This is where I find the argument very bias in a seemingly unintended way. If and when studies occur, it's about the main drug, not the drug you bought last week from a dealer. The two are almost completely opposite. Even if cannabis has no harmful effect, or even if it's helpful, what's stopping someone from putting chemicals that are physically addicting just to keep you coming back for more? Nothing.

 

 

 

Cases of laced marijuana are actually quite rare. Plus there are lots of things holding them back from doing so. Not everyone has chemicals like that available to them. People don't always buy from the same dealer either. Besides, people tend to get angry if their dealer laces the stuff. Losing a customer's trust isn't a good thing.

 

 

 

That's not to say that it doesn't happen, but it's definitely not a common thing at all.

@ Above poster: Tobacco is a "freakin' plant" too.

 

 

Above poster has a name ;)

 

 

 

I know it is, but the cigarette* itself is full of chemicals.OVER 4000!!!

 

A joint of cannabis isnt full of any/as much?

 

Try to imagine how little I care.

 

Nope, not quite. Try again.

 

 

 

Thats very sensible of you.

 

 

 

Coffee has a couple thousand chemicals, too. I've come to the point where I've realized the number of chemicals doesn't mean [cabbage], and is just a scare tactic.

Six pages of how weed isn't addictive/doesn't lead to harder drugs/isn't permanently bad for you (proven through research) and people are still posting [cabbage] like that. I don't believe it.

This is where I find the argument very bias in a seemingly unintended way. If and when studies occur, it's about the main drug, not the drug you bought last week from a dealer. The two are almost completely opposite. Even if cannabis has no harmful effect, or even if it's helpful, what's stopping someone from putting chemicals that are physically addicting just to keep you coming back for more? Nothing.

 

This sounds like an argument for the legalization and regulation of marijuana. As Zierro pointed out, marijuana is very rarely laced with other substances. When it does happen, it's usually done at the user-level.

 

 

 

Also, keep in mind that many of these studies, particularly those studying pot's addiction potential and health effects, focus on the people who smoke it (i.e. those who are smoking potentially laced weed).

 

 

 

doesn't kanabis also stay in your system a long time after youve smoked it? wouldn't that mean that a number of people that tested positive for it could have smoked it long before ever getting into a vehicle?

 

The study does have a number of limitations. My intention was simply to show that "pot accidents" do happen, even if they are rare.

This is where I find the argument very bias in a seemingly unintended way. If and when studies occur, it's about the main drug, not the drug you bought last week from a dealer. The two are almost completely opposite. Even if cannabis has no harmful effect, or even if it's helpful, what's stopping someone from putting chemicals that are physically addicting just to keep you coming back for more? Nothing.

 

This sounds like an argument for the legalization and regulation of marijuana. As Zierro pointed out, marijuana is very rarely laced with other substances. When it does happen, it's usually done at the user-level.

 

 

 

Also, keep in mind that many of these studies, particularly those studying pot's addiction potential and health effects, focus on the people who smoke it (i.e. those who are smoking potentially laced weed).

 

I am fine with legalization, provided more in-depth studies are done weighing the positives and negatives. Either way though, manufacturers wouldn't be selling pure marijuana.

Either way though, manufacturers wouldn't be selling pure marijuana.

 

Why?

Either way though, manufacturers wouldn't be selling pure marijuana.

 

Why?

 

Look at cigarettes.

 

cigarettes are filled with chemicals to make them taste better, and to make them more addicting than they already are.

 

Laura could be saying they'd lace the marijuana to make It minorly addictive.

 

Or she could be saying they'd do something to make it less powerful, so you'd have to buy more.

Either way though, manufacturers wouldn't be selling pure marijuana.

 

Why?

 

Look at cigarettes.

 

cigarettes are filled with chemicals to make them taste better, and to make them more addicting than they already are.

 

Laura could be saying they'd lace the marijuana to make It minorly addictive.

 

Or she could be saying they'd do something to make it less powerful, so you'd have to buy more.

