Alcohol kills over 127 thousand people a year in america.

charmander

Active member
cannabis kills a grand total of 0.

thats less than tylenol (52,000).

to quote the late Hoyt Axton.

"ive smoked alot of grass
ive popped alot of pills
oh lord i aint never touched nothin
my spirit couldn't kill...

.... the dealer, the dealer is a man
with the love grass in his hand
the pusher is a monster
Good God, he's not a natural man
The dealer for a nickel
Lord, will sell you lots of sweet dreams
Ah, but the pusher ruin your body
Lord, he'll leave your, he'll leave your mind to scream...

...if i were president
of this land id declare total war
on the pusher man
id cut him if he stands and id
shoot him if he runs, id kill him with my bible
and my razor and my gun

god damn the pusher
god damn god the pusher
god damn, god damn! the pusher man"

your doctor. he's the pusher. he lines his pockets from a multi TRILLION (!) dollar rx drug industry. think of all the pills you take, your parents take, their parents take. is that really necessary? no.

kill your tv.
then tell your doctor to shove your pills up his ass.
then go buy some dank.
and have lots of sweet dreams.

peace.

/my rant
 
yeah dude, birth control is responsible for so much date rape and unwanted date rape pregnancies not to mention lives ruined forever.
 
did you just fail to get what i was saying?

legalize weed.
and have 1 drug that takes the place of all the shit your doc gives you.
 
last time i checked weed won't kill deadly bacteria in your body or help your acne problems or lower you cholesterol count or help with blot clots or help you feel better when you have the flu. If it did take the place of all these medicines that help millions of people, why is it illegal? And don't say to benefit big pharm because that is bullshit. When weed can help people treat hepatitis or make people with diseases have a greater chance of living on come talk to me.
 
Actually better take that one out... Sick smoking is pretty nice. Kinda burns the throat a little extra, but its worth it.
 
because its hard to tax ganja.

and brother, medical reasons here, first off hepatitis is an std. people who get stds shouldnt be helped its there own fault.

cannabis actually is fucking amazing for your health.
go pick up this months high times, theres an intriguing article in there that you may enjoy, written by a doctor of course.
 
people who abuse perscription drugs shouldn't be helped because its their own fault. Its like saying people who are poor are poor cuz its their own fault. Which is true and Im a firm believer in that. I just wouldn't perscribe weed to someone with problems other than boredom or mild depression and i don't think many doctors would, besides the jokers who handout medicinal marijuana licenses to people with back aches and stupid shit like that.
 
somebody's voting mc cain!

My fav. weed license is for asthma. Thats how someone started a legit distributing shop in Fort Collins, CO

I agree that they hand them out way too easy, but maybe its just their way of sticking it to the man and trying to say, its not that bad.

Hell I have asthma, where do I sign up?
 
no, but ive seen enough stoned people to know that i don't want to look pitiful and ridiculous. My room mate last year smoked soo much and it annoyed the shit out of me. It was like dealing with a little 2 year old baby who can't do shit.
 
well. honestly if youve never enjoyed some cannabis then you have no idea what your talking about.

sorry delphi.
 
nice i like that shit!

delphi ur a fucking fag smoke a bowl and loose some brain cells so ur head isn't so big and stuck up ur ass
 
haha and the gay remarks come in. It always degrades to that, is there seriously no better insult than fag?
 
delphi def. just lost all credibility, sorry bro.

And you dont turn into a useless two year old when you smoke, you can totally control yourself and your situation. Unless you smoke waaaayyyy too much, but by that point you are just crashing out and you cant tell me you function perfectly when you are about to fall asleep.
 
Well no reason to take offense then.

