Marijuana?

[Zierro]

Why don't they put nicotine in McDonald's food then?

[venomai]

One, being the first source, was updated over 10 years ago.

 

The first source has no need to be updated. It is a discussion of events that took place well in the past.

 

 

 

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.

 

The article immediately proceeds to note that "Three recent epidemiological studies found no convincing evidence of increase in risk of cancer or any other disease with use of mobile phones."

 

 

 

The entire article couldn't be more clear... Simply because you underline words like "unclear" and point out a single contradicting study doesn't mean its conclusions are vague or unsupported.

 

 

 

Meaning, it hasn't proved that they don't

 

You seem to have misunderstood. Neither the FDA or WHO are suggesting that it's "proven" that cell phones do not cause health problems.

 

 

 

I agree that the FDA website can do with a re-write and some citations, but these are flaws on the part of the FDA (more specifically, their website). It's completely unrelated to the discussion at hand.

 

 

 

Businesses want what's best for their wallets and with an over-hyped drug such as marijuana, something is bound to be manipulated.

 

I completely agree. Full legalization, which is unlikely to happen anytime soon, would probably lead to the sale of modified weed. Companies would use additives and specific production techniques to make the weed more potent, less harsh, give it more taste, etc.

 

 

 

We already see this happening with fruits, vegetables, burgers, coffee, and most other foods/drugs that you can think of. However, most of these companies are careful not to use addicting/dangerous additives for two primary reasons:

 

a) The public would inevitably find out, and intense public backlash would ensue, followed by hostility toward the product (if not the entire corporation) and a huge drop in profits.

 

B) The company would likely receive legal backlash, e.g. from agencies such as the FDA or, in Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

[aquariusman]

I'm going to say yes. I have smoked weed before, liked it, but I'm not about to become a habitual user. Also, anyone saying that weed screws the user over, I ask you to think of what the person was like before they started smoking weed. Everyone I know that is a habitual user didn't change at all from before they started to now. And they're the exact same. The only problem with weed is that, being criminalized, it will often be associated with gangs and other drugs that are harmful.

 

 

 

Also, talk to LP if you want some good reasons for legalizing marijuana.

[Necrobean]

America is a two sided blade. Some states are legalizing MM (medi-) whilst others are still being raided daily by the DEA; I sincerely hope there will either be legalization or decriminalization for ALL drugs. Marijuanna is a start but it's not the governments choice when you want to put something in your body. If the government of America wasn't so stupid it would realize that alcohol is worse, drunk drivers and deaths due to alcohol enough. Marijuanna? None to date. Now what about Nicotine? Nicotine isn't even in the drug laws if they would put it in, looking at how poisonous and how there is no recreational (none in my personal opinion) nor medicinal use for it, why is it legal then? Compare that to marijuanna and everyone should be convinced that it should get legalized (Either for recreational or medicinal use.)

 

 

 

I hope we're going towards a sunny future, no more square-thinking or looking down upon people when they toke up. Society of today is dirty, bah.

 

 

 

Although there is one catch, I wouldn't want to buy MJ from your Uncle sam, I've read articles enough that the MJ is badly grown or it doesn't give the expected effects and neither would I want to buy it from companies, I'll stick to my little homegrown plant, atleast I know what to expect then. e.g: http://www.kcby.com/news/local/41656667.html

[Laura]

One, being the first source, was updated over 10 years ago.

 

The first source has no need to be updated. It is a discussion of events that took place well in the past.

 

 

 

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.

 

The article immediately proceeds to note that "Three recent epidemiological studies found no convincing evidence of increase in risk of cancer or any other disease with use of mobile phones."

 

 

 

The entire article couldn't be more clear... Simply because you underline words like "unclear" and point out a single contradicting study doesn't mean its conclusions are vague or unsupported.

 

 

 

Meaning, it hasn't proved that they don't

 

You seem to have misunderstood. Neither the FDA or WHO are suggesting that it's "proven" that cell phones do not cause health problems.

 

 

 

I agree that the FDA website can do with a re-write and some citations, but these are flaws on the part of the FDA (more specifically, their website). It's completely unrelated to the discussion at hand.

 

 

 

Businesses want what's best for their wallets and with an over-hyped drug such as marijuana, something is bound to be manipulated.

 

I completely agree. Full legalization, which is unlikely to happen anytime soon, would probably lead to the sale of modified weed. Companies would use additives and specific production techniques to make the weed more potent, less harsh, give it more taste, etc.

