Medical Marijuana

[JustnCase 15]

We watched the history channel the other night. The topic was about medical marijuana and the reform or decriminalization. We have seen a lot of swingers that smoke pot over the years too. Especially in the west cost areas we have visited. Not that the east coast is less tolerant, we have just never been there.

 

Are the times changing ? Would you judge someone with a legitimate medical issues who have a license/prescription for medical use. Someone with eyesight problems, crones disease or even cancer. What about the people who grow it now, legally. Would you swing with them ?

 

Do you know someone who smokes marijuana now or smelled it and didn't say anything ? They said on the show, one in three baby boomer's smoke it or know someone who does.

 

The show presented many good points that were pro marijuana reform. The potential revenue that could help Americans rather than let the cartels in Mexico profit. I think they said something along the lines of we give them Billions of dollars now.

 

Did you see the show ? Have you had this effect your area ?

 

Discuss

[SW_PA_Couple 4,024]

You are actually presenting multiple questions here -- should marijuana be allowed for medical use and should marijuana simply be allowed. I'll address the question should marijuana simply be allowed as I believe that is your intended question.

 

Alcohol is the most dangerous drug and it is offered for sale legally. This does not justify allowing a drug presenting lesser danger, marijuana, to be introduce for legal sale. Let's keep a cork on the ones we already have half-way under control.

[cplnuswing 4,713]

Alcohol is the most dangerous drug and it is offered for sale legally. This does not justify allowing a drug presenting lesser danger, marijuana, to be introduce for legal sale. Let's keep a cork on the ones we already have half-way under control.

 

Ahh, but there's the problem, we DON'T have a cork in it, not even half-way, never will, and to think otherwise is just putting your head in the sand. Basic supply and demand - as long as there is a demand, there will be a supply. The way things stand currently there are billions to be made meeting that demand, and so not surprisingly, no shortage of people wanting a piece of that pie to the point they are willing to kill for it.

 

It's absolutely the same as the Prohibition era, but obviously when it comes to drugs, history has been no teacher. Lots of money changing hands on all sides though the way it is, whether it's the grower/smuggler/dealer getting filthy rich or the local sheriff who gets new positions along with all sorts of cool new toys to play with to try and catch the grower/smuggler/dealer. Then, when they do, the deal gets even sweeter for them since they then take all of the private possessions that they can possible conjure up some far-fetched association that were somehow involved in the crime. Legalized theft to help meet the budget is all that is in most cases.

 

The other problem with marijuana is a credibility issue. Lumping pot in with heroin, meth, or some other hard drug is just stupid. It's not backed up by the science or perhaps even more importantly in this case, people's personal experiences. You may get 3rd-graders to buy that line, but then when they are freshmen or whatever and first see someone take a hit on a joint and not fall over dead or instantly turn into a junkie, they start to question everything else they've been told about drugs, some of which may actually have been correct.

 

To get back to the OP's question, yes I saw the show and obviously agree with much of what was said. No I wouldn't judge someone who used it for medical purposes any more than I would judge them if they were using an opiate-derived medication, which is to say not at all. Yes I would swing with someone who I knew smoked it just as I would swing with someone who drinks, assuming in both cases that it isn't being abused and a problem. Yes, I do know people who smoke it.

 

My clock hasn't stopped on 4:20 in probably 20 years now, and even back then I much preferred the wonders of fermentation over reefer madness, so it's not like I have a personal dog in this fight. Society's thinking on this subject though has always seemed to me to be totally off base, way more than usual even. I do believe the inevitable march to legalization, or at least decriminalization, has begun and will quickly snowball in the next few years. The pro or neutral on legalization crowd is winning the demographic war simply through attrition of the older anti-legalization crowd, and every day that is getting closer to tipping the playing field.

[Chicup 41]

Lets be honest.

 

95% of all medical marijuana proponents just want to toke up and are using it as an excuse to try to get it legalized.

 

Then when you talk about taxes and Mexican cartels its obvious the medical part is a sham, its all about toking up, because even if it were legal for medical issues it would do nothing in the area of taxation and drug trafficking THATS all due to recreational use.

 

So what you are asking is should marijuana be legalized period.

 

That goes too political here for me to discuss on this board, but be honest about the question.

[Alura 2,774]

That's an interesting statistic, Chicup. Can you tell us who did the research?

 

We too often suppose that the mere act of making an activity illegal will aid in prevention. For 6,000 years of recorded history man has tried to keep his fellow man from getting high in one way or another. It has never worked and is not working today.

 

All we've done is create tax-free industries. If you know a hooker, drug dealer, or hit-man ask him/her if he/she pays taxes on his/her income.

 

Alura

[Coupleerotic22 1,419]

Interesting topic. I'll try to address it in a non political way.

 

1. Medical marijuana is already legal by about 1/3 of the states in the U.S., not just California. It is not however legal under federal law.

 

2. I am not a third grader, but I do understand why it is "lumped" with "hard drug" such as heroine. It is schedule I drug primarily because of its recreation use, addictive nature and inability to produce it efficiently in a pure state (i.e. free if impurities). Schedule I drugs also include things like human growth hormones and frog secretions. I has little to do with chemical strength of the drug.

 

3. The push for legalization based on medical usage is pretty much a smoke screen, as stated by others. The active ingredients in the plant have been isolated and used in various drugs and trials have shown those or other drugs to be as at least as effective or not more so than smoking marijuana.

 

4. If the FDA were to approve and control the use of marijuana then it is highly likely cost would rise significantly. The cost of production and processing (at the level required by the FDA for approval), packaging, marketing, distribution, regulation and taxes would increase the cost significantly. Thus the cost of illegal marijuana would likely rise. I wont get into the lengthy economic discussion, but I believe it would increase the cost as well.

 

5. Legalizing marijuana would not significantly decrease crime associated with the drug. Far too many people use it for non medical needs for that to be the case. besides plenty of legal medications are heavily traded illegally.

 

6. Be careful what you wish for. Currently, simple possession is a misdemeanor in most jurisdictions, if it is even enforced. If marijuana is made a legal drug, it would most certainly be a category II drug. Simple possession of Schedule II drugs illegally is a felony in some jurisdictions.