That was a suprisingly mature discussion... im impressed, I didnt even realize it until i read back haha
 
I don't know. I kinda overuse the term fag but ive been trying to cut back on it just because its not effective anmore. I mean, back in the 1600's you'd probably get in some serious trouble for implying gayness, probably equal to that of being declared a witch. Being in a relationship helps with any ego shots though, usually it's easiest to just laugh when people say shit like that.
 
no, your wrong. not to say that all pills should be destroyed. the pharmaceutical industry is fucking MASSIVE, even epic. its all about money, $$$$$
 
that or realize that you are on the internet and the person calling you a fag is more than likely homosexual himself... or 12... or both...
 
haha usually its old men masquerading as kids online. On ns its little groms masquerading as people who have intelligent opinions.
 
this is long, but I thought I would post anyway... Seriously people, just go check out erowid. They have all the info you will ever need about pot and every other drug.

The Arkansas Times, September 16, 1993

REEFER MADNESS

While courts send users to prison, scientists at NCTR find little

to support dangers of pot.

POT'S TAB IN THE

WAR ON DRUGS

The investment:

* Federal matching funds for the "war on drugs" in Arkansas

totaled $4.6 million in 1992.

* State and local agencies kicked in another $1.8 million.

* The Arkansas National Guard received $1.3 million to

assist in marijuana eradication.

* An unknown additional amount of money was generated for

drug investigations by the sale of confiscated property.

* No figures are available for the cost of prosecuting drug

cases and incarcerating offenders.

The return:

* 42 percent of all arrests for the sale and manufacture of

drugs in 1992 were for selling or growing marijuana.

* And 62 percent of all arrests for possession of drugs were

for possession of marijuana.

By Mara Leveritt

The monkeys smoked a joint a day.

Actually, they didn't recline in their cages, puffing a

hand-rolled reefer. This being a scientific experiment, funded

by the powerful National Institute on Drug Abuse, the process was

more carefully controlled. The monkeys were fitted with masks

through which marijuana smoke, machine-puffed in carefully

measured doses, was passed into their nostrils.

The experiment, performed at the National Center for

Toxicological Research near Pine Bluff, was designed to test

whether chronic marijuana use caused brain damage. It lasted for

several years, with the most intensive phase, during which

monkeys were exposed to heavy doses of marijuana smoke, occurring

from 1984 to 1985.

Reports on the study's findings continue to be published in

pharmacology and toxicology journals. But beyond those tight

scientific circles, the results of the NCTR experiment, the most

extensive of its kind yet conducted, have gone almost entirely

unnoticed.

That's not surprising, perhaps. In a world where the

political majority has shown little tolerance for marijuana, the

test results are explosive.

The experiment discovered no adverse impact from marijuana

on monkeys' general health, no sign that heavy exposure to

marijuana smoke caused lung cancer, and, with one exception, no

long-term effects on the animals' behavior from exposure to

marijuana.

Before the NCTR study, the largest experiment examining the

effects of marijuana on primates was one conducted at the

Stanford Research Institute. That experiment, focusing on the

brain's electrical activity under the influence of marijuana,

involved 16 monkeys.

By contrast, the experiment at NCTR used 62 monkeys, all

rhesus males. In 1983, the animals were all approximately two to

three years old, the monkey equivalent of teen-agers.

For one year before the start of the experiment, the monkeys

were trained to play "games" designed to test their perception of

the passage of time and their ability to discern left from right.

Only after they were proficient did the exposure to marijuana

begin.

Toxicologists divided the monkeys into four groups. Every

day for a year, 16 monkeys each received what Dr. Merle Paule,

head of NCTR's Behavioral Toxicology Laboratory and Primate

Research Facility, called "a pretty heavy exposure" to marijuana,

the human equivalent, Paule said, of "four or five joints a day."

Another group of 16 smoked the same amount of marijuana, but

only two days per week. Staffers called them the "weekend

smokers."

A third group was administered smoke from cigarettes

identical to the others, except that the psychoactive component

of THC had been removed. And a fourth group received no smoke

exposure at all.

The monkeys smoked for a year, then they were monitored and

tested for another year.

Dr. William Slikker, acting director of NCTR's Division of

Neurotoxicology, explained that the study generated so much data,

it has taken time to compile it and the results have been

released gradually, in several reports since the experiment was

ended.

