^ Weed seller :P

 

I'm indifferent to it. I'm not going to smoke it, or grow it. It should be legal because of all the positive medicinal properties marijuana and hemp possess, not because USA could cash in big from taxation of the product. I think New Zealand is fairly close to taking at least a softer stance on it, maybe even legalizing it completely for over 18s. Not that there is any particular law or bill being discussed, just policeman would rather spend time cracking down on hard drug users (P, meth etc) than chasing marijuana users, who are really just benefiting their lives. I think come 10 years time, marijuana will have a place in society similar to that of alcohol: it is used mainly for recreational and social purposes, not really for any major medical purposes.

If it were to go legal the last thing I want is tobacco companies being the ones to sell it. I think we all know they wouldn't sell 100% pure marijuana. Infact, I do believe they do alot of funding for anti-drug campaigns....

so long as it doesn't cost a ton, sure. I personally want to try it but there's 3 factors.

 

1) The only people I actually see with it are 16 year olds, I'm not asking a kid JUST to try something new.

2) Illegal. I dont wanna be jailed or changed as it both screws my life up, AND I dont even have the money to a fine.

3)Parents, I'll be living off the streets if my parents ever caught me doing any drugs despite being almost 19, as long as im stuck under their roof, their rules go.

I think it should be legalized, it can help the economy from what I hear. I don't see how alcohol is legal while marijuana is illegal, the effects and dangers of marijuana are much less then those of alcohol.

Alcohol is legal because its part of our western culture, in the middle east heroine was a part of their culture, we came there and busted all the heroine plant fields (dunno name in english) just to tell them its illegal in US so it should be illegal here too!

 

1 problem there is in The Netherlands about weed, people coming from England/Belgium/Germany to smoke it here, government is trying some speshul card system but if the countries just legalize it there is no problem at all

-Which drug is causing more death per year?

Tobacco kills more people than all illegal drugs combined with accidents and aids per year.

It causes over 450,000 deaths per year. Even knowing that tobacco is being the number one killer in the country, the government still plants it and sells it.

Then we got alcohol. It is responsible for the death of over 85,000 people per year. Then we got caffeine which cause from one to 10,000 deaths per year. Even aspirin causes from one to 7500 deaths per year. What about marijuana? People believe it kills from 50,000 to hundreds of billions per year. In fact no single case of death has been attributed from using marijuana in the history of the human kind from thousands of years. You have to smoke 15,000 joints in 20 minutes to die from marijuana which is almost impossible.

 

That whole paragraph should be scrapped, as it is totally null and void. Yes more deaths are caused by smoking and alcohol, but the numbers of people who do each are so different, the numbers cannot fairly be compared at all. Add that to the fact that a lot of Weed smokers will be young, healthy people, and a large amount of smoker and alcohol drinker will be 40+, even 60+ with other health problems too. So i think you should remove that whole paragraph to be honest.

 

I also agree with Lenticular on the first page, if it were to be legalised, it would probably be the same as regular cigarettes are now, taken up by a large company, heavily taxed, and sold behind the counter.

 

The argument of 'Alcohol and smoking are legal, but weed does less damage so that should be legal too!' Is also a null argument. That is an argument for making the two of those illegal, not legalising weed. And to be honest, smoking (at least here in the UK) is going in the direction of being banned in the next 10-20 years anyway. Alcohol may do more damage, but it is also entwined in western culture, especially British culture. We have pubs here that go back centuries, people have been drinking alcoholic beverages here since before most of the worlds countries were even formed, it is just part of the country.

 

 

I also agree with Lenticular on the first page, if it were to be legalised, it would probably be the same as regular cigarettes are now, taken up by a large company, heavily taxed, and sold behind the counter.

 

I'm sure there are tons of people that would rather get some watered down version of marijuana (IF that were to happen) than have a criminal record for being caught with it.

 

 

The argument of 'Alcohol and smoking are legal, but weed does less damage so that should be legal too!' Is also a null argument. That is an argument for making the two of those illegal, not legalising weed. And to be honest, smoking (at least here in the UK) is going in the direction of being banned in the next 10-20 years anyway. Alcohol may do more damage, but it is also entwined in western culture, especially British culture. We have pubs here that go back centuries, people have been drinking alcoholic beverages here since before most of the worlds countries were even formed, it is just part of the country.