 

That's what I assumed, which I would reply with, they sell pure tobacco. You can buy it in almost any store that sells tobacco products. So, manufacturers would sell pure marijuana. Thye will just also sell marijuana with additives.

Either way though, manufacturers wouldn't be selling pure marijuana.

 

Why?

 

Look at cigarettes.

 

cigarettes are filled with chemicals to make them taste better, and to make them more addicting than they already are.

 

Laura could be saying they'd lace the marijuana to make It minorly addictive.

 

Or she could be saying they'd do something to make it less powerful, so you'd have to buy more.

 

That's what I assumed, which I would reply with, they sell pure tobacco. You can buy it in almost any store that sells tobacco products. So, manufacturers would sell pure marijuana. Thye will just also sell marijuana with additives.

 

so basically, pre-rolled joints with additives in them, in comparison to pure marijuana which would require more effort?

Either way though, manufacturers wouldn't be selling pure marijuana.

 

Why?

 

Look at cigarettes.

 

cigarettes are filled with chemicals to make them taste better, and to make them more addicting than they already are.

 

Laura could be saying they'd lace the marijuana to make It minorly addictive.

 

Or she could be saying they'd do something to make it less powerful, so you'd have to buy more.

 

That's what I assumed, which I would reply with, they sell pure tobacco. You can buy it in almost any store that sells tobacco products. So, manufacturers would sell pure marijuana. Thye will just also sell marijuana with additives.

 

so basically, pre-rolled joints with additives in them, in comparison to pure marijuana which would require more effort?

 

If using the same quality marijuana for both, putting in additives requires more effort.

Either way though, manufacturers wouldn't be selling pure marijuana.

 

Why?

 

Look at cigarettes.

 

cigarettes are filled with chemicals to make them taste better, and to make them more addicting than they already are.

 

Laura could be saying they'd lace the marijuana to make It minorly addictive.

 

Or she could be saying they'd do something to make it less powerful, so you'd have to buy more.

 

That's what I assumed, which I would reply with, they sell pure tobacco. You can buy it in almost any store that sells tobacco products. So, manufacturers would sell pure marijuana. Thye will just also sell marijuana with additives.

 

so basically, pre-rolled joints with additives in them, in comparison to pure marijuana which would require more effort?

 

If using the same quality marijuana for both, putting in additives requires more effort.

 

I was speaking in the view of the consumer.

Either way though, manufacturers wouldn't be selling pure marijuana.

 

Why?

 

Look at cigarettes.

 

cigarettes are filled with chemicals to make them taste better, and to make them more addicting than they already are.

 

Laura could be saying they'd lace the marijuana to make It minorly addictive.

 

Or she could be saying they'd do something to make it less powerful, so you'd have to buy more.

 

That's what I assumed, which I would reply with, they sell pure tobacco. You can buy it in almost any store that sells tobacco products. So, manufacturers would sell pure marijuana. Thye will just also sell marijuana with additives.

 

so basically, pre-rolled joints with additives in them, in comparison to pure marijuana which would require more effort?

 

If using the same quality marijuana for both, putting in additives requires more effort.

 

I was speaking in the view of the consumer.

 

 

 

Yes, but customers that buy tobacco usually haven't ever used pure tobacco (just assuming, I don't have any charts or anything), but marijuana consumers wouldn't (sorry, originally said "would") most likely be willing to buy the pure marijuana just so that they don't get the additives. I would go so far as to call cigarette smokers lazy, but I sure wouldn't buy joints with all the additives in them, and if I had to roll each joint I wanted just to get clean MJ, I wouldn't be disappointed at all. In fact, I see rolling as part of the overall experience, something that's needed to enjoy the joint. Just my 2 cents.

Give it twenty years. Prerolled joints would be all the rage. They'd have to invent some sort of cool box, though.

Give it twenty years. Prerolled joints would be all the rage. They'd have to invent some sort of cool box, though.