 

7. I believe it is a gateway drug. A girl I knew in high school was introduced to marijuana as a freshman. By the time she was in her early 20 she was dead. I spoke with her sister after her death. She had been going down the same path, but was terrified by what happened to her sister. She told me they both started young and loved the high. In a effort to have better and longer highs they escalated their drug usage. They figured they handled pot fine, they could handle other drugs. They couldn't.

 

Personally I do not want to see it legalized, even though I have used it in the past and have friends that currently do. I have seen the negative impact first hand. Most of the arguments to legalize it do not hold up under much scrutiny.

 

If you chose to use it, fine by me, but you should understand their are potential consequences, legal, social and medical. Would we play with someone who used the drugs legally? Sure. But is someone was doing something illegal in our presence, be it drugs or otherwise, we would likely excuse ourselves. We are here to have fun, not tangle with the law.

[Chicup 41]

That's an interesting statistic, Chicup. Can you tell us who did the research?

 

Me, and you helped prove it.

 

We too often suppose that the mere act of making an activity illegal will aid in prevention. For 6,000 years of recorded history man has tried to keep his fellow man from getting high in one way or another. It has never worked and is not working today.

 

All we've done is create tax-free industries. If you know a hooker, drug dealer, or hit-man ask him/her if he/she pays taxes on his/her income.

 

Alura

 

You never mentioned medical issues either

[cplnuswing 4,713]

2. I am not a third grader, but I do understand why it is "lumped" with "hard drug" such as heroine. It is schedule I drug primarily because of its recreation use, addictive nature and inability to produce it efficiently in a pure state (i.e. free if impurities).

 

Just because the definition that was placed into law by the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 doesn't mean it's the right one. Laws get changed/revised/updated all the time, in fact this one has been revised at least five times already.

 

Under 21 U.S.C. § 812b, drugs must meet three criteria in order to be placed in Schedule I:

 

* The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.

* The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.

* There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

 

I find nowhere where it mentions your "pure state" argument, is there a reference for that? Wouldn't the same hold true for tobacco/nicotine then? THC, the same active ingredient in marijuana, is currently used by prescription in a synthesized form as MARINOL. It was first scheduled as II and then a few years later was rescheduled as III. So then why is marijuana then still Schedule I?

 

4. If the FDA were to approve and control the use of marijuana then it is highly likely cost would rise significantly.

 

Does the FDA regulate alcohol? No, ATF does. Just like we aren't paying bootleg prices for alcohol anymore, no reason to expect this would be any different. One can't simply consider the price of what it costs the end user anyway, there is also an associated cost to society that we are all paying due to it's current classification.

 

5. Legalizing marijuana would not significantly decrease crime associated with the drug. Far too many people use it for non medical needs for that to be the case. besides plenty of legal medications are heavily traded illegally.

 

When is the last time you heard of a shootout between cigarette smugglers or how many people are in prison for cigarette smuggling? How about the same question for alcohol? Sudafed is illegally traded, so need to ban it too, or just regulate it? The answer to carjacking and auto theft is to make cars illegal? Sorry, I just don't buy it.

 

7. I believe it is a gateway drug. A girl I knew in high school was introduced to marijuana as a freshman. By the time she was in her early 20 she was dead. I spoke with her sister after her death. She had been going down the same path, but was terrified by what happened to her sister. She told me they both started young and loved the high. In a effort to have better and longer highs they escalated their drug usage. They figured they handled pot fine, they could handle other drugs. They couldn't.

 

You believe it is, I believe it's not. It really doesn't matter what either one of us believes, it's should be what the facts say based on legitimate research and evenly applied standards. What you describe is tragic, but you can find the very same story with alcohol many, many, many times over. That first teenage beer ended up with vodka in water bottles hidden all around the house, the wino dead on the street of liver disease at age 30, or whatever. You and I both admitted we have smoked it a few times in the past. Speaking for myself and I assume the same would be accurate for you, neither one of us ever progressed onto anything else nor had any desire to whatsoever.

 

Yes, there can be problems with addiction and abuse with any substance. But, Alura is absolutely right, prohibition has never worked and never will, it just makes a few people a whole hell of a lot of money.

[ANGEDKY(mr) 100]

95% is prob quite accurate...

 

My question how is that any different from the motivational factors AND health risks assoc with EtOH consumption?

 

 

 

 

 

ETA: I most certainly the resistance to legalization/decriminalization is financially driven

[Alura 2,774]

cplnuswing said:

You and I both admitted we have smoked it a few times in the past. Speaking for myself and I assume the same would be accurate for you, neither one of us ever progressed onto anything else nor had any desire to whatsoever.

 

I once knew a woman who, early in her life, drank milk. From that she went to beer, scotch, marijuana, cigarettes, and eventually cocaine. Dear Lord! Just imagine if she'd never have tried milk, she would never have used those harder drugs.

[Alura 2,774]

Chicup said:

 

You never mentioned medical issues either

 

Gee, I thought I did... Didn't I write something like, "It's just plain wrong to deny any medicine to anyone who might benefit from it." Well, Chicup, I meant to write that.

[Alura 2,774]

ETA: I most certainly the resistance to legalization/decriminalization is financially driven

 

Oklahoma retained prohibition until 1959. The bootleggers and the Baptists worked together to keep alcohol illegal. Fortunately, Joe Cannon and J. Howard Edmondson had a better argument, and the people voted to legalize it.

 

Funny thing, the killing among the bootleggers stopped immediately. I can't speak for the Baptists.

 

Alura

[ANGEDKY(mr) 100]

While my articulation skills are sucking today, I think we are saying the same thing.

 

What I meant to add was....

 

"I most certainly agree with those that say the resistance/decrim of MJ is financially driven."

 

I am refering specifically to the private, contracting and subcontracting within the prison industry and justice system. Full prisons generate more income. Enter the lobbyist...

[SW_PA_Couple 4,024]

. . . I believe it is a gateway drug. . .

As do I, owing to experience with more than one family member. I read you seven points with interest. People should take care for what they wish as their wish just might, to their displeasure, be granted.

 

If I saw or otherwise detected people smoking at a swingers' club or large house party, I'd be out the door quickly. If seen with people all mutually acquainted at a private home, I have no problem.

[JustnCase 15]

Quote

You are actually presenting multiple questions here

Yes I am. Hence, multiple question marks. lol

 

Quote

should marijuana be allowed for medical use and should marijuana simply be allowed.