 

Women being subordinate used to be the norm everywhere, now we have equal rights. Just because it's tradition doesn't mean it should stay. Marijuana has almost no negatives and has a ton of positives

I agree just because it is cultural does not give something immunity, but it is much much harder to make it illegal if it is built into the culture of a country. But as I said, alcohol and smoking having less effect is no argument for the legalisation of weed. That is an argument to make the two of those illegal as well, which is the direction smoking is already going in the UK.

 

A quick afterthought on the subject of smoking. With the Government spending money on anti-smoking campaigns, setting up special parts of the NHS to help people get over smoking addiction, and obviously overall trying to make smoking illegal totally, why would they suddenly let everybody start another form of smoking, just to have to go through the same things again with that?

 

 

A quick afterthought on the subject of smoking. With the Government spending money on anti-smoking campaigns, setting up special parts of the NHS to help people get over smoking addiction, and obviously overall trying to make smoking illegal totally, why would they suddenly let everybody start another form of smoking, just to have to go through the same things again with that?

 

Because marijuana is not addictive, cigarettes have nicotine that makes them addictive from what I understand

That whole paragraph should be scrapped, as it is totally null and void. Yes more deaths are caused by smoking and alcohol, but the numbers of people who do each are so different, the numbers cannot fairly be compared at all. Add that to the fact that a lot of Weed smokers will be young, healthy people, and a large amount of smoker and alcohol drinker will be 40+, even 60+ with other health problems too. So i think you should remove that whole paragraph to be honest.

Well considering you can't die from weed, I don't see why you think it's unfair to compare them. And besides, I think they're pretty proportional. There are a lot of weed smokers that are young, but there are also a HUGE amount of drinkers and smokers that are young as well. Look at any college town and you'll find massive alcohol abuse.

Because marijuana is not addictive, cigarettes have nicotine that makes them addictive from what I understand

 

Nicotine is in the tobacco, which is mixed in when smoking weed to make it burn, making it just as addictive.

 

 

Well considering you can't die from weed, I don't see why you think it's unfair to compare them. And besides, I think they're pretty proportional. There are a lot of weed smokers that are young, but there are also a HUGE amount of drinkers and smokers that are young as well. Look at any college town and you'll find massive alcohol abuse.

 

Can you give me solid proof that it does kill, or does not kill? If I can have solid proof you cannot die from it then I'm fine with that, but simply saying you can't I will not believe. The numbers are nowhere near proportional in terms of who smokes weed, and who smokes regular tobacco, and who drinks alcohol. There are 13million smokers in the uk, i can't get the exact statistics, but i would take a low estimate of at least half the adult British population drink alcohol on a regular basis. That would mean upwards of 20 million. Compare that to 3 million weed smokers, of course there will be less deaths, when there are massively less of them.

Paranoia, Schizophrenia and yellow teeth.

Can you give me solid proof that it does kill, or does not kill? If I can have solid proof you cannot die from it then I'm fine with that, but simply saying you can't I will not believe. The numbers are nowhere near proportional in terms of who smokes weed, and who smokes regular tobacco, and who drinks alcohol. There are 13million smokers in the uk, i can't get the exact statistics, but i would take a low estimate of at least half the adult British population drink alcohol on a regular basis. That would mean upwards of 20 million. Compare that to 3 million weed smokers, of course there will be less deaths, when there are massively less of them.

You can try to debate all day long about how there are many negative affects of weed, but the evidence that is against it has been, in most cases, not all, proven wrong. FOR THE MOST PART weed is a safe substance. Compared to alcohol and tobacco it seems like an angel. Even if you put the number at 50,000 deaths per year from weed (which is not true and never will be), it would still kill 1/6 as many people than obesity kills per year. The only thing that is wrong with weed is its negative stigma. People aren't ready to except weed as a legal substance and that is why it is illegal, not because there are so many negative side effects of it.

 

http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/o/obesity/deaths.htm

http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30#marijuana

 

Oh and I was referring to how it's proportional how many adults use compared to how many younger people use. My point wasn't that the numbers are equal by any means, I was just trying to point out that most people stop or cut back drastically upon graduation from college or getting a solid job in both weed and alcohol.

