to discontinue use and develop use-patterns that interfere with other life activities.

National epidemiological surveys show that the large majority of people who have had experience with marijuana do not become regular users.

In 1993, among Americans age 12 and over, about 34% had used marijuana sometime in their life, but only 9% had used it in the past year, 4.3% in the past month, and 2.8% in the past week.

Source: Preliminary Estimates from the 1993 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1994).

A longitudinal study of young adults who had first been surveyed in high school also found a high "discontinuation rate" for marijuana. While 77% had used the drug, 74% of those had not used in the past year and 84% had not used in the past month.

Source: Johnston, L.D. et al, Drug Use Among American High School Seniors, College Students and Young Adults, 1975-1990,Vol II, Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1991), p 31.

Of course, even people who continue using marijuana for several years or more are not necessarily "addicted" to it. Many regular users - including many daily users - consume marijuana in a way that does not interfere with other life activities, and may in some cases enhance them.

There is only scant evidence that marijuana produces physical dependence and withdrawal in humans.

When human subjects were administered daily oral doses of 180-210 mg of THC - the equivalent of 15-20 joints per day - abrupt cessation produced adverse symptoms, including disturbed sleep, restlessness, nausea, decreased appetite, and sweating. The authors interpreted these symptoms as evidence of physical dependence. However, they noted the syndrome's relatively mild nature and remained skeptical of its occurrence when marijuana is consumed in usual doses and situations.

Source: Jones, R.T. et al, "Clinical Studies of Cannabis Tolerance and Dependence," Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 282:221-39 (1976).

Indeed, when humans are allowed to control consumption, even high doses are not followed by adverse withdrawal symptoms.

Source: Stefanis. C. et al, "Experimental Observations of a 3-Day Hashish Abstinence Period and Reintroduction of Use," Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 282:113-20 (1976); Cohen, S. et al, "The 94-Day Study," pp 621-26 in M.C. Braude and S. Szara (eds), The Pharmacology of Marijuana, New York: Raven Press (1976)

The most avid publicizers of marijuana's addictive nature are treatment providers who, in recent years, have increasingly admitted insured marijuana users to their programs.

Source: Gold, M.S., The Good News About Drugs and Alcohol, New York: Villard Books (1991).

Summary of reason for legalization #3: Marijuana does no permanent damage to the brain. BTW, that was cute of you in your post to have "forgotten" that marijuana causes permanent short term memory loss. Let's see you prove that half as conclusively, with as thorough sources as I will provide.

The original basis of this claim was a report that, upon postmortem examinations, structural changes in several brain regions were found in two rhesus monkeys exposed to THC.

Source: Heath, B.C. et al, "Cannabis Sativa: Effects on Brain Function and Ultrastructure in Rhesus Monkeys," Biological Psychiatry 15:657 (1980).

Because these changes primarily involved the hippocampus, a cortical brain region known to play an important role in learning and memory, this finding suggested possible negative consequences for human marijuana users.

Additional studies, employing rodents, reported similar brain changes.

However, to achieve these results, massive doses of THC - up to 200 times the psychoactive dose in humans - had to be given . In fact, studies employing 100 times the human dose have failed to reveal any damage.

Source: Scallet, A.C., "Neurotoxicology of Cannabis and THC: A Review of Chronic Exposure Studies in Animals," Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior 40:671-82 (1991).

In the most recently published study, rhesus monkeys were exposed through face-mask inhalation to the smoke equivalent of four to five joints per day for one year. When sacrificed seven months later, there was no observed alteration of hippocampal architecture, cell size, cell number, or synaptic configuration. The authors conclude:

"while behavioral and neuroendocrinal effects are observed during marijuana smoke exposure in the monkey, residual neuropathological and neurochemical effects of marijuana exposure were not observed seven months after the year-long marijuana smoke regimen."