In 1991, the journal Fundamental and Applied Toxicology

published a report on the effects of marijuana on the monkeys'

general health. Slikker was the lead writer, with Paule

(pronounced Paul) and other NCTR researchers listed as

collaborators.

That report concluded, "The general health of the monkeys

was not compromised by a year of marijuana smoke exposure as

indicated by weight gain, carboxyhemoglobin and clinical

chemistry/hematology values.

"Most clinical parameters ... did not show any treatment-

related changes, and those few that did were of small magnitude,

transient in nature, and were not different at the end of the

five-month postdosing period."

Last week, in his office at NCTR, Paule explained the health

study's results in more casual terms. "There's just nothing

there," he said. "They were all fine."

Last year, the journal Toxicology Letters published a report

by another group of NCTR researchers on the effects of marijuana

on the lungs of the monkeys who smoked. Seven months after the

last exposure to marijuana smoke, some of the monkeys were killed

and their bodies autopsied. Scientists examined the lungs for

signs of disturbances called "carcinogen-DNA adducts," considered

to be one of the early indications of cancer.

The writers of that study reported that although their

findings were not conclusive, they were "at variance with earlier

work suggesting that fractions of marijuana smoke are highly

genotoxic."

The seven authors noted that, "It has been suggested that

marijuana smoking is a proximal cause of respiratory cancer.

However, these intimations have not been borne out by

epidemiological investigations, which is surprising considering

the widespread use of marijuana."

Moreover, the journal article noted: "The data presented

here suggest that seven months after the last smoke exposure,

there is not evidence of increased marijuana smoke-induced

carcinogen-DNA adducts in the lungs of exposed monkeys."

Paule's informal interpretation: "If it's not there, it's

probably not too terrible."

(The researchers discount the claim that as marijuana has

become increasingly potent, due to refined horticultural

techniques, it has also become more dangerous. Other studies,

they say, have demonstrated that smokers inhale only to the point

of inebriation, so that persons smoking stronger marijuana smoke

considerably less of it.)

Late last year, Paule himself was the lead author of a

report published in The Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental

Therapeutics. It dealt with marijuana's effect on behavior.

This report's findings were more complex.

Before the monkeys were started on their year-long smoke

exposure, Slikker, Paule and other scientists, conducted a short-

term study to determine the immediate effect of THC on the

animals; in other words, how they reacted when they were "high."

They found two areas of apparent impact. One was the

monkey's short-term memory. "That's a function that's very

sensitive," Paule explained, "but only on an acute basis. If you

test them the next day, you see no residual effect on those

behaviors."

The monkeys sense of time also appeared disrupted. Monkeys,

it turns out, are as good as humans at estimating the passage of

time. Members of both species to equally well at a test that

requires them, for instance, to press down on a lever for more

than 10 seconds but not longer than 14 seconds.

Marijuana has been shown to affect human's ability to

perform the test at normal levels, and the monkeys were no

different. "That time-estimation behavior is exquisitely

sensitive to marijuana," Paule said, "even at very low doses."

The NCTR study corroborated human studies showing that time

seems to stretch out for many subjects under the influence of

marijuana. In the monkeys' response to the time-perception test,

Paule explained, "what they said was that eight seconds feels

like ten."

That phenomenon too, however, quickly dissipated. Testing

the next day showed the monkeys' time perception restored to its

normal acuity.

The main thrust of the study, however, concerned the long-

term effects of exposure to marijuana. To study that, the

animals were tested for cognitive function and motivation 23

hours after each marijuana exposure.

The cognitive test involved four lights and two levers. The

monkeys were taught that when they saw a red or a yellow light,

they were to hit a lever on their left in order to receive a food

pellet. If a blue or a green light came on, they would get the

pellet by hitting a lever on their right.

The researchers wanted to see if the animals scored any

differently 23 hours after exposure to marijuana than they had

before receiving the drug. "On that test," Paule said, "their

performance was unaffected."

