Closure for the marijuana thread.

[cooltuba]

Also, in response to the comment made in your first post about no company being able to produce enough marijuana, and people growing their own so that they don't have to pay for it:

Tobacco companies can produce marijuana for less than it costs to produce tobacco (tobacco is much more tempermental and requires more care; marijuana grows like, well...a weed). Also, people can grow their own tobacco at home, and not buy cigarettes. How many people do you know that do that? I know of none. I'm sure there are people who do that, but it's not like it's hurting the sale of cigarettes.

And although I know that just because something is already here doesn't mean that we should accept it; you don't hear me calling for the legalization of cocaine, do you? I just think that there is no significant health risk, and since people obviously are going to do it anyway, we might as well put some regulation on it and maybe keep a few people away from the stuff that is REALLY harmful, and keep kids from being able to get it so easily. I realize that some kids will still get it, the same way they currently get alcohol, but at least a few kids will be thwarted by it.

Peace again,


Tim

[cooltuba]

Sorry, I know this hasn't been mentioned, but I couldn't help myself. These are the numbers of how many people die each year from several common drugs:

Tobacco....................................340,000 to 395,000

Alcohol (not including 50% of all highway

deaths and 65% of all murders).....125,000+

Aspirin (including deliberate overdose).... 180 to 1,000+

Caffeine (from stress, ulcers and triggering

irregular heartbeats, etc.)........ 1,000 to 10,000

'Legal' drug overdose (deliberate or accidental)

from legal, prescribed or patent medicines

and/or mixing with alcohol e.g. Valium/alcohol... 14,000 to 27,000

Illicit drug overdose (deliberate or accidental) from

all illegal drugs................................ 3,800 to 5,200

marijuana (including overdose)........................... 0 (zero)

Sources: World Almanacs, Life Insurance Actuarial (death)
Rates, and the last 18 years of the U.S. Surgeon General's Reports.

You may think of the recent commercials you've been seeing about people having car accidents as a result of marijuana use. Two things they don't tell you in the commercial: 1. There is NO test that can be administered that can determine if someone is under the influence of marijuana at the time of the test; the best they can do is say that you have smoked marijuana in the last month or so, depending on the individual's metabolism. 2. In EVERY case that's included in those statistics on the commercial, other drugs (primarily alcohol) were also involved. I don't remember where I read that, so I don't have a source; you don't have to believe that one if you want to.

Peace,

Tim

[Winchester]

Gee, I've personally worked on dead bodies of people shot over marijuana deals. I've taken countless kids on fry to the hospital.

I've also taken those injured by people UI mary jane--not all are still with us.

floopy your statistics, floopy your attitude. Marijuana isn't clean, it isn't nice and I don't care if it's legal or not, but let's not canonize the beaver dam plant.

[cooltuba]

[quote name='Winchester' date='Dec 12 2004, 10:43 AM'] Gee, I've personally worked on dead bodies of people shot over marijuana deals. I've taken countless kids on fry to the hospital.

I've also taken those injured by people UI mary jane--not all are still with us.

floopy your statistics, floopy your attitude. Marijuana isn't clean, it isn't nice and I don't care if it's legal or not, but let's not canonize the beaver dam plant. [/quote]
What is fry?

What does floopy mean?

I tried looking it up, but it isn't a word.

"I've also taken those injured by people UI mary jane--not all are still with us." What test did you administer to the person/s UI mary jane to determine that marijuana was the only drug in their system? What test did you administer to give you the information that they were high at the time?

I'm not trying to canonize marijuana, just point out the glaring lies that have been circulated about the health risks of marijuana.

Peace,

Tim

P.S. If we legalized, you wouldn't be working on dead bodies of people shot over marijuana deals. The way I see it, that's another argument for legalization.

[Lil Red]

"floopy" is the phatmass filtered word for the "f" word.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

[quote name='cooltuba' date='Dec 12 2004, 02:29 PM'] P.S. If we legalized, you wouldn't be working on dead bodies of people shot over marijuana deals. The way I see it, that's another argument for legalization. [/quote]
SHENNANIGANS!!!!

I call shennanigans. (A nice way of saying *cough* bs *cough*)




People are shot over alcohol, and because of alcohol all the time. People are shot over cigarettes too. And because they forgot to use their turn signal.

Less people dead is simply not a legitimate argument for the legalization of marijuana. Try again.

[cooltuba]

[quote name='Kilroy the Ninja' date='Dec 12 2004, 04:27 PM'] SHENNANIGANS!!!!

I call shennanigans. (A nice way of saying *cough* bs *cough*)




People are shot over alcohol, and because of alcohol all the time. People are shot over cigarettes too. And because they forgot to use their turn signal.