The problem is with the majority of death rates listed on-line with drugs, is that very rarely do they list indirect deaths. Whereas a majority of the alcohol and smoking ones do include indirect. This includes things such as cancers, drunken accidents, liver failures and things like those. If the death statistics included things like those, the indirect deaths, accidents and cancers caused by smoking weed, then the statistics would shoot up. I'm not saying it is as deadly as alcohol or smoking, but it is definitely deadly. Remember, the majority of joints will have at least half tobacco, which means your smoking half a cigarette basically. That means its half as deadly as a plain cigarette. Only half as deadly, but still deadly none the less.

 

Another reason less of the lung cancer deaths would be attributed to weed would be because a good majority of people who do it, would also smoke regular cigarettes, so it would be attributed to that instead.

Because marijuana is not addictive, cigarettes have nicotine that makes them addictive from what I understand

 

Nicotine is in the tobacco, which is mixed in when smoking weed to make it burn, making it just as addictive.

 

So you agree then that marijuana is not addictive. If people use vaporizers it also gets rid of the need to smoke it. I mean, I'm no expert on taking marijuana, but there are other ways other than smoking it. Hell, you can mix it in tea even.

 

 

Oh, and here is a nice study comparing Amsterdam marijuana users to San Francisco users, in which:

 

On frequency:

 

When the

maximum-use period was compared with the

past year, daily use declined from 49% to

10% in Amsterdam and from 39% to 7% in

San Francisco. This decline was even greater

for the past 3 months.

The basic trajectory of frequency of use

across careers was parallel in both cities. Most

users reported a maximum-use period of 2 to

3 years, after which the vast majority sharply

reduced their frequency of use or stopped altogether. Roughly three fourths of the respondents

in each city reported that they had used

cannabis less than once per week or not at all

in the year before the interview.

 

On amount used:

Overall, the patterns were parallel in both

cities; quantities used increased from first

regular use through maximum use but then

quantities used declined steadily or use

ceased altogether over the course of the respondents

careers.

 

 

Addiction/use over career:

Claims that cannabis produces addiction or

dependence1315 lead one to expect that

many experienced users would report Pattern

2escalation of use over time. But this

pattern was reported by only 6% in both

cities, which means that 94% of respondents

had overall career use patterns that did not

entail escalation across careers.

 

 

the basic trajectory

was the same in both cities on all dimensions

of use: increasing use until a limited period

of maximum use, followed by a sustained

decrease in use over time or by cessation. It is

significant, from a public health perspective,

that clear majorities of experienced users in

both cities never used daily or used large

amounts even during their peak periods, and

that use declined after those peak periods.

Furthermore, both samples reported similar

steady declines in degree and duration of intoxication.

Only 6% in each city reported escalation

of use over time.

 

 

http://www.mapinc.org/lib/limited.pdf

 

It includes charts which I cannot put here because I don't have Photoshop ATM. But, given that addiction = well, you NEED it and you take it lots, care to explain why there is a decline in use and no clear addiction to it?

 

 

 

 

Can you give me solid proof that it does kill, or does not kill? If I can have solid proof you cannot die from it then I'm fine with that, but simply saying you can't I will not believe. The numbers are nowhere near proportional in terms of who smokes weed, and who smokes regular tobacco, and who drinks alcohol. There are 13million smokers in the uk, i can't get the exact statistics, but i would take a low estimate of at least half the adult British population drink alcohol on a regular basis. That would mean upwards of 20 million. Compare that to 3 million weed smokers, of course there will be less deaths, when there are massively less of them.

 

There has never been a known death attributed to marijuana. Never. You can try to find one, but you won't find it. It's also impossibly to OD on marijuana.

 

 

It'll be a looonngg time before marijuana becomes legal (if ever), pharmaceutical lobbies are just too powerful.

The problem is with the majority of death rates listed on-line with drugs, is that very rarely do they list indirect deaths. Whereas a majority of the alcohol and smoking ones do include indirect. This includes things such as cancers, drunken accidents, liver failures and things like those. If the death statistics included things like those, the indirect deaths, accidents and cancers caused by smoking weed, then the statistics would shoot up. I'm not saying it is as deadly as alcohol or smoking, but it is definitely deadly. Remember, the majority of joints will have at least half tobacco, which means your smoking half a cigarette basically. That means its half as deadly as a plain cigarette. Only half as deadly, but still deadly none the less.