Source: Slikker, W. et al, "Behavioral, Neurochemical, and Neurohistological Effects of Chronic Marijuana Smoke Exposure in the Nonhuman Primate," pp 219-74 in L. Murphy and A. Bartke (eds), Marijuana/Cannabinoids Neurobiology and Neurophysiology, Boca Raton: CRC Press (1992).

Thus, 20 years after the first report of brain damage in two marijuana-exposed monkeys, the claim of damage to brain cells has been effectively disproven.

No postmortem examinations of the brains of human marijuana users have ever been conducted. However, numerous studies have explored marijuana effect on brain-related cognitive functions. Many employ an experimental design - in which subjects are given marijuana in a laboratory setting, and then compared to controls on a variety of measures involving attention, learning and memory. In a number of studies, no significant differences were detected.

Sources: Weckowicz, T.E. et al, "Effect of Marijuana on Divergent and Convergent Production Cognitive Tests," Journal of Abnormal Psychology 84:386-98 (1975); Hooker, W.D., and Jones, R.T., "Increased Susceptibility to Memory Intrusions and the Stroop Interference Effect During Acute Marijuana Intoxication," Psychopharmacology 91: 20-24 (1987); Waskow, I.E. et el, "Psychological Effects of Tetrahydrocannabinol," Archives of General Psychiatry 22: 97-107 (1970); Dornbush, R.L. and Kokkevi, A., "Acute Effects of Cannabis on Cognitive, Perceptual, and Motor Performance in Chronic Hashish Users," Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 282: 213-22 (1976).

In fact, there is substantial research demonstrating that that marijuana intoxication does not impair the retrieval of information learned previously.

Sources: Darley, C.F. et al, "Marijuana Effects on Long-Term Memory Assessment and Retrieval," Psychopharmacology 52:239-41 (1977); Abel, E.L., "Retrieval of Information After Use of Marijuana," pp 121-24 in E.L. Abel (ed) The Scientific Study of Marijuana, Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers (1976); Abel, E.L., "Marijuana and Memory: Acquisition or Retrieval?" pp 125-32 in E.L. Abel (ed) The Scientific Study of Marijuana, Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers (1976).

However, there is evidence that marijuana, particularly in high doses, may interfere with users' ability to transfer new information into longterm memory.

Sources: Abel, E.L., "Marijuana and Memory: Acquisition or Retrieval?" pp 125-32 in E.L. Abel (ed) The Scientific Study of Marijuana, Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers (1976); Miller, L. et al, "Effects of Marijuana on Recall of Narrative Material and Stroop Colour-Word Performance," pp 117-20 in E.L. Abel (ed) The Scientific Study of Marijuana, Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers (1976); Dornbush, R.L. et al, "Marijuana, Memory, and Perception," pp 133-40 in E.L. Abel (ed) The Scientific Study of Marijuana, Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers (1976).

While there is general agreement that, while under the influence of marijuana, learning is less efficient, there is no evidence that marijuana users - even longterm users - suffer permanent impairment. Indeed, numerous studies comparing chronic marijuana users with non-user controls have found no significant differences in learning, memory recall or other cognitive functions.

Sources: Satz, P. et al, "Neuropsychologic, Intellectual, and Personality Correlates of Chronic Marijuana Use in Native Costa Ricans," Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 282: 266-306 (1976); Grant, I. et al, "A Neuropsychological Assessment of the Effects of Moderate Marijuana Use," Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 156: 278-80 (1973); Knights, R., "Psychological Test Results," pp 111-20 in V. Rubin and L. Comitas (eds), Ganja in Jamaica, The Hague: Mouton (1975); Page, J.B., "Psychosociocultural Perspectives on Chronic Cannabis Use: The Costa Rican Follow-Up," Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 20: 57-65 (1988); Carlin, A.S. and Trupin, E.W., "The Effect of Long-Term Chronic Marijuana Use on Neuropsychological Functioning," International Journal of the Addictions 12:617-24 (1977).

Now, I know your first instinct is to attack the arguments as not reasons for legalization. That's a no-no. You do not get to impose your opinions about wether or not those are reasons for legalization, as I will not say that your reasons for keeping it illegal are not reasons to keep it illegal. That is a cyclical argument based on opinion, and if we were to go at it that way, we'd end up getting this thread closed, too.