Yes and a few others, maybe more.

 

Quote

I'll address the question should marijuana simply be allowed as I believe that is your intended question.

 

Alcohol is the most dangerous drug and it is offered for sale legally. This does not justify allowing a drug presenting lesser danger, marijuana, to be introduce for legal sale.

Why does this have to include, Sale ? I think as the show mentioned many people could legally grow their own. Sure a permit/license should be applied. Much like any applications, records should be kept. Does it really have to be in the hands of pharmaceutical companies ? Its a natural herb, a plant that grows pretty much anywhere.

 

 

Chicup said:

Lets be honest.

95% of all medical marijuana proponents just want to toke up and are using it as an excuse to try to get it legalized.

Then be honest, not hypothetical or opinionated. Your using my questions out of context to how they were intended.

 

Quote

So what you are asking is should marijuana be legalized period.

No, I could have made a poll for that, with two answers. My intentions were discussions, on a social level, nothing more.

 

 

Quote

That goes too political here for me to discuss on this board, but be honest about the question.

Then don't if you can't, Its just that simple.

 

Your opinion is appreciated though, but please think with your social hat on rather than your political hat. And I would like to ask that of all members here. I know this board has strict policy about political posting. I'll make no reference, politically, and ask others to think for themselves before posting.

 

This is a social issue in the lifestyle as well as the world now, not JUST political. This discussion doesn't have to go that way, unless you can't use self discipline while posting.

 

That being said, I do have a medical condition. Now I take legal prescribed medicine that is detrimental to my health with side effects. These medicines clearly show damage to my pancreas as well as liver damage. Both could be replaced by using home grown medical Marijuana, in a tea form or ingestion. I'm not trying to just TOKE UP. I think Melissa Ethridg made true comments about her cancer treatments and what it helped her with.

 

Do I think its a gate way drug ? No and I believe the facts are clearing that myth as this issue comes to light. If anything, this would be a gateway to remove some current prescriptions or treatment now thats just exchanging one health issue for another.

 

Should I not be allowed this choice ? WHY ?

 

Thanks for the replys. Please use your social thinking Political posting is at your own peril.

[Coupleerotic22 1,419]

Just because the definition that was placed into law by the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 doesn't mean it's the right one. Laws get changed/revised/updated all the time, in fact this one has been revised at least five times already.

 

You commented that it was stupid to lump it together with other "hard" drugs. Based on the criteria for schedule I, it is logical. Calling it stupid to do so doesn't change that. The number of revisions does not change that. Argue why it should be rescheduled and why, if you like. But currently it is classified as schedule I, and shares characteristics with "hard drugs". Calling something stupid because you disagree with it is not really a very good argument.

 

 

Under 21 U.S.C. § 812b, drugs must meet three criteria in order to be placed in Schedule I:

 

* The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.

* The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.

* There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

 

I find nowhere where it mentions your "pure state" argument, is there a reference for that? Wouldn't the same hold true for tobacco/nicotine then? THC, the same active ingredient in marijuana, is currently used by prescription in a synthesized form as MARINOL. It was first scheduled as II and then a few years later was rescheduled as III. So then why is marijuana then still Schedule I?

 

"Pure state" - well you have addressed it above. "There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision." You have to look back to what this statement entails. Marijuana contains several dozen compounds beyond those that are considered useful, some are harmful. Additionally raw marijuana or pot may contain contaminants such as pesticides or other chemicals added to increase the potency. The delivery system of smoking or even vaporizing are not efficient and can result in receiving too little or too much of the required dosage for treatment. Any of which would fall under clinical definitions of "lack of acceptable safety".

 

Opiates and cocaine are proscribed as treatments for certain conditions, but no physician is going to tell you to go by them in their raw form. There are pharmaceutical version they will prescribe, the same is true for marijuana. For that matter aloe is often recommended for minor burns, but physicians don't tell you to go squeeze the plant, they recommend OTC versions that have been extracted and purified, because there is no way for them to know what else is in that aloe plant sitting on your window seal.

 

Should nicotine, or caffeine for that matter, be a controlled substance? That is a point for another debate. Both are mild stimulants, both may have negative effects on the body in some individuals. But neither causes the level of chemical change in the human body that the THC does. Nicotine in tobacco is a stimulant and addictive, but it is not the carcinogen in tobacco.

 

You mention Marinol. Marrinol is one of these several dozen compounds found in marijuana. It is Class III for several reasons. Unlike marijuana it has no real street value, it can be produced in a clinical environment that isolates and purifies it as a chemical compound. It was lowered from Class II because there has been no evidence of widespread scripting or doctor shopping. Marinol, like other compounds found in marijuana, is in fact a good argument for NOT legalizing marijuana. Several compound found in marijuana have been isolated and manufactured to produce the desire medical effect, increasing appetite in Marinol's case, without the side effects associated with marijuana. So if the isolated compounds can provide the desired relief, what is the need to legal smoking marijuana from a medical stand point?

 

 

When is the last time you heard of a shootout between cigarette smugglers or how many people are in prison for cigarette smuggling? How about the same question for alcohol? Sudafed is illegally traded, so need to ban it too, or just regulate it? The answer to carjacking and auto theft is to make cars illegal? Sorry, I just don't buy it.

 

Actually I have. I have numerous friends in law enforcement. Including in in each of the FBI, DEA and Marshall's, not to mention several more in local law enforcement. I know of at least two incidents involving smuggling cigarettes. Guns were involved and people are in jail. Sure I can buy cigs down the street, but if there is money to be made by smuggling in cheaper ones then criminals will do it.

 

I can gamble a short drive from here, but illegal gambling still exist. They have also told me of smuggling of CD/DVD's and human trafficking to name a couple. Making something legal does not mean you will entirely remove the criminal element.

 

Sudafed - Pseudoephedrine is already being controlled by logging via Congressional law. There is also debate on scheduling Pseudoephedrine even though the drug ITSELF is not addictive or abused. Scheduling is being debated because the drug is being used as an ingredient for make meth and thus abused.

 

You use the argument that we shouldn't make cars illegal to prevent car jacking, lets flip it. Should we legalize slavery so that we can tax it and keep the criminals from human trafficking? Sorry, I just don't buy it!