 

 

 

We already see this happening with fruits, vegetables, burgers, coffee, and most other foods/drugs that you can think of. However, most of these companies are careful not to use addicting/dangerous additives for two primary reasons:

 

a) The public would inevitably find out, and intense public backlash would ensue, followed by hostility toward the product (if not the entire corporation) and a huge drop in profits.

 

B) The company would likely receive legal backlash, e.g. from agencies such as the FDA or, in Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

I don't have a online subscription to the New England Journal of Medicine so I'm assuming it doesn't. The study later goes on to say, as it's conclusion:

None of the recent reviews have concluded that exposure to the RF fields from mobile phones or their base stations causes any adverse health consequences.

Nothing has been proved, as you also said, which is exactly my point and is something that can be easily manipulated by deceptive business practices.

 

Why don't they put nicotine in McDonald's food then?

 

While not nicotine, who's to say they don't put some sort of subtle additive that is addictive? Have there been tests on every "preservative" they use? No, of course not, they're simply "preservatives."

[3hitm4g3u]

I hope they don't legalise Marijuana. I'll no doubt have to pay a hell of alot more through taxes than what I do now.

[Necrobean]

I hope they don't legalise Marijuana. I'll no doubt have to pay a hell of alot more through taxes than what I do now.

 

 

 

You do realise they are talking about decriminalization/legalizing to get out of debt? (eg. Cali.)

 

 

 

Edit: I've been reading some posts in this topic about MJ harming your health. Lung cancer you say? You can make edibles, now what with your puny arguments ;) ?

[mikeg0477]

As an adult, I feel it should be decriminalized and up to me whether or not to consume it. However, anyone who's worried about getting into "trouble" if caught by their parents should probably wait until they can make their own decisions.

[mmmcannibalism]

I hope they don't legalise Marijuana. I'll no doubt have to pay a hell of alot more through taxes than what I do now.

 

 

 

do you mean taxes on the marijuana or general taxes? General taxes wont go up because of this, in fact in some cases a tax decrease may be possible due to the new source of revenue.

[user1991]

If alcohol is legal then marijuana should be too. We should base legalization on the dangerousness of the drug - alcohol, caffeine, nicotine, cannabis, and maybe even mushrooms and LSD should be legal but cocaine, heroin, ecstasy, meth, etc. should still remain illegal.

 

 

 

No.

 

 

 

They should all be legal.

 

 

 

The state has no justification to tell you what you can and cannot do to yourself.

[Zierro]

If alcohol is legal then marijuana should be too. We should base legalization on the dangerousness of the drug - alcohol, caffeine, nicotine, cannabis, and maybe even mushrooms and LSD should be legal but cocaine, heroin, ecstasy, meth, etc. should still remain illegal.

 

 

 

No.

 

 

 

They should all be legal.

 

 

 

The state has no justification to tell you what you can and cannot do to yourself.

 

 

 

It's not just what you're doing to yourself. It's what you're doing to others around you as well, especially in the case of these hardcore drugs.

 

 

 

That type of drug use should be discouraged at all times. And while marijuana is illegal, it doesn't give the state much credence when it comes to what drugs are bad. If marijuana is legalized there will be a tangible standard to go by and it will serve to show the public, illegal = bad, legal = okay.

 

 

 

Edit: My bad on putting ecstasy in the same vein as the others. Ecstasy should be legal too.

[user1991]

If alcohol is legal then marijuana should be too. We should base legalization on the dangerousness of the drug - alcohol, caffeine, nicotine, cannabis, and maybe even mushrooms and LSD should be legal but cocaine, heroin, ecstasy, meth, etc. should still remain illegal.

 

 

 

No.

 

 

 

They should all be legal.

 

 

 

The state has no justification to tell you what you can and cannot do to yourself.

 

 

 

It's not just what you're doing to yourself. It's what you're doing to others around you as well, especially in the case of these hardcore drugs.

 

 

 

That type of drug use should be discouraged at all times. And while marijuana is illegal, it doesn't give the state much credence when it comes to what drugs are bad. If marijuana is legalized there will be a tangible standard to go by and it will serve to show the public, illegal = bad, legal = okay.

 

 

 

You aren't listening to the argument.

 

 

 

If I choose to take heroin, I am doing it to myself. There is no-one else involved.

