Really? Look, I will speak from experience here. I wasn't the model citizen in my college years and a year or two after. Smoked a lot and drank a lot. What college kid didn't? Just the kids I didn't want to hang out with. I can tell you I did more stupid **** and made more bad decisions on alcohol then on anything else. Most smokers are going to sit on a couch and watch tv and just chill. Show me a person that is stoned that is driving at a high rate of speed and weaving in and out of traffic. Fletch, your numbers that say that marijuana users are two times more likely to be in a fatal accident is absurd, skewed, or most likely propaganda. I'm still waiting on you to compare those numbers with someone that has a BAC of over .08. I say legalize it or ban alcohol and cigarettes too. Both are more harmful. BTW, out of the 68 EE's that I'm over (both hourly and salary) I can tell who are smokers and who are drinkers. The drunks are always late, hungover and miss work often. The smokers show up to work happy, not hungover, never late and rarely miss. I'll take a smoker over an alcoholic any day.
I think the links I provided had a little more substance than some guy with a theory. Data does not lie, nor is it just a theory. Also, we are talking about public roads, paid for by public tax dollars. Not private property. Right now my kids and wife dont have to share the road with as many potheads as we would if it was legalized. Sometimes we have to protect ourselves from ourselves. This is one of those times. Besides, the victories in those two states were hollow at best. Our government has already pledged to put the kabosh on it. And they will, as they should. Potheads will be potheads, but we certainly dont need to encourage more.
So fun to just dismiss studies that dont support your theory isnt it? It will take you one minute to find over 10 different government and universtiy studies from around the world to support the facts I have posted. You and Hook just keep throwing out theories from some guy that is probably high.
Dont tease me........I'm a little fragile this morning. Smoked it up pretty hard last night. Took me an hour to drive a mile to the Quickmart and back. I did see a unicorn though. Cool.
And yet you disregard studies from universities, the US Library of Medicine National Institute of Health, and MADD?
I already showed you that the "twice as much" statement was false, and that alcohol is far more dangerous. Yet, I don't see you bashing on the ETOH, I'd bet you're a user. Probably drunk right now, as everyone that seems to disagree with you must be high. Funny how a person links one citation of a study and thinks he must be right. Read the study, don't take someone else's word for it. The "college" study holds no weight, as you haven't linked the study, and therefore those of us that understand data analysis cannot interpret whether or not the study holds merit. Unless you're for prohibition of alcohol, your studies do nothing for your cause. I could show you several studies that would demonstrate the dangers of tobacco, too. Therefore, should it be illegal too? If your answer is no, then your opinion is not supported by facts, and merely supported by what you think is right. I could also show you studies about sugar, salt, caffeine, etc. Should they be illegal too?
Not at all. But, I will stand by the fact that marijuana impairs reflex and judgement. And, legalizing it would most certainly increase the number of users. So, why encourage something that is going to create further health and safety concerns in public and work places? Why is it illegal for me to just throw little kids in the front seat of my car? Or, why is it illegal for me to let you ride on the hood? Do we need to be protected from ourselves? I feel our rights have been trampled.
You need to read closer. The "college" was Columbia University. Easily found. I never said tobacco was not bad. I just laughed at the comments made that marijuana was a lesser evil than cigarettes. Simply not true.
What justification are you using here? What study, what research, what information? Personal opinion? What's the benchmark we're using to compare the two?
This statement is highly debatable. As proven by this thread. You seem to want to just ignore any studies that do not support your ideas.