 

You believe it is, I believe it's not. It really doesn't matter what either one of us believes, it's should be what the facts say based on legitimate research and evenly applied standards. What you describe is tragic, but you can find the very same story with alcohol many, many, many times over. That first teenage beer ended up with vodka in water bottles hidden all around the house, the wino dead on the street of liver disease at age 30, or whatever. You and I both admitted we have smoked it a few times in the past. Speaking for myself and I assume the same would be accurate for you, neither one of us ever progressed onto anything else nor had any desire to whatsoever.

 

So do numerous clinical studies, medical and pharmaceutical journals. So I am not alone. The most often used argument against the "gateway theory" is cause versus correlation. Marijuana does not CAUSE someone to move to harder drugs, but there is a correlation to harder drug use. Not wearing seat belts does not cause death, but there is a correlation to increased deaths when they are not used. Just because something is not the cause, does not mean it is not part of the problem.

 

Yes, there can be problems with addiction and abuse with any substance. But, Alura is absolutely right, prohibition has never worked and never will, it just makes a few people a whole hell of a lot of money.

 

Never worked and never will? The term prohibition is used by advocates of making marijuana legal because it hearkens back to the days when the fed made the manufacture, transportation and sale of alcohol illegal and later over turned those laws. But it simple means it is illegal to make, move or sale. We apply "prohibition" to many activities. None are completely effective in eliminating criminal activity. So should we legalize cocaine, heroine, meth too? How about smoking and drinking for minors? All of those are under "prohibition".

[cplnuswing 4,713]

Coupleerotic22 said:

But currently it is classified as schedule I, and shares characteristics with "hard drugs".

 

It was placed into Schedule I on the advice of Assistant Secretary of Health Roger O. Egeberg. It's pretty clear that it was intended to be provisional pending further study.

 

Dear Mr. Chairman: In a prior communication, comments requested by your committee on the scientific aspects of the drug classification scheme incorporated in H.R. 18583 were provided. This communication is concerned with the proposed classification of marijuana.

 

It is presently classed in schedule I© along with its active constituents, the tetrahydrocannibinols and other psychotropic drugs.

 

Some question has been raised whether the use of the plant itself produces "severe psychological or physical dependence" as required by a schedule I or even schedule II criterion. Since there is still a considerable void in our knowledge of the plant and effects of the active drug contained in it, our recommendation is that marijuana be retained within schedule I at least until the completion of certain studies now underway to resolve the issue. If those studies make it appropriate for the Attorney General to change the placement of marijuana to a different schedule, he may do so in accordance with the authority provided under section 201 of the bill. . .

 

Sincerely yours, (signed) Roger O. Egeberg, M.D.[2]

 

The reference to "certain studies" was to the then-forthcoming National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse final report. In 1972, the Commission released their findings which favored decriminalization of cannabis. Those finding were ignored, in my belief because drug use of any type (as well as changing ideas about sex and sexuality I might add) were all deeply intertwined with the social/political upheaval of the time and it became difficult to have a rational discussion of either of those subjects because they carried so much baggage with them and were being used as weapons by opposing sides, which I think goes back to the point the OP was making just a few posts back.

 

Coupleerotic22 said:

You have to look back to what this statement entails. Marijuana contains several dozen compounds beyond those that are considered useful, some are harmful. Additionally raw marijuana or pot may contain contaminants such as pesticides or other chemicals added to increase the potency. The delivery system of smoking or even vaporizing are not efficient and can result in receiving too little or too much of the required dosage for treatment. Any of which would fall under clinical definitions of "lack of acceptable safety". ... For that matter aloe is often recommended for minor burns, but physicians don't tell you to go squeeze the plant, they recommend OTC versions that have been extracted and purified, because there is no way for them to know what else is in that aloe plant sitting on your window seal.

 

So my favorite aunt, who had a green thumb and loved growing things (and no, not pot), and who would always send us to the aloe plant when we burned our fingers on something, was really putting our young bodies at risk because she didn't drive down to the drugstore to fork over some cash for pharmaceutical company aloe cream? Are you telling me you wouldn't put aloe from a plant on a burn because you are worried about those things you listed? Maybe the helicopters need to be flying around looking for aloe plants too.

 

Coupleerotic22 said:

Should nicotine, or caffeine for that matter, be a controlled substance? That is a point for another debate. Both are mild stimulants, both may have negative effects on the body in some individuals. But neither causes the level of chemical change in the human body that the THC does. Nicotine in tobacco is a stimulant and addictive, but it is not the carcinogen in tobacco.

 

I agree about nicotine and caffeine question, but my first post was already long, so like you, left that discussion for another day. I will make the point however that take everything away from tobacco leaving just the pure nicotine and you have a deadly substance in and of itself that as far as I could find has no currently accepted medicinal value, although there are various studies underway. Nicotine is deadly, nicotine has psychoactive effects, and the tobacco carrier for the nicotine is full of carcinogens, and as you point out, maybe pesticides and who knows what. Tobacco/nicotine is regulated, not illegal. Again, in my opinion, more because of social issues than anything else.

 

Coupleerotic22 said:

Marinol, like other compounds found in marijuana, is in fact a good argument for NOT legalizing marijuana. Several compound found in marijuana have been isolated and manufactured to produce the desire medical effect, increasing appetite in Marinol's case, without the side effects associated with marijuana. So if the isolated compounds can provide the desired relief, what is the need to legal smoking marijuana from a medical stand point?

 

Simply incorrect according to the National Institutes of Health. PubMed Health - Dronabinol Marinol is the patented trade name for dronabinol, aka THC. Take the THC/dronabinol/Marinol out of marijuana and we wouldn't be having this discussion since no one would want to smoke it, for medicinal or recreational reasons, any more than they want to smoke the leaves off the oak tree in the front yard. Let's look at some of the side effects or prescription Marinol : sudden warm feeling, memory loss, confusion, dizziness, unsteady walking, feeling like you are outside of your body, "high'' or elevated mood, hallucinations, sleepiness, strange or unusual thoughts. Hmmmm, sounds a whole lot like being really stoned.

 

We keep switching back and forth between the medicinal side of this argument and the recreational side. I agree that the medicinal benefits can be met with Marinol. Of course, you get the pleasure of paying patented drug prices for those benefits too, instead of growing it in your backyard or buying from a neighbor. Follow the money, it always leads you to what is really behind something.