 

Well, alcohol is deadly because it causes liver failure or organ failures and what not. Those SHOULD be in the death rates because it is alcohol causing those organs to fail. Similar with cancer and smoking, it isn't really indirect and SHOULD be included. Also I'm not buying the "the majority of joints will have at least half tobacco, which means your smoking half a cigarette basically. That means its half as deadly as a plain cigarette." Cigarettes have hundreds of deadly chemicals in them, it's not just the tobacco killing people.

 

I don't claim to know much at all about cigarettes, but here is a quick google

Ammonia: Household cleaner

Angelica root extract: Known to cause cancer in animals

Arsenic: Used in rat poisons

Benzene: Used in making dyes, synthetic rubber

Butane: Gas; used in lighter fluid

Carbon monoxide: Poisonous gas

Cadmium: Used in batteries

Cyanide: Deadly poison

DDT: A banned insecticide

Ethyl Furoate: Causes liver damage in animals

Lead: Poisonous in high doses

Formaldehiyde: Used to preserve dead specimens

Methoprene: Insecticide

Megastigmatrienone: Chemical naturally found in grapefruit juice

Maltitol: Sweetener for diabetics

Napthalene: Ingredient in mothballs

Methyl isocyanate: Its accidental release killed 2000 people in Bhopal, India in 1984

Polonium: Cancer-causing radioactive element

 

I'd like to know the amount of each in a cigarette but oh well.

 

Another reason less of the lung cancer deaths would be attributed to weed would be because a good majority of people who do it, would also smoke regular cigarettes, so it would be attributed to that instead.

 

I'd like to see stats on this, I know of lots of marijuana users who don't smoke outside of getting high.

I tried to skim through the article, but I hate how it was written, it seemed to just babble on without giving anything important. I read the conclusions but that had no bearing on addiction at all.

 

I'm all up for it being legal in uses that do not harm the user, and actually benefit them, such as medical reasons, I think it already is used for medical reasons here in the UK. I just think it is idiotic for some people to claim smoking weed does no harm, when basically your smoking half a cigarette, it shows no thought, just total bias.

 

There won't be a recorded death directly attributed to it, because there never can be. As i explained the the post before yours, all the indirect effects it can have such as cancer through the smoking of it, will always be blamed on other things.

It should not be allowed to be smoked in public (so other people don't get the smoke) but otherwise I think its fine.

 

Alcohol and tobacco are far more dangerous.

I tried to skim through the article, but I hate how it was written, it seemed to just babble on without giving anything important. I read the conclusions but that had no bearing on addiction at all.

 

I'm all up for it being legal in uses that do not harm the user, and actually benefit them, such as medical reasons, I think it already is used for medical reasons here in the UK.

 

There won't be a recorded death directly attributed to it, because there never can be. As i explained the the post before yours, all the indirect effects it can have such as cancer through the smoking of it, will always be blamed on other things.

 

 

It is generally considered to be impossible to achieve a lethal overdose by smoking cannabis. According to the Merck Index, 12th edition, the LD50, the lethal dose for 50% of tested rats, is 42 milligrams per kilogram of body weight. That is equivalent, for a 75 kg (≈165 lb). male, to ingest all of the THC in 21 one-gram cigarettes of maximum-potency (15% THC) cannabis buds, assuming no THC was lost through burning or exhalation. For oral consumption, the LD50 for rats is 1270 mg/kg and 730 mg/kg for males and females, respectively, equivalent to the THC in about a pound of 15% THC cannabis. Only with intravenous administration an unheard of method of use by humans may such a level be even theoretically possible.

 

There has only ever been one recorded verdict of fatal overdose due to cannabis, however this finding was found on multiple professional reviews to be "not legitimate".

 

In January 2004, Lee Maisey of the United Kingdom was found dead. The coroner's report stated "Death due to probable cannabis toxicity". It had been reported that Maisey smoked about six joints a day. Mr. Maisey's blood contained 130 nanograms per milliliter (ng/ml) of the THC metabolite THC-COOH.