 

 

 

As long as I do not impose on the freedoms of anyone else, how can the state/majority possibly justify telling me what I can and cannot do to my OWN body. I did not consent to the state's control. I own my body. I have the right to do WHATEVER I want to it, and as long as it does not impose on the freedoms of anybody else it is not the business of you, or anyone to tell me whatI can or can't do it.

 

 

 

The state/majority telling you what you can and cannot do to yourself is tyranny.

[Zierro]

As long as I do not impose on the freedoms of anyone else

 

 

 

In most cases, heroin, meth, and coke lead to this. Laws are changed in order to give benefits to society. Can you honestly tell me that these are beneficial? You need more support than "cause I don't want to be told what to do".

 

 

 

I heard your argument loud and clear but it's lame. I guess suicide bombing should be legal too. You're ignoring the significant effect these drugs leave on society.

[Necrobean]

As long as I do not impose on the freedoms of anyone else

 

 

 

In most cases, heroin, meth, and coke lead to this. Laws are changed in order to give benefits to society. Can you honestly tell me that these are beneficial? You need more support than "cause I don't want to be told what to do".

 

 

 

I heard your argument loud and clear but it's lame. I guess suicide bombing should be legal too. You're ignoring the significant effect these drugs leave on society.

 

 

 

These significant effects on society are due to the drug war and their illegal status.

[Will H]

I'm going to say yes. I have smoked weed before, liked it, but I'm not about to become a habitual user. Also, anyone saying that weed screws the user over, I ask you to think of what the person was like before they started smoking weed. Everyone I know that is a habitual user didn't change at all from before they started to now. And they're the exact same. The only problem with weed is that, being criminalized, it will often be associated with gangs and other drugs that are harmful.

 

 

 

Also, talk to LP if you want some good reasons for legalizing marijuana.

 

Funny that. I don't know anyone who didn't have a noticeable personality change before and after starting smoking it habitually. I'm 16 and at school, so I know a lot of these people, before and after.

 

 

 

You can tell, seriously. It concerns me that so many people try to block out what's obvious.

[venomai]

I don't have a online subscription to the New England Journal of Medicine so I'm assuming it doesn't.

 

Apologies, I should have clarified.

 

 

 

Nothing has been proved, as you also said, which is exactly my point and is something that can be easily manipulated by deceptive business practices.

 

This is true for almost any currently researched claim. In science, something is proven only to a high degree of certainty.

 

 

 

An entire body of independent research has investigated this issue and has determined with a high degree of certainty that cell phones do not cause brain cancer in humans. The WHO and FDA are very clear in their wordings, and cell phone companies are correct in asserting that their product has not shown to cause brain cancer in humans. There is no "deception" of the general public.

 

 

 

While not nicotine, who's to say they don't put some sort of subtle additive that is addictive? Have there been tests on every "preservative" they use? No, of course not, they're simply "preservatives."

 

The vast majority of preservatives legally defined as acceptable for use in food/drug have been tested thoroughly. Food safety is taken very seriously in North America.

 

 

 

Regardless, an additive's addictive qualities would become apparent almost immediately. Entire populations that are physically dependent on a burger would not go unnoticed by health professionals. I'm beginning to wonder whether you understand addiction at all...

 

 

 

As I've said a number of times now: if burgers are being laced with addictive substances, there are much more pressing matters at hand than the worry that marijuana (a recreational drug) may also be laced with addictive substances.

 

 

 

These claims are absolutely laughable...

[Laura]

While not nicotine, who's to say they don't put some sort of subtle additive that is addictive? Have there been tests on every "preservative" they use? No, of course not, they're simply "preservatives."

 

The vast majority of preservatives legally defined as acceptable for use in food/drug have been tested thoroughly. Food safety is taken very seriously in North America.

 

 

 

Regardless, an additive's addictive qualities would become apparent almost immediately. Entire populations that are physically dependent on a burger would not go unnoticed by health professionals. I'm beginning to wonder whether you understand addiction at all...

 

 

 

As I've said a number of times now: if burgers are being laced with addictive substances, there are much more pressing matters at hand than the worry that marijuana (a recreational drug) may also be laced with addictive substances.

 

 

 

These claims are absolutely laughable...

I most certainly know what addiction is - physical and emotional - and how they tie into drugs and food. I am in no way suggesting that food manufacturers do such nor did I mean to suggest so. Preservatives are added in foods all the time that it's no big deal to the consumers. Supporting you statement on addictive qualities, I do agree. At which point, should a company do such a thing, the item in question would be removed from their ingredients list.