 

Coupleerotic22 said:

Actually I have. Guns were involved and people are in jail. Sure I can buy cigs down the street, but if there is money to be made by smuggling in cheaper ones then criminals will do it.

 

Yes, it does happen, I wasn't talking in absolutes, but I think you knew that. There will be some level of smuggling, especially when there is a high tobacco tax state next to a low tax state. Or, stolen goods being sold at black market prices. To try to convince anybody it is within magnitudes of order of the marijuana problem is wasted keystrokes though.

 

Coupleerotic22 said:

Making something legal does not mean you will entirely remove the criminal element.

 

Of course not, but you significantly reduce it. Would you not agree that if you did not have the legal gambling, that there would likely be more illegal gambling? Making something illegal does make it go away either.

 

Coupleerotic22 said:

Pseudoephedrine is already being controlled by logging via Congressional law.

 

Yes, trust me, living in what at one time was openly called the meth capital of the south, I know. My point was that a problem was being addressed without make the substance illegal. Just like alcohol and tobacco are regulated. There are ways to influence widespread behavior without it becoming criminal. Tobacco taxes are one example. Again, off topic and a discussion for another time, but marriage is another. Society has traditionally held that marriage is a good thing and rewards it in many different ways, including financially, yet it isn't a crime not to be.

 

Coupleerotic22 said:

The most often used argument against the "gateway theory" is cause versus correlation. Marijuana does not CAUSE someone to move to harder drugs, but there is a correlation to harder drug use. Not wearing seat belts does not cause death, but there is a correlation to increased deaths when they are not used. Just because something is not the cause, does not mean it is not part of the problem.

 

Correlation does not imply causation, very true. But, one must be careful with "hints" one gets from correlations between two variables. Correlation proving the causation of anything is a logical fallacy and is wide open to all sorts of biases including emotional, social, etc. I won't even try to dispute the correlation, I would be very surprised myself if it's not there. But I would be very surprised if there is also not a correlation just as strong with alcohol. As we've discussed in a recent thread, there seems to be some correlation between swinging and smoking. Does becoming a swinger make one want to start smoking, or are perhaps more swingers smokers just because of a predisposed set of attitudes?

 

Coupleerotic22 said:

Never worked and never will? ... So should we legalize cocaine, heroine, meth too? How about smoking and drinking for minors? All of those are under "prohibition".

 

Yes, never worked and never will, and that holds true for all of those things you mentioned as well as others. As I've mentioned, I feel you have to look to the costs to society as a whole. It's not an absolute, but rather a sliding scale. Is it better to pay $40K/year (the $ I've read for GA) to keep a dad/mom in prison for years at a time and the effects on his/her family compared to the negative effects to society of that same person having repeated marijuana convictions but not being in prison? In some cases for some offenses, the answer is going to be yes, worth every penny and more to society. In other cases, and I maintain some of our thinking on drugs falls into this category, it's not worth it. Across society, the bad just isn't bad enough, and certainly no worse than many other things to garner the same response that marijuana has been given.

 

I've enjoyed this discussion, and hearing other opinions. It's certainly been a good research project to learn more about a subject I've always been interested in from a society standpoint.

[Guest rdy46227]

Marijuana traditionally contains active compounds other than THC, such as cannabidiol, or CBD. Unfortunately, the black market's breeding of MJ for potency has significantly reduced them in what's on the street.

 

MJ used to grow wild through the midwest. My father tells of being given the chore of scything down the weed on the Iowa farm.

 

The body also manufactures endocannabinoids, which bind to the same receptors as THC and CBD.

[Coupleerotic22 1,419]

cplnuswing said:

So my favorite aunt, who had a green thumb and loved growing things (and no, not pot), and who would always send us to the aloe plant when we burned our fingers on something, was really putting our young bodies at risk because she didn't drive down to the drugstore to fork over some cash for pharmaceutical company aloe cream? Are you telling me you wouldn't put aloe from a plant on a burn because you are worried about those things you listed? Maybe the helicopters need to be flying around looking for aloe plants too.

 

So you aunt supplies your weed? I was addressing your "pure state" argument. From a clinical standpoint a physician cannot be sure what contaminants are in that plant and would not prescribe its use because of potential risk. And aloe has FAR less potential negative side affects of marijuana. Not to mention, most people are not buying from their green thumbed aunt, but drug dealers, who are likely buying elsewhere. IF you trust them as much as you do you aunt, rock on. I have used aloe plant by the way.

 

 

cplnuswing said:

Simply incorrect according to the National Institutes of Health. PubMed Health - Dronabinol Marinol is the patented trade name for dronabinol, aka THC. Take the THC/dronabinol/Marinol out of marijuana and we wouldn't be having this discussion since no one would want to smoke it, for medicinal or recreational reasons, any more than they want to smoke the leaves off the oak tree in the front yard. Let's look at some of the side effects or prescription Marinol : sudden warm feeling, memory loss, confusion, dizziness, unsteady walking, feeling like you are outside of your body, "high'' or elevated mood, hallucinations, sleepiness, strange or unusual thoughts. Hmmmm, sounds a whole lot like being really stoned.

 

What exactly am I wrong about? There are side effects to any drug. And in Marinol's case those side effects were milder and eventually went away even with continued use. Only 33% of Marinol users experienced mild side effects. 29% for two weeks or less (of continued usage) and 4% less than six weeks. So the side effects are highly reduced.

 

Thanks for the smoking oak leaves comment, you also help make my argument about WHY people want to smoke marijuana to begin with, for the high, not the medical benefits. Like you said, no one would want to smoke it. I agree, it's not the medical benefits that most want, they can get those elsewhere, it is getting stoned.

 

cplnuswing said:

We keep switching back and forth between the medicinal side of this argument and the recreational side. I agree that the medicinal benefits can be met with Marinol. Of course, you get the pleasure of paying patented drug prices for those benefits too, instead of growing it in your backyard or buying from a neighbor. Follow the money, it always leads you to what is really behind something.

 

Yes we keep switching. I believe, as others have stated as well, that the medical use argument is just a convenient foot hold that many recreational users have latched on to in order to win the debate. To make the medical use argument is dishonest most cases. It is hypocritical and would I, for one, respect peoples stance more if they just were honest enough to say we want to make it legal so we can get stoned.