The test of motivation, however, showed a definite pattern

of change. This test required the monkeys to put forth an

increasing amount of effort to get food. Since a decrease in

motivation or "work ethic" has been described as one of the

effects of smoking marijuana, the researchers wanted to see "how

much effort the monkeys were willing to put out," as compared to

the nonsmoking control group.

Their paychecks were banana-flavored food pellets. For the

first pellet, the monkeys had only to depress a lever once. They

had to hit it twice to get the second pellet. And for a third

pellet, they had to pump the lever three times.

Here, the group exposed to THC showed a clear unwillingness

to get worked up about work. Paule pointed out that during the

year the test was being conducted, the monkeys were passing from

adolescence into adulthood, a time for them, as for humans, he

said, when "the work ethic normally goes way up."

But that improvement didn't show up in the marijuana-

smokers. While the nonsmoking monkeys showed a willingness to

work harder and harder as the year progressed, the marijuana

groups stayed at adolescent levels.

"Our interpretation of this is that marijuana smoking in

monkeys does produce something akin to an amotivational

syndrome," Paule said. He added, however, that the phenomenon

may have occurred precisely because the monkeys were at the

critical and deliberately chosen stage of adolescence when the

NCTR test was conducted.

Because marijuana use is high among teenagers, depressed

motivation at that stage in life can have serious effects. But

marijuana may not have the same effect on adults.

"We did a search of the literature," Paule said, "and we

found that those studies that tried to find amotivational

syndrome in adults could not find one. It only appears in

adolescence. Chances are, if we'd done these studies in adults,

we wouldn't have seen this effect. And the good news is that,

even among adolescents, when the exposure to marijuana was

stopped, their motivation jumped right back up to normal levels."

"It took two to three months for them to recover to full

values, but they did recover and they recovered fully."

Paule noted two other findings related to the motivational

test. One was that the willingness to work appeared to be

equally affected in both the daily and weekend smokers. "That

totally surprised us," he said.

Another finding worthy of note was that, as in most areas of

life, one monkey proved to be an exception. As Paule put it, he

seemed to go "blooey" under the influence of marijuana.

"Unlike the others, we found that this one particular animal

was severely disrupted by chronic marijuana exposure on the

discrimination task. And he never recovered full from the

amotivational syndrome. We have no understanding of why.

Everything else about him tested normal."

That one monkey represents a warning. As Paule cautioned,

"There appears to be tremendous individual variation in

susceptibility to marijuana."

Also of interest in the NCTR study, in light of U.S.

criminal sanctions against marijuana, is the researchers'

observation that the animals exposed to marijuana never posed a

threat to their handlers.

"I've never seen anything that suggests marijuana is

responsible for an increase in any violent behavior," Paule said,

adding, "I would say that the perceived risk to marijuana is

probably overstated."

That's the scientist speaking. Here's the father. Asked

what he would tell his 9-year-old son about the risks of smoking

marijuana, this was Paule's answer: "I'd tell him he probably

shouldn't smoke dope before he becomes an adult."

POT RESEARCH LID ABOUT TO BLOW OPEN

Dr. Don McMillan, chairman of the Department of Pharmacology

at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, is also the

school's Wilbur D. Mills professor of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse

Prevention. He led a major study into human tolerance of

marijuana in the early part of his career, and more recently

served as an advisor to the researchers at NCTR in planning of

their study of marijuana's effects on monkeys.

After years during which he said marijuana research was

"stalled," McMillan is once again excited about developments in

the field.

"It looks like the whole lid on marijuana research is about

to blow wide open," he said in a recent interview. "I think

we're going to know a tremendous amount more about the mechanism

of action and how it works on the brain in the next two years."

As marijuana is studied further, its effects, especially

relative to other, legal drugs, will also become better

understood. For example, marijuana is ranked with heroin and LSD

as a Schedule I drug. The federal government rates its potential

for abuse higher than the risk of abusing cocaine, morphine, PCP,

or methadone.

Asked about that, McMillan said, "The thing you have to

remember is that that schedule is a legal classification, not a

medical one."