 

With lots of bright colors!

Do I use marijuana? No, but I come from a neighborhood where the kids were baked practically all damn day.

 

Do I think it's bad? Yes, but only for people that I care about or have influence over.

 

 

 

If you're a grown person, then you should be able to make conscious decisions about what to put in your own body, and be able to accept the consequences (if there are any) at a later date. I'll tell you that you shouldn't smoke weed, but I'm not going to bother stopping you - do what you want.

 

No, because someone in my family screwed up his life (and his mental health) because of marijuana. You can't tell who will suffer from it's negative effects and who won't until it's already happened. Too much risk, not enough reward. Sorry. =;

 

 

 

Sorry, your family member is idiotic and has no self control. Again, THAT SINGLE PERSON'S FAULT. NOT marijuana.

 

 

 

Seriously, keep these posts coming...I love proving you wrong.

 

 

 

Is marijuana for everyone? No. Should those people come to self-realization about what they are doing should a problem arise? Yea. If not, their fault, too bad so sad.

 

I realise that it is the combination of marijuana and people being idiots that causes serious problems, it is the case with the vast majority of things that people do. You're going to have to tackle one or the other to prevent this, but I'm afraid that you just can't stop people from being idiots no matter how you do it, there are too many of them.

 

 

 

In an ideal world, where everyone is sensible and yet has a sense of enjoyment, go ahead. However, this world is far from ideal.

Either way though, manufacturers wouldn't be selling pure marijuana.

 

Why?

 

Look at cigarettes.

 

cigarettes are filled with chemicals to make them taste better, and to make them more addicting than they already are.

 

Laura could be saying they'd lace the marijuana to make It minorly addictive.

 

Or she could be saying they'd do something to make it less powerful, so you'd have to buy more.

 

That's what I assumed, which I would reply with, they sell pure tobacco. You can buy it in almost any store that sells tobacco products. So, manufacturers would sell pure marijuana. Thye will just also sell marijuana with additives.

Which sell better? Are companies really in it to help consumers? No, it's whatever sells the best, adding chemicals that are addicting are going to sell far better than those without. If people want marijuana, they'll buy it. If they "need" it, they "have" to buy it.

I don't see the problem with pre-rolled joints containing 'chemical' additives. We have regulations against using dangerous/addicting substances (such as nicotine) as additives. Marijuana, if legalized, would be placed under the same regulations as any other food/drug.

 

 

 

Of course, full legalization is unlikely at this point. Decriminalization similar to the Netherlands' policies is much more likely (i.e. coffee shops, small-time businesses, etc).

I don't see the problem with pre-rolled joints containing 'chemical' additives. We have regulations against using dangerous/addicting substances (such as nicotine) as additives. Marijuana, if legalized, would be placed under the same regulations as any other food/drug.

 

 

 

Of course, full legalization is unlikely at this point. Decriminalization similar to the Netherlands' policies is much more likely (i.e. coffee shops, small-time businesses, etc).

 

"Dangerous" and "addictive" are words defined by the lobbyists defending their corporation.

In regards to regulated food/drug in the United States, "dangerous" and "addictive" are words defined by the FDA.

 

 

 

I don't see why you think this problem applies solely to marijuana. If food/drug industries could get away with using nicotine and other addicting substances as an additive, they wouldn't wait for marijuana to be legalized. :lol:

In regards to regulated food/drug in the United States, "dangerous" and "addictive" are words defined by the FDA.

 

 

 

I don't see why you think this problem applies solely to marijuana. If food/drug industries could get away with using nicotine and other addicting substances as an additive, they wouldn't wait for marijuana to be legalized. :lol:

"While we are currently doing studies, there is no evidence that "Chemical-X" causes "[insert hazard]."

 

 

 

Those same words are repeated hundreds of times when lobbying. The FDA buys into this crap; have you seen what's been happening with cigarettes, cellphones, and WiFi?