 

cplnuswing said:

Yes, never worked and never will, and that holds true for all of those things you mentioned as well as others. As I've mentioned, I feel you have to look to the costs to society as a whole. It's not an absolute, but rather a sliding scale. Is it better to pay $40K/year (the $ I've read for GA) to keep a dad/mom in prison for years at a time and the effects on his/her family compared to the negative effects to society of that same person having repeated marijuana convictions but not being in prison?

 

You are correct, no prohibition is 100% effective. Which is what makes the prohibition argument so feeble. If the efficacy of the prohibition is how we determine if we should make something legal, then we would be making a large number of serious offense legal. So, unless those that make the "prohibition failed" argument are ready to accept far worse offense being legal, it does not make sense to use the argument.

 

The mom and pop argument is a fallacy too. Mom and pop are not going to prison for minor possession. Possession of an ounce or less is a misdemeanor in almost every case. A civil offense on some (about the same is a ticket for jay walking). Distribution, manufacturing r mitigating circumstances are what is getting the prison time.

 

 

cplnuswing said:

I've enjoyed this discussion, and hearing other opinions. It's certainly been a good research project to learn more about a subject I've always been interested in from a society standpoint.

 

The libertarian part of me says what the heck, make it legal, I don't care what people do in their own homes. But it goes well beyond that.

 

My main reason for posting is I just get irritated when red herrings like medical use and prison over crowding get thrown out as a replacement for making a real argument to over turn the marijuana laws. If people want marijuana legal so they can get stone, they should make that argument. They may not get a warm reception, but at least it would be an honest argument.

[Alura 2,774]

So you aunt supplies your weed?

 

Cplnuswing never said their aunt grows pot. In fact, the opposite was said. I once coined the word "disunderstanding" to underscore the difference between "misunderstanding" (an unintentional failure to understand) and an intentional one.

 

The libertarian part of me says what the heck, make it legal, I don't care what people do in their own homes. But it goes well beyond that.

 

It does. It encompasses many issues. Among them are a failed War on Drugs, an unsustainable killing spree in the U.S.A. and Mexico caused by the illegality, not the drug itself, an open door to police corruption (a current issue in the Tulsa Police Dept.), provision of a tax-free product to sustain gangs in many countries, and a waste of money.

 

My main reason for posting is I just get irritated when red herrings like medical use and prison over crowding get thrown out as a replacement for making a real argument to over turn the marijuana laws. If people want marijuana legal so they can get stone, they should make that argument. They may not get a warm reception, but at least it would be an honest argument.

 

Other disproved "red herrings" are, "a gateway drug," "illegality makes the drug easier to control," "marijuana use leads to criminal activity," and a host of others. Perhaps we all need to choose our red herrings better.

 

Alura

[Coupleerotic22 1,419]

Cplnuswing never said their aunt grows pot. In fact, the opposite was said. I once coined the word "disunderstanding" to underscore the difference between "misunderstanding" (an unintentional failure to understand) and an intentional one.

 

He used his green thumb aunt as an example of a source for aloe, my point was simple, is she going to be his source for weed? Or is going to be some unseen supply chain? Safety is still the primary concern. It was both rhetorical and sarcastic, but no more sarcastic than say, a milk to cocaine analogy.

 

 

Other disproved "red herrings" are, "a gateway drug," "illegality makes the drug easier to control," "marijuana use leads to criminal activity," and a host of others. Perhaps we all need to choose our red herrings better.

 

Alura

 

Red herrings a way of drawing attention away from the real reason someone is making the argument. I believe that in MOST cases people are not arguing for marijuana use for primarily medical reason, but for recreation.

 

There are plenty of studies, pro and con, to marijuana being a gateway drug. Besides that is most certainly ONE of the reason I prefer to not see it legalized, so it is hardly a red herring to draw your attention away fro my REAL motives. . As for the other two, I did not use them. The second one doesn't make any sense to claim in the first place. The third one, allow though I did not use it, it does strike me as odd, how is that a red herring if you are breaking the law using it in the first place? It may not always apply (people that use it legally for medical purposes) but it is criminal do so otherwise.

[gloryromper 17]

Pot is illegal because it is politically expedient to keep it that way. Politicians and law enforcement get to look tough on crime for arresting people for minor possession while real criminals are left to run wild. It really is that simple.

[Alura 2,774]

There are plenty of studies, pro and con, to marijuana being a gateway drug.

 

I've never seen a real study that shows marijuana to be a "gateway drug." Perhaps you can name one for us?

 

As I pointed out above, milk is often used before pot is. I suppose that makes milk a "gateway" drug...

 

Alura

[Alura 2,774]

Pot is illegal because it is politically expedient to keep it that way. Politicians and law enforcement get to look tough on crime for arresting people for minor possession while real criminals are left to run wild. It really is that simple.

 

As was pointed out earlier in this thread, follow the money trail if the truth is to be found. Authorities are loathe to legalize drugs because, in addition to seizing a joint, they can seize any money they find during a raid, often a car, and sometimes even a home.

 

We have some Tulsa cops in jail now because they didn't turn in all the money and drugs they confiscated. They were also dealing the drugs they seized and framing their competitors for the crimes they, themselves, committed.

 

Alura

[JM153 346]

Although I believe medical marijuana will be legalized within the next decade and sometime later marijuana (without the medical) will be legal as well, I don't think we know enough about its effects. As has been said the demographics are going to result in legalization and then the move will be on to legalize other drugs such as cocaine. Now, what about my statement that we do not know enough about the effects. In the U.S. we have a large number of alcoholics who do not function because of their alcoholism. They are a drag on our economy and the social fabric of our country. In the same way some individuals abuse marijuana to the point of being non functional. If these two groups overlap then having some of the alcoholics become potheads should not present additional problems for society. However, there is an old study that found the people who become non functioning potheads are not the same as ones who become non functioning alcoholics. In my opinion this needs to be researched. As a country we do not need to add another huge group of non functioning people. As for the UK study cited above the key line was: "Unquestionably the reason it's [alcohol] so harmful is because so many people use it," said Dr. David Nutt, who lead the study.

 

Now, would we swing with people we knew used marijuana. No. We do not want to have to defend ourselves either with the law or the news media. A sure fire way to get into the news and a trip to the police station is to have the police raid a "Swingers" party. In the future when it is legalized we would not have that concern and unless the marijuana use was problematic we would swing with them.