He said the medical understanding of marijuana is that it

poses a lower risk to society and individual health than that of

two legal drugs -- alcohol and tobacco.

"Marijuana is probably less harmful than either of those --

but of course, there's still a lot we don't know about it."
 
Our whole system is fucked. Weed is illegal because it's weed, it's taboo. The fact whether or not it's healthy or unhealthy has nothing to do with it, too many people think of weed as an horrible illegal drug for the government to legalize it. it wouldn't benefit enough people to be worthwhile for them. That the reason why cigs and alcohol are legal. What they do to you compared to weed is insane. Sure weed fucks with your lungs, but since you don't usually do it too often (definitely not as much as cigs) it's not too bad. Cigs cause lung cancers and coat your lungs with tar. Booze kills your liver and (when you're drunk) takes away motor function, making things driving a complete hazard. But beer and wine were original staples of civilization, and way too many people starting smoking before we realized how bad it was for the governements to even try to illegalize it. So you're probably going to keep on blazin how you do it now, which works well enough for me, because the system is way too tangled to try to change it.

and to the guy who say advil or w/e kills more people than ectasy, you're dumb. It's not even worth explaining why.

 
yeah the post about birth control killing more people than X was just ignorant. It may kill eggs before they are fertilized, but thats a whole nother can of worms.
 
^No I mean like died as a direct result of taking the pill. Obviously not involving traffic accidents etc... I mean virtually instant death.
 
well I guess I dont really have anything to back that, I was just told that by a brilliant pharmacologist friend of mine. I found/ still find it hard to believe, but it is def. possible.
 
Ok, next time you get a minor cut and it gets infected, smoke a bunch of weed and see if the problem goes away. Spoiler: It won't, you'll die of a tiny ass cut. Oh, and doctors don't make shit themselves from prescribing drugs that save your life, drug companies that spent shit loads of money developing them do.
 
^exactly. the docs don't get a commission for the amount of scrips they write. And if you were a hemophiliac and got that little scratch, weed would probably just calm you down while you bleed to death. either that or you don't give a shit that you are bleeding.
 
Interesting thread, however I think the statistics used to make pot legal are biased and untrue, or they are stretching the truth. I mean I'm for legalizing pot I suppose but seriously, just smoke it, who cares if it's legal or not.
 
haha its not like he would forget.

If a stoned hemophiliac got a cut he would be freaking the fuck out and getting medical attention double time. And the docs probably wouldnt even know he was high.
 
Look out everyone, old man Delphi's here to school you on anything. He's stormed the beaches of normandy! He's seen the rise and fall of Adolf Hitler! Delphi even watched us land on the moon! Respect your elders kiddies! O wait, what are you? At the most late 20's? Ya you've seen so much in your day.....
 
the plant itself is illegal because of the paper market. Before wood pulp paper was around, most stuff was printed on hemp fibers. But some big wig in the gov't had invested money in the wood pulp industry, and didn't want to have this competition. so he and some others created laws that made growing and having weed a taxable thing, but to fill out the forms required money, and the tax on the plant was really high, so hemp wasn't grown on farms. Then in the 1930's the hemp industry was trying to gain some footing in the market, and wanted to make it so that it wasn't so highly taxed, but that couldn't happen cuz hemp paper and other products would be too cheap, and the economy would be weakened, so a thing called reefer madness was started. this fear around the country of weed caused many state gov't to make possessing weed illegal. thats why its illegal today.

sparknotes-weeds illegal because of the paper industry.
 
we need population control IMO. anyone who is dumb enough to use alcohol in a way that causes death is just proving darwins theory of evolution survival of the fittest
 
it sucks when you become a criminal for wanting to chill at home and just be with your boys and your girl and use a situation enhancer like weed.
 
you're right. hemp is a much better quality material and can produce better quality paper compared to wood pulp. you also dont have to cut down whole forests or wait years for trees to regrow, hemp can be farmed much quicker and it can save so many animal habitats. i have no clue why no one in the government realizes this?
 
Back
Top