I personally have no problems with them legalizing marijuana. With that being said, I think a lot of the people on here arguing that we should make it legal are for the most part responsible, working individuals and doing just fine with their lives. I have no doubt that you guys and myself would be able to come home and smoke a bowl or a joint rather than a 6 pack of craft beer and be totally fine on a day to day basis. If I was going to choose to smoke again and it was be legal, I for one would not want to go or drive anywhere. I'd be in my basement curled up on the couch watching tv and relaxing. Same as I did last night with my 6 pack. My only problem with it, is what the anti-legalization people on here have already mentioned. There are a boat load of irresponsible people in America who would abuse the right just like the the people who abuse alcohol because they can. That's the only thing that scares me about it, but once again, who am I to tell them they can't? Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2
Washington, D.C. -- Marijuana is less carcinogenic than tobacco smoke and may even have some anti-cancer properties, new research suggests. Robert Melamede, chair of biology at the University of Colorado in Boulder, reviewed studies of the illicit drug and published his findings in the Oct. 17 issue of Harm Reduction Journal. Melamede's conclusion is certain to factor in the medical-marijuana debate, because the cancer-causing potential of the drug is one of the reasons often cited by those who oppose legalizing it for medicinal uses. He said he was motivated to investigate the issue because the Drug Enforcement Administration has made the argument that marijuana has four times the amount of tar contained in tobacco smoke, so it is potentially carcinogenic. "I said, 'Let's see what's true because the government doesn't have a very good record on telling the truth about cannabis,'" Melamede, who classifies himself as a medical-marijuana advocate, told United Press International. He said the studies indicated although marijuana smoke does contain carcinogens, it does not appear to induce cancer because of its unique pharmacological properties. Lung cancer, for example, is caused by a combination of carcinogens in conjunction with nicotine found in tobacco smoke. "It's the nicotine that's really the cancer-promoting agent," he explained. "That's absent in marijuana smoke so you don't have that enhancing factor." Studies to date have not linked marijuana smoking with the lung, colon, rectal and other cancers associated with tobacco smoking, Melamede said. In addition, other studies have indicated compounds found in cannabis might even kill certain cancers, including lung, breast, prostate and skin, as well as leukemia and lymphoma, and a type of brain cancer called glioma. "That's not to say smoking marijuana is good," Melamede noted. It is a lung irritant and can cause respiratory problems, such as coughing. Also, it is full of carcinogens, so "even if it's not causing cancer, it's having negative effects," he said. One alternative would be to use a vaporizer, rather than smoking, to deliver the marijuana. "It should be noted that with the development of vaporizers, that use the respiratory route for the delivery of carcinogen-free cannabis vapors, the carcinogenic potential of smoked cannabis has been largely eliminated," Melamede wrote in the journal. At least 10 states, including California and Colorado, have moved in the direction of allowing patients to use marijuana with a doctor's approval. The DEA has attempted to enforce a federal ban on the drug, however, and has arrested patients using it. This policy has discouraged doctors from recommending it for medical use. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last June that the federal prohibition supersedes state laws and the DEA can arrest patients who use the drug. Karen Tandy, the DEA's administrator, wrote in an article titled, "Marijuana: The Myths Are Killing Us," which appeared in the March issue of Police Chief magazine, that the drug is hazardous to health and does not help patients. "The scientific and medical communities have determined that smoked marijuana is a health danger, not a cure," Tandy wrote in the article, which also appears on the DEA Web site. "There is no medical evidence that smoking marijuana helps patients." Tandy did not claim marijuana caused cancer, but she implied it by saying, "marijuana smoke ... contains 50 to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke and produces high levels of an enzyme that converts certain hydrocarbons into malignant cells." She also said marijuana can cause anxiety and depression, particularly in teens. However, a study released last week from Canadian researchers found a synthesized version of a marijuana compound actually promotes development of new brain cells in rats, and this in turn was accompanied by a reduction in anxiety and depression. Other risks of marijuana cited by Tandy included impaired cognitive function, such as short-term problems with perception and memory. Allen St. Pierre, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, told UPI that Tandy's assertions "run up against the known science," which indicate the toxicity of the drug is minimal. "While not harmless, marijuana comes very close to being benign when compared to other prescription drugs," St. Pierre said. He noted that Dr. Tod Mikuriya, a psychiatrist in El Cerrito, Calif., had conducted a study with medical-marijuana patients and did not find evidence they developed cognitive impairments, paranoia, anxiety or other mental problems after they began using the drug. "The government has insisted there are no pros and there are only cons of marijuana, but this is totally lacking in science and totally lacking in any realistic credibility," Melamede said. He predicted medical marijuana ultimately will be permitted in the United States. "It's unavoidable that it will eventually triumph because it works," he said. "The government is lying and it will eventually win out in the end. It's just a matter of how many people have to suffer between now and then." Source: United Press International (Wire) Author: Steve Mitchell, Senior Medical Correspondent Published: October 17, 2005 Copyright 2005 United Press International Website: http://www.upi.com/ Contact: [email protected]
Our Constitution gives all of us the right to bear arms, yet we some how see harm in smoking weed? Theres a helluva lot more people smoking dope than there are gun owners, yet I fear gun owners way more than stoner's in my world.
I agree, I also think alcohol is more damaging, not only to our bodies, but to our society. I don't think it's my place to tell someone they can't drink, though. I like a nice craft beer from time to time.
I'm not sure about the price point part. To the point of being readily available, that's what we're talking about.