 

A Different Kind of Lunch (PDF)

 

"The introduction of a diet policy which lowered sucrose, synthetic food color/flavors, and two preservatives (BHA and BHT) over 4 years in 803 public schools was followed by a 15.7% increase in mean academic percentile ranking"

[Erk02]

I hope they don't legalise Marijuana. I'll no doubt have to pay a hell of alot more through taxes than what I do now.

 

The government plans to sell at $50 an ounce. Even if the tax on that is 100%, I'd still buy that. Hell, even at 200%, that'd be really cheap.

[meb]

I hope they don't legalise Marijuana. I'll no doubt have to pay a hell of alot more through taxes than what I do now.

 

The government plans to sell at $50 an ounce. Even if the tax on that is 100%, I'd still buy that. Hell, even at 200%, that'd be really cheap.

 

 

 

Well considering that an ounce is 28 grams and the average pot price per gram in the Dutch coffeeshops is 5-7 euros that's really cheap. As for as I know The Netherlands are the only country where selling pot is legal.

 

 

 

I am pro the legalization of softdrugs, but the government still has to draw the line somewhere. Legalizing heroin or meth is a matter of protecting the people against themselves. Those two are very addicting and completely destroy your body and mind. Marijuana on the other hand has very little impact on both you physical and mental health. In my opinion, it messes with your head in a less severe way than alcohol does. When you've smoked the green stuff, you don't feel like movingand just laugh your [wagon] off with just about anything. When you've smoked too much of it, you get really tired and don't feel like moving at all. The worst thing that can happen is that you get sick. Ever drank too much? Not only do you feel sick, you can't take a few steps without falling. A lot of people lose control of themselves (public urinating, fighting, vandalism). Driving a car drunk is very dangerous, but that can also be said of someone who's driving stoned. Also, you can't overdose on marijuana. Well, at least the effects aren't as severe as they are when you have alcohol poisoning. I've seen people being dragged off to an ambulance bathing in their own puke because they drank too much.

 

 

 

Marijuana holds much less risk than alchohol.

[JIM]

I think it is absolutely absurd that ANYONE, let alone the government, thinks they have the right to tell me what I can and cannot do if what I choose to do doesn't result in any injured parties or complaints.

 

 

 

I'm an adult, not a child.

 

 

 

So um... I big resounding YES.

 

 

 

*toke*

 

 

 

:shock:

 

Pardon me? The government dictates your rights to you. The government says you don't take a potentially harmful drug, then you don't take a potentially harmful drug. However, I am against the legality of cigarettes, and although it is childish, I've always been of the opinion that if smoking is legal, then cannabis should be legal as well.

 

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

 

 

 

It would help if you read my response before replying.

 

 

 

'Rights' should be inalienable. I understand they're supposed to be in the US, things are a little more complicated over here in England (with our no referendum entry into the EU etc).

 

 

 

My point was simply that I am an adult. If I choose to smoke something that may or may not be hazardous to my health, providing that I'm not harming anyone else, why does the government have the right to prohibit me from doing so?

 

 

 

Governments should protect and serve the publics rights. Not police the fine detail of our lives.

 

 

 

Of course you're welcome and have the right to your opinion, just as I have the right (atleast for now) to laugh at your ignorance and wave goodbye to you as you contnue on your life of servitude to an ever increasingly '1984-esque' establishment.

 

 

 

Our governments were meant to serve and protect, not to rule over us. We are supposed to be "free", aren't we?

[Dizzle229]

I could agree with marijuana being legalized, but NOTHING else. Everything else (heroin, meth, etc...) is not only bad for you, but bad for the people around you.

 

 

 

Even in the case of marijuana, I think that if it is legalized, it should be heavily regulated, and you'd need a license to smoke it (same should go with cigarettes and alcohol, imo).

 

 

 

Still, just because there is a law in place doesn't meant people will follow it. Remember Prohibition? Yeah. People drank during Prohibition. Even with licenses, there will always be idiots who do things without a license, making the whole situation much more complicated.

[IGoddessI]

 

You aren't listening to the argument.

 

 

 

If I choose to take heroin, I am doing it to myself. There is no-one else involved.

 

 

 

As long as I do not impose on the freedoms of anyone else, how can the state/majority possibly justify telling me what I can and cannot do to my OWN body. I did not consent to the state's control. I own my body. I have the right to do WHATEVER I want to it, and as long as it does not impose on the freedoms of anybody else it is not the business of you, or anyone to tell me whatI can or can't do it.