[Alura 2,774]

I think you're right, JM153. Very little scientific research has been done on hemp products.

 

As I mentioned earlier, I believe all drugs should be legalized (or decriminalized) and taxed, the proceeds to be used to pay for health care. A part of that would, of course, be for research as well as treating addicts. Anything which causes people to seek health care should also be taxed to provide treatment and research to lower the cost to society. Public education in the form of thirty-second TV ads, similar to the effective non-smoking ones we see now, should be funded to teach people to follow healthier lifestyles.

 

Gangs would be without a product, police resources could be directed to more useful endeavors, half our prisons could be closed, and there would be no reason for the killings that are now taking place in our neighborhoods and Mexico.

 

My guess is that any increase in pot use, to the point of disfunction, would be more than offset by by savings realized with the ending of the War on Drugs and burying fewer of our teens.

 

Before the growing of hemp was outlawed in this country, most of the world's supply of rope was Made in U.S.A. It's a very good source of paper pulp. How far would the renewals of such industries go to better our economy and environment?

 

Having been a practicing hippy in the sixties and seventies, who made the Europe-India trek, I must say that I never met anyone who used pot to the extent that they were unable to function for more than an evening. The next morning they were alert and without a hangover. Much research needs to be done into such effects, if any, of marijuana and other drugs, including pharmaceuticals. In fairness, I will also say that I met users of Opiates who were unable to function and needed treatment badly.

 

Alura

[Chicup 41]

I'm really on no side on this one, normally I'm pretty opinionated () but with this one, I have a hard time determining the best course of action. I've never used it, I've never even smoked a cigarette, the whole concept seems about as appealing as licking the soles of my shoes.

 

Red herrings a way of drawing attention away from the real reason someone is making the argument. I believe that in MOST cases people are not arguing for marijuana use for primarily medical reason, but for recreation.

 

Normally the argument goes medical, taxes and crime. Once they mention taxes or crime you know the true intent. It would be very easy to make it a perfectly legal medical product, but thats not the intent.

[cplnuswing 4,713]

caused by the illegality, not the drug itself,

 

Absolutely, and that is exactly why I hold the opinion I do.

 

is she going to be his source for weed? Or is going to be some unseen supply chain?

 

Any dreams of being a rich drug lord have long evaporated waiting on my next purchase. This discussion has made me think back, and the last time I took even a single hit of marijuana was 1989. In total, I tried it on six instances, only two of which I recall having enough to feel even the slightest effects. I have never handed over a dime for marijuana, nor grown it myself, nor known anybody who does. Since this admission seems to be what you are after though based on your implications, and which I think I've already made clear is my personal stance, given the right circumstances and the desire, I might smoke it tomorrow for purely recreational use but since those circumstances and desire haven't been present or coincided in almost two decades now I would say the odds are pretty long on that. Whether I do, don't, or ever have doesn't have anything to do with my opinion on the matter.

 

What exactly am I wrong about? There are side effects to any drug.

 

This. You said Several compound found in marijuana have been isolated and manufactured to produce the desire medical effect, increasing appetite in Marinol's case, without the side effects associated with marijuana. I pointed you to an official source that listed the side effects that you initially claimed weren't present that are exactly the same as what causes recreational users to use the drug.

 

My main reason for posting is I just get irritated when red herrings like medical use and prison over crowding get thrown out as a replacement for making a real argument to over turn the marijuana laws. If people want marijuana legal so they can get stone, they should make that argument. They may not get a warm reception, but at least it would be an honest argument.

 

The argument has been made from every direction here by those of us who hold the same base position, and you don't agree, which is certainly your right. I think the issue is more that they are getting a warmer reception than what you give them rather than they are dishonest or red herrings.

[Alura 2,774]

Despite phony statistics and misread "red herrings" it remains that there are plenty of people out there who deserve all the medical care they can get to alleviate suffering. Because there are other people who think it's just plain wrong to get high in any way other than alcohol, patients are not getting some of the care they need.

 

Laura, like Chicup, had no bad habits. Despite coming of age in the seventies, she never smoked marijuana nor a single cigarette and had never been drunk. She would have been willing to eat hashish candy to ease her sickness from chemotherapy, but was not willing to smoke anything. Our efforts to create it in our own kitchen proved unsuccessful. Of course, marijuana will not be widely available in candy form until it is legal, because of production costs. It takes a lot more product to have the same effect. Marijuana would not have saved her life, but it would have eased a lot of suffering in her fight against breast cancer.

 

Our laws against a useful plant are cruel and inexcusable, besides being counter productive, wasteful, and (Oh, my God!!!) expensive to our society in Gross National Product, costs of government, and the lives of our teenagers.

 

Alura

[SW_PA_Couple 4,024]

. . . I've never even smoked a cigarette,

That's for the best. Cigarettes are a gateway leading to the use of marijuana

[Alura 2,774]

I also think smoking marijuana often leads to smoking cigarettes. A friend of mind told me of her experience in Europe where it is common to mix hashish with tobacco to make it burn better. She first found herself bumming and then buying cigarettes. Quitting was not easy for her!

 

Alura

[SW_PA_Couple 4,024]

I also think smoking marijuana often leads to smoking cigarettes.

This is very credible. Cigarette smoking changes your brain the first time you do it. Becoming hooked is only a few cigarettes further down the road.

[cplnuswing 4,713]

A friend of mind told me of her experience in Europe where it is common to mix hashish with tobacco to make it burn better.

 

Hmmm, never heard that. So the answer for those annoying new fire safe cigarettes that are required now that don't want to light and go out if you aren't dragging on them often enough (which btw, isn't that the exact opposite of the overall goal they are trying to encourage??) is to mix some hashish in with the tobacco and repack them?? Better call the DEA, might be a new wave of growers and smugglers coming on soon as plain old tobacco smokers figure that one out

 

Earlier today I just caught the end of a commercial on CNBC advertising what seemed to be a regular show to follow up on their marijuana documentary that ran recently. Evidently, the first show went over well enough they are going to do a series. CNBC isn't the only one either, all you have to do is follow popular media to see the move for reform is going mainstream and picking up speed. Shortly (years though), I predict we will see the end of an era that has held on for way too long.