Less people dead is simply not a legitimate argument for the legalization of marijuana. Try again. [/quote]
Look, I don't really want to argue the issue in the way you're doing it. Don't tell me that less people dead is not a reason for legalization, prove to me that legalization wouldn't actually mean less people dead. Telling me that less people dead is no reason for legalization is a cyclical argument. I could tell you that all of your reasons for keeping it illegal are not reasons for keeping it illegal.

And calling BS is no valid argument. Prop up your BS with some stats. or at least some logic other than "uh unh".

Why don't you adress the scientific research posted above instead of taking the ONE opinion that I posted.

Just disreguard the post about the death stats. of common drugs, and adress all of the other posts.

Peace,

Tim

[JesusSaves1000s]

Marijuana shouldn't be legalized because I have seen a lot of people get addicted to other drugs through marijuana. Marijuana is just a starter drug for people in high school to get them into things like acid, heroine, and cocaine. Some kid died at my school when I was in the eleventh grade from a heroine overdose. It's not a good feeling when someone your used to seeing in the hallway is lying in a coffin. Whether I personally knew the person or not doesn't matter. I was still effected by it. Another person I knew was an awesome football player, was built because he lived at the gym, and was a good kid. That person got hooked onto ecstacy and cocaine, lost all his muscle mass, and doesn't play football anymore. It's another sad story. Marijuana should never be legalized, and the government should be doing more to prevent people from falling into the false illusion that weed can take away your pain and give you a good time.

[Lil Red]

but that is just your personal experience...that may/may not define the actual FACTS. what i'm getting from cooltuba is actual facts and studies...not opinions and personal experiences.

*going back to lurker status in the debate table*

[Winchester]

Cool,

You can tell if someone is drunk or has even been drinking. It's called common sense. Breathalyzer tests exist only because of lawyers, not because it's the only way you can tell if someone had been drinking or not. The same goes for being high--there are signs, friend, and only confirmed dope heads really think no one smells it or sees the dilated pupils or flacid muscle tone.

If you're going to promote yourself as marijuana guy, learn what fry is,.

You want to defend marijuana, fine.

[JesusSaves1000s]

I don't think he's defending marijuana, he's just giving his own opinion on it.

[cooltuba]

[quote name='Winchester' date='Dec 12 2004, 07:59 PM'] The same goes for being high--there are signs, friend, and only confirmed dope heads really think no one smells it or sees the dilated pupils or flacid muscle tone.

If you're going to promote yourself as marijuana guy, learn what fry is,.

You want to defend marijuana, fine. [/quote]
So you smelled marijuana, witnessed bloodshot eyes, etc. (marijuana does not, BTW dialate pupils.) I believe you, and I believe those people had smoked marijuana. There is the element of witnessing the signs first hand, but the "marijuana caused x number of accidents" commercials are not using those standards, they are using a standard four panel urinalisys to come up with those stats. The four panel cannot distinguish between someone who is high at the time and someone who has smoked marijuana in the past month. There is in fact no scientific test to determine if someone is high or if they've smoked recently.

BTW, I do not promote myself as the marijuana guy. I don't know the street terms (except I guess pot and weed), and I would never buy it on the street. Drug dealers are not good people, and I'd like to put them out of buisness.

My reasons for defending marijuana are my own; they should not concern you. If they do, however, just know that I don't smoke marijuana, and I think that smoking it in an illegal situation is immoral. BTW, in response to your illegal=immoral (methinks not) thread, if alcohol were to be made illegal, it would be immoral for you to drink. You see, we are called by obidence to follow the laws of man unless they directly conflict with Church teachings. (ex. if a law were passed that abortion was mandatory if you already had two kids, etc.) Then you would be morally obligated to disobey the law, even as far as dying for disobeying. You would be a martyr, of course. Now, if a law were pased saying that alcohol were illegal, while the Church teaches that alcohol is not a sin in moderation, it does not teach that we HAVE to drink alcohol. Since the Church does not teach that drinking alcohol is mandatory, you would be morally obligated to obey the law.

Do you not want to adress the studies I posted earlier?

Peace,

Tim

[cooltuba]

[quote name='JesusSaves1000s' date='Dec 12 2004, 06:25 PM'] Marijuana is just a starter drug for people in high school to get them into things like acid, heroine, and cocaine. [/quote]
This is known as the "gateway" theory and it is, well, wrong. My personal opinion is that because of the legal status of marijuana, people who smoke it are exposed to the harder drugs and get curious and try them. But, that's just my opinion and there is no scientific way to prove that. There is, however, a scientific way to prove that there is no correlation with marijuana use and the use of harder drugs. Here is that proof:

Most users of heroin, LSD and cocaine have used marijuana. However, most marijuana users never use another illegal drug.

Over time, there has been no consistent relationship between the use patterns of various drugs.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Main Findings 1990; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Preliminary Estimates from the 1993 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse.