 

 

 

The state/majority telling you what you can and cannot do to yourself is tyranny.

 

 

 

Everybody knows your argument, trust me. "It's my body, I can do what I want" get over it sometimes people can't do what they want because it imposes other freedoms. Just because you don't impose other freedoms does not mean for even one, single second that others in your category don't and won't.

 

 

 

Those who nit pick on the people who smoke in their backyards and earn an honest living need to get real but it's not like you're specifically being targeted, people's problems are with those bloody idiots who do impose on others after they do whatever they want to their own bodies.

 

 

 

People aren't going to make it legal just because there is a minority like yourself who doesn't get in to trouble. You have a real problem with people telling you what to do, I hope you get over that someday but it's not all about you, it's about other people too who can't control themselves.

 

 

 

Take your frustrations out on those who can't control themselves, not the people protecting innocent people from those who can't control themselves. I feel your frustration, but I think you're totally taking it out on the wrong people. If people didn't act like they did while they were under the influence then just maybe more studies and people in general would support legalization of harsher drugs.

 

 

 

These significant effects on society are due to the drug war and their illegal status.

 

 

 

When you have a spare half hour - an hour go to googlescholar.com and do some homework.

[user1991]

 

You aren't listening to the argument.

 

 

 

If I choose to take heroin, I am doing it to myself. There is no-one else involved.

 

 

 

As long as I do not impose on the freedoms of anyone else, how can the state/majority possibly justify telling me what I can and cannot do to my OWN body. I did not consent to the state's control. I own my body. I have the right to do WHATEVER I want to it, and as long as it does not impose on the freedoms of anybody else it is not the business of you, or anyone to tell me whatI can or can't do it.

 

 

 

The state/majority telling you what you can and cannot do to yourself is tyranny.

 

 

 

Everybody knows your argument, trust me. "It's my body, I can do what I want" get over it sometimes people can't do what they want because it imposes other freedoms. Just because you don't impose other freedoms does not mean for even one, single second that others in your category don't and won't.

 

 

 

Those who nit pick on the people who smoke in their backyards and earn an honest living need to get real but it's not like you're specifically being targeted, people's problems are with those bloody idiots who do impose on others after they do whatever they want to their own bodies.

 

 

 

People aren't going to make it legal just because there is a minority like yourself who doesn't get in to trouble. You have a real problem with people telling you what to do, I hope you get over that someday but it's not all about you, it's about other people too who can't control themselves.

 

 

 

Take your frustrations out on those who can't control themselves, not the people protecting innocent people from those who can't control themselves. I feel your frustration, but I think you're totally taking it out on the wrong people. If people didn't act like they did while they were under the influence then just maybe more studies and people in general would support legalization of harsher drugs.

 

 

 

These significant effects on society are due to the drug war and their illegal status.

 

 

 

When you have a spare half hour - an hour go to googlescholar.com and do some homework.

 

 

 

Freedom > safety

 

 

 

So your answer to my argument is.. get over it?

 

 

 

Sounds like somebody doesn't have an answer. What is the role of government? The act of physically taking the heroin doesn't impose on others' freedoms.

 

 

 

To the guy who said "oh suicide bombing should be legal then huh", no, because the act of bombing is an outward action aimed at other people and designed specifically to kill people.

 

 

 

I never consented to this government's control. The fact that they can use force and coercion against the people when we cannot use it against them is telling of the excessive power of government.

 

 

 

Goddess, quit trying to psychoanalyze everything I'm saying, "you have a problem with people telling you what to do." No, I have a problem with people in an unjustifiable position of control telling me what to do. If I'm on a plane and the pilot tells everyone to put on their oxygen masks I have no problem doing it because the pilot is in a position of justifiable authority. The government however, is not.

[mmmcannibalism]

Our governments were meant to serve and protect, not to rule over us. We are supposed to be "free", aren't we?

 

 

 

this

 

 

 

There is a rationale behind bans on harder stuff such as heroin due to its truly destructive nature, but a ban on marijuana is entirely unneccesary, and in the case of the US a contributor to a lot of crime.

[Lenticular_J]

Freedom > safety

 

You know people will take that out of the good intentioned way you mean it. And that will not be good. Because they will push the limits between their freedom and others' freedom. And if they're stoned on COCAINE KIDS they may break it easier.

 

 

 

Just put coke as an example.