 

Lately it occurs to me,

What a looong, strange trip it's been

 

Sorry, couldn't resist token Grateful Dead reference

[SW_PA_Couple 4,024]

Sorry, couldn't resist token Grateful Dead reference

Ahem? Tokin' Grateful Dead reference?

[prometheius 137]

Ahem? Tokin' Grateful Dead reference?

 

One would that you had never been to a Grateful Dead concert.

[divenaked 325]

I tried to watch a Grateful Dead concert on tv a while back. Realised you HAVE to be stoned to enjoy it. Songs don't make sense to a sober mind...........

[prometheius 137]

Art doesn't have to be understood to be enjoyed, have you really ever understood what Dahli or Picasso's paintings were all about? Not me, but yet they are some of my favorites.

[Alura 2,774]

Bumping this thread, Jorik. It's been a good discussion.

 

Oklahoma, in the meantime, has legalized Medical Marijuana, but not recreational use. In order to get a license, one must visit a doctor who will make a recommendation to OMMA that the patient be issued a license. Fee is $150.00. No doctor's prescription is required, nor any medical use specified. Printed on the back of one's license are the amounts of pot the patient can possess:

 

1. Possess up to three (3) ounces of marijuana on their person.

2. Possess six (6) marijuana plants.

3. Possess six (6) seedling plants.

4. Possess one (1) ounce of concentrated marijuana.

5. Possess seventy-two (72) ounces of edible marijuana, AND

6. Possess up to eight (8) ounces of marijuana in their residence.

 

I don't remember how much tax money the state has collected. It's substantial. Before the law was passed, Oklahoma was LAST in teacher pay in our seven-state area (contiguous borders, Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri and Arkansas.) Now we're about to be first. Teachers who left the state because of low pay are returning. Money is being directed to repairing our infrastructure.

 

Medical Marijuana "Dispensaries" have sprung up all over the state (There is no county option.) All are faring well and more licenses are pending.

 

Marijuana is a major ingredient in a lot of Native American medicine people's preparations, used before the invasion (and, in some cases, still). The Cheyenne say that Mother Earth and Father Sky have provided cures for all illnesses. We only need to find them.

[Alura 2,774]

https://www.newson6.com/story/5e35c6f22f69d76f620133bf/april-oklahoma-medical-marijuana-sales-top-18-million

[the Nomads 78]

I'll start with the disclaimer that this debate which has been bumped from about 9 years ago was an interesting read but not something I want to really debate other than to say we don't play with people who must smoke it to swing. It is for the same reason we don't play with people who need a cigarette or a beer every 5 minutes. Because we don't like the taste/smell specifically when kissing others.

 

I really wanted to pose the following question though. If a way was found to convey all of the health benefits of THC with none of the euphoria that it creates would you still advocate for it? Just a curiosity.

 

Mr. Nomad

[Alura 2,774]

Mother Earth provided the way to treat illness by causing the plant to grow in different strains. For instance, the plant that relieves seizures doesn't get the patient high. Medicine people of the plains used marijuana and many other herbs and plants to treat a myriad of diseases. The Cheyenne elders say that Mother Earth and Father Sky have provided a cure for every disease. One only needs to find it.

[divenaked 325]

And.....for those of us who champion the second amendment, use of marijuana will infringe upon your right to purchase and own a firearm. The form you have to fill out asks if you are a drug user. If you answer yes, you are denied. If you answer no, and are found out to be, you are in violation and subject to up to five years in prison.

[SW_PA_Couple 4,024]

. . .If a way was found to convey all of the health benefits of THC with none of the euphoria that it creates . . .

Isn't that CBD (Cannabidiol)?

[Newb_Couple 28]

Excuse what? My wife and I love sex while stoned. Rex use or medical use is just fine for us. When it becomes a lifestyle, is where I get weary. But of course time are a changing. The US Government has lied about cannabis for decades. Now I’m not saying it’s a granola bar, but it’s a lot healthier then alcohol or prescription drugs. Do your research, you’ll be shockingly happy at the results, occasional use for rec purposes is fine and turns sex up to 11! Any questions on strain choices or going about smoking cannabis to make sex better, just ask I’ll set you up for a great time.

[Newb_Couple 28]

Yes, the poster is incorrect. CBD It’s mainly used for medical properties.

[divenaked 325]

CBD oil does contain small amounts of THC. The percentage varies according to the distillation process, but it is there. You can show positive on a drug test. Without a prescription you will probably be in trouble.

[Newb_Couple 28]

Health benefits of THC? THC acts as a masking agent to pain. Which is good, cannabis pain therapy can easily off set the opioid disaster. CBD is where your real health benefits start to kick in. Curbing seizures brought on by epilepsy is just the Beginning.

[lovefest04 700]

I've done a bit of research on Cannabis. I'd agree that it's overall effects are no worse and probably less than alcohol and certainly prescription drugs. BUT the big issue is that you can't SMOKE it. The heating the cannabis with a match sends all kinds of bad shit into your lungs. Use edibles for a great long lasting high. But be careful, edibles are metabolized differently, slower than smoking. So the high comes on slowly and then can become quite powerful. A little can go a long way and the high can last for hours and hours. great for an evening of sex and relaxation, just be aware of your limits.

 

Not all CBD has THC but the benefits of CBD are enhanced with a small amount of THC. CBD sold in the stores does not have THC. I'd prefer to make my own oils with a high CBD low THC product.

[Alura 2,774]

Recently, in our local newspaper, there was a letter to the editor which argued that "medical" marijuana, sold to Oklahomans as not being "recreational" is really both. (Don't mention that to the Legislature!) That may be true, but the people (by a wide majority) approved it in a state-wide referendum, initiated by voters' petitions.

 

My local "Pot Shop" offers an interesting product. "High Honey!" (In smaller print) "Hemp Honey. THC full spectrum Distillate. Total cannabinoids per stick 90 mg. 13 mg, THC. 45mg CBD." The guy at the Pot Shop told me it comes from beehives situated in a hemp-field in Colorado. Since it is now legal to grow in Oklahoma it may soon come from home.

 

Would anyone care to offer an opinion?

[Napoleon 230]

I don't want to use it. I don't smoke anything. I don't drink alcohol much. I might drink alcohol once or twice a year.

 

I am addicted to cheese cake.