As marijuana use increased in the 1960s and 1970s, heroin use declined. And, when marijuana use declined in the 1980s, heroin use remained fairly stable.

For the past 20 years, as marijuana use-rates fluctuated, the use of LSD hardly changed at all.

Cocaine use increased in the early 1980s as marijuana use was declining. During the late 1980s, both marijuana and cocaine declined. During the last few years, cocaine use has continued to decline as marijuana use has increased slightly.

In 1994, less than 16% of high school seniors who had ever tried marijuana had ever tried cocaine - the lowest percentage ever recorded.

Source: Johnston, L.D. et al, Monitoring the Future, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Institute for Social Research (1994).

In short, there is no inevitable relationship between the use of marijuana and other drugs. This fact is supported by data from other countries. In the Netherlands, for example, although marijuana prevalence among young people increased during the past decade, cocaine use decreased - and remains considerably lower than in the United States. Whereas approximately 16% of youthful marijuana users in the U.S. have tried cocaine, the comparable figure for Dutch youth is 1.8 percent.

Source: Cohen, P.D.A., Cannabisgebruikers in Amsterdam, Jaarbeurs Congrescentrum Utrecht (1995)

You know, looking at that last sentance again, I submit that that is at least suggestive, if not proof, that my theory of marijuana users being exposed to other drugs due to the fact that marijuana is illegal. In the US, the percentage of young people who smoke marijuana and then try cocaine is 16%, in the Netherlands, where they designed their drug policy to seperate marijuana users from the hard drugs, the percentage of young people who tried cocaine is 1.8%. Those numbers are different enough to be at least suggestive, you can't deny that.

Peace,

Tim

Edited December 13, 2004 by cooltuba

[cooltuba]

[quote name='Lil Red' date='Dec 12 2004, 07:26 PM'] but that is just your personal experience...that may/may not define the actual FACTS. what i'm getting from cooltuba is actual facts and studies...not opinions and personal experiences. [/quote]
Thank you; I couldn't have said it better myself.

On a personal note, in your situation (dealing with teens and other youh), I would definately teach that marijuana is immoral. The same way that I do not contradict my Pastor when he teaches the youth group that tattos are immoral. When dealing with impressionable minds, it is better to err on the side of caution, as youth has a way of taking a mile when an inch is given. To tell them that the only reason marijuana is immoral is that it is illegal would lead to the rationalization "Well, I exceed the speed limit, and that's illegal, so why shouldn't I smoke marijuana?" The same way that teaching tattoos are not immoral would lead to kids getting tattoos of foolish things that they would regret later in life. I wouldn't propogate the myths of the health risks of marijuana, though, because they can see straight through them, and it will cast doubt on everything else you teach them.

BTW, I got a new tattoo last Saturday. My digital cam's on the fritz, and when it gets working again, I'll be sure and post some pics for you. It's a cross drawn around the Sacred Heart tattoo that I already had. I'd always wanted a Crucifix tattoo, but the level of detail required would mean that it would have to be an enormous tattoo. I was thinking one day, and the thought popped in my head that if I drew a cross around the Sacred Heart, it would be a Crucifix, as the Sacred Heart is a symbol of Jesus. It's bigger than I'd imagined, but i love it.

Peace,

Tim

[Lil Red]

[quote name='cooltuba' date='Dec 12 2004, 10:15 PM'] Thank you; I couldn't have said it better myself.

On a personal note, in your situation (dealing with teens and other youh), I would definately teach that marijuana is immoral. The same way that I do not contradict my Pastor when he teaches the youth group that tattos are immoral. When dealing with impressionable minds, it is better to err on the side of caution, as youth has a way of taking a mile when an inch is given. To tell them that the only reason marijuana is immoral is that it is illegal would lead to the rationalization "Well, I exceed the speed limit, and that's illegal, so why shouldn't I smoke marijuana?" The same way that teaching tattoos are not immoral would lead to kids getting tattoos of foolish things that they would regret later in life. I wouldn't propogate the myths of the health risks of marijuana, though, because they can see straight through them, and it will cast doubt on everything else you teach them.

BTW, I got a new tattoo last Saturday. My digital cam's on the fritz, and when it gets working again, I'll be sure and post some pics for you. It's a cross drawn around the Sacred Heart tattoo that I already had. I'd always wanted a Crucifix tattoo, but the level of detail required would mean that it would have to be an enormous tattoo. I was thinking one day, and the thought popped in my head that if I drew a cross around the Sacred Heart, it would be a Crucifix, as the Sacred Heart is a symbol of Jesus. It's bigger than I'd imagined, but i love it.

Peace,

Tim [/quote]
thanks...i had a youth present a hypothetical situation, and i honestly didn't know what to say...now i do...

btw, your tat sounds sweet, can't wait to see it...i have three tats, but i want to either get the Sacred Heart of Jesus or the Immaculate Heart of Mary. or both.