I'm gonna watch super high me in a few days. Has anyone seen it before?

mmm weed

In regards to regulated food/drug in the United States, "dangerous" and "addictive" are words defined by the FDA.

 

 

 

I don't see why you think this problem applies solely to marijuana. If food/drug industries could get away with using nicotine and other addicting substances as an additive, they wouldn't wait for marijuana to be legalized. :lol:

"While we are currently doing studies, there is no evidence that "Chemical-X" causes "[insert hazard]."

 

 

 

Those same words are repeated hundreds of times when lobbying. The FDA buys into this crap; have you seen what's been happening with cigarettes, cellphones, and WiFi?

 

The FDA has argued for decades that cigarettes are harmful and addicting. In the 90s, they investigated a number of tobacco companies and found manipulation of nicotine content, which prompted them to tighten regulations on the sale and advertisement of tobacco[1]. Which claims, exactly, are the FDA buying into?

 

 

 

As for cell phones and WiFi, are you referring to the concern over radiation? The FDA's conclusions -- that cell phones have not shown to cause significant health problems[2] -- is consistent with mainstream scientific consensus[3][4]. The hundreds of independent studies and their conclusions is by no means "crap" fed to the FDA by malicious cell phone companies.

 

 

 

Even if your argument were to hold weight, how is it at all relevant? This is a flaw in the United States' Food & Drug Administration, not an issue of marijuana legalization. If the FDA is truly as flawed as you imply, then there would be an immediate need for concern over common and currently regulated foods and drugs.

 

 

 

 

 

edit:

 

I'm gonna watch super high me in a few days. Has anyone seen it before?

 

I saw it. It was alright, but nothing to write home about.

In regards to regulated food/drug in the United States, "dangerous" and "addictive" are words defined by the FDA.

 

 

 

I don't see why you think this problem applies solely to marijuana. If food/drug industries could get away with using nicotine and other addicting substances as an additive, they wouldn't wait for marijuana to be legalized. :lol:

"While we are currently doing studies, there is no evidence that "Chemical-X" causes "[insert hazard]."

 

 

 

Those same words are repeated hundreds of times when lobbying. The FDA buys into this crap; have you seen what's been happening with cigarettes, cellphones, and WiFi?

 

The FDA has argued for decades that cigarettes are harmful and addicting. In the 90s, they investigated a number of tobacco companies and found manipulation of nicotine content, which prompted them to tighten regulations on the sale and advertisement of tobacco[1]. Which claims, exactly, are the FDA buying into?

 

 

 

As for cell phones and WiFi, are you referring to the concern over radiation? The FDA's conclusions -- that cell phones have not shown to cause significant health problems[2] -- is consistent with mainstream scientific consensus[3][4]. The hundreds of independent studies and their conclusions is by no means "crap" fed to the FDA by malicious cell phone companies.

 

 

 

Even if your argument were to hold weight, how is it at all relevant? This is a flaw in the United States' Food & Drug Administration, not an issue of marijuana legalization. If the FDA is truly as flawed as you imply, then there would be an immediate need for concern over common and currently regulated foods and drugs.

 

 

 

 

 

edit:

 

I'm gonna watch super high me in a few days. Has anyone seen it before?

 

I saw it. It was alright, but nothing to write home about.

Your sources are very unclear, being my main point. One, being the first source, was updated over 10 years ago. The third source takes note of the following:

While one 1997 study found that RF fields increased the rate at which genetically engineered mice developed lymphoma, the health implications of this result is unclear. Several studies are underway to confirm this finding and determine any relevance of these results to cancer in human beings.

Despite the fact, as you say, that the terms are defined by the FDA, words simply hold value; they can be twisted and disheveled. And the FDA does the same thing:

The weight of scientific evidence has not linked cell phones with any health problems[3].

Meaning, it hasn't proved that they don't and there is no mention said said studies. Businesses want what's best for their wallets and with an over-hyped drug such as marijuana, something is bound to be manipulated.