 

The validity of the finding did not stand up well under review. As reported on 2004-01-28 in the Neue Züricher Zeitung, the Federal Health Ministry of Switzerland asked Dr. Rudolf Brenneisen, a professor at the department for clinical research at the University of Bern, to review the data of this case. Dr. Brenneisen said that the data of the toxicological analysis and collected by autopsy were "scanty and not conclusive" and that the conclusion "death by cannabis intoxication" was "not legitimate". Additionally, Dr. Franjo Grotenhermen of the nova-Institute in Cologne, Germany said: "A concentration of 130 ng/ml THC-COOH in blood is a moderate concentration, which may be observed some hours after the use of one or two joints. Heavy regular use of cannabis easily results in THC-COOH concentrations of above 500 ng/ml. Many people use much more cannabis than Mr. Maisey did, without any negative consequences."

 

Impossible to overdose, and I'd like to see as many sources as you can come up with that state that marijuana exclusively (this includes vaporizing and ingesting) is a major contributor to cancer.

I just think it is idiotic for some people to claim smoking weed does no harm, when basically your smoking half a cigarette, it shows no thought, just total bias.

 

:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:

Oh, and then there's this:

The North American joint is typically rolled with only cannabis and no tobacco or cardboard, and the "roach" refers to the tiny stub remaining once the joint has burned down, equivalent to a cigarette butt, except that it can also be smoked.

It's so funny how people that don't like marijuana are grasping at straws trying to find ways to say that it's bad when the evidence clearly points to the contrary. With information like this so easily attainable, it's ridiculous how many people will not just give it up.

I know full well that on its own, it can be beneficial. What i have been saying for the last page, is that smoking it as the majority of users do, is like smoking half a cigarette, which can cause cancer.

 

As I said, I am ok for it being legalised as long as it is kept illegal to smoke. It's all fine and dandy saying on its own, used in the right way it is perfectly harmless, but used in the way a majority would, it can cause untold harm. It's like saying owning a knife can be fine, used in the right way for cutting food can be fine, but use it to stab somebody as it isn't.

 

I don't get why you bolded the half a cigarette part, as the majority rolled will have as much tobacco in as half a cigarette. You can say use vaporizers and such, but only a massive minority do, using tobacco is the easiest thing, and is the thing that will kill.

It's so funny how people that don't like marijuana are grasping at straws trying to find ways to say that it's bad when the evidence clearly points to the contrary. With information like this so easily attainable, it's ridiculous how many people will not just give it up.

 

Well it's got a pretty bad stigma attached to it for a lot of people

I know full well that on its own, it can be beneficial. What i have been saying for the last page, is that smoking it as the majority of users do, is like smoking half a cigarette, which can cause cancer.

 

As I said, I am ok for it being legalised as long as it is kept illegal to smoke. It's all fine and dandy saying on its own, used in the right way it is perfectly harmless, but used in the way a majority would, it can cause untold harm. It's like saying owning a knife can be fine, used in the right way for cutting food can be fine, but use it to stab somebody as it isn't.

 

I don't get why you bolded the half a cigarette part, as the majority rolled will have as much tobacco in as half a cigarette. You can say use vaporizers and such, but only a massive minority do, using tobacco is the easiest thing, and is the thing that will kill.

 

Because smoking a joint and smoking a cigarette only HAVE ONE INGREDIENT IN COMMON. Cigarettes have hundreds of harmful ingredients, so how do you formulate that one ingredient can cause all the problems of a full on cigarette?

I know full well that on its own, it can be beneficial. What i have been saying for the last page, is that smoking it as the majority of users do, is like smoking half a cigarette, which can cause cancer.

 

As I said, I am ok for it being legalised as long as it is kept illegal to smoke. It's all fine and dandy saying on its own, used in the right way it is perfectly harmless, but used in the way a majority would, it can cause untold harm. It's like saying owning a knife can be fine, used in the right way for cutting food can be fine, but use it to stab somebody as it isn't.

 

I don't get why you bolded the half a cigarette part, as the majority rolled will have as much tobacco in as half a cigarette. You can say use vaporizers and such, but only a massive minority do, using tobacco is the easiest thing, and is the thing that will kill.

Correct me if I am wrong, but what you're saying is that a majority of weed smokers roll tobacco and weed into a joint and smoke it.

A high number of people i've met that smoke cannabis mix it with some tobacco. I'm sure there was some reason for it but i can't remember.

It also seems to be a more common practice in Europe than America.