What I propose is that you show me plausible scenario studies (not studies utilizing massive doses of synthisized THC) to prove those individual points untrue.

The simple fact is that all of the research showing the common myths about marijuana (the short-term memory thing, for example) are refuted by the scientific community as either un-repeatable or implausible (giving an animal 1/10th the size of a human 200 times the human dose).

Peace,

Tim

[jasJis]

OMG. I'm going to have to put a little effort into this. Good job. I will provide a thorough post, as you did. I did note this in your post:
[quote]However, there is evidence that marijuana, particularly in high doses, may interfere with users' ability to transfer new information into longterm memory.
[/quote]Though my 'cute' reference to short term memory loss was technically inaccurate, this statement you provide shows that it [u]does[/u] hinder [i]memory creation[/i].

I never made a claim that marijuana is highly addictive. It's not. Neither is alcohol usually addictive. The huge majority of alcohol users are not alcoholic, but a certain percentage are. The same is true of marijuana users as you posted"[quote]Essentially all drugs are used in "an addictive fashion" by some people.[/quote]and[quote]Many regular users - including many daily users - consume marijuana in a way that does not interfere with other life activities, and may in some cases enhance them.[/quote]Many is not all. So we can see that some consume marijuana in a pay that DOES interfere with other life activites.

There was a few other weak points in your post I will address, but to be fair to your effort and work, I will provide a rebuttal in as well thought out and documented manner as you.

[cooltuba]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Dec 11 2004, 12:42 AM'] Though my 'cute' reference to short term memory loss was technically inaccurate, this statement you provide shows that it [u]does[/u] hinder [i]memory creation[/i].

Neither is alcohol usually addictive. [/quote]
Thanks for the compliment.

The statement about hindering new memory creation also includes the words "in high doses". We are discussing moderate doses, I think, but your point [b]is[/b] valid. I submit, however, that with the stipulation in Dutch marijuana policy limiting the sale of a certain amount (if memory serves, it's 30g) to one individual, that one would have to break said law to achieve high doses.

"Ethyl alcohol, like other sedative-hypnotic drugs in its class, can cause physical dependence in anyone who consumes enough of it for a sufficient period of time."

Source: [url="http://www.bma-wellness.com/addictions/Alcohol.html"]http://www.bma-wellness.com/addictions/Alcohol.html[/url] (Sorry it's an internet reference, I don't have any hard copies of material on alcohol.)

I submit that in light of that source's statement, alcohol is addictive to [b]anyone[/b], if consumed regularly enough. Revisal: after reading the entire page, alcohol is NOT addictive to anyone if consumed regularly enough. Addiction is a mental condition, and while there may be a significant number of people who are addicted to alcohol, not EVERYONE who abuses alcohol (using too regularly and too much) becomes addicted to it. The term is PHYSICALLY DEPENDANT. Everyone who abuses alcohol becomes PHYSICALLY DEPENDANT on it.

"The withdrawal syndrome from ethyl alcohol is identical to that for other drugs in the same class such as Valium, Librium, Xanax, Ativan, phenobarbital and other barbiturates(Nembutal, Seconal, Amytal &etc.). Individuals who have been regularly exposed to any of these drugs may develop the following physical symptoms upon abrupt discontinuation or drastic reduction of dosage:

*

Anxiety, restlessness, irritability and insomnia
*

Elevated blood pressure, temperature, pulse and respiration
*

Confusion, hypervigilance and disorientation
*

Visual and auditory hallucinations, acute psychotic behavior
*

Grand mal seizures
*

Infrequently, sudden death "

Yes, that's right folks, you can quit drinking, and if you're a severe alcoholic, you may even die from quitting. There has never been one published case of anyone (human or animal, even in the non-plausible tests) dying from marijuana withdrawl.

Thanks again for the respect.

Peace,

Tim