This is ridiculous

[iBrightDev]

just like old buildings have asbestos, and it is such a huge deal to get rid of it cause it is harmful, but yet, you find it in most car brakes, and no one makes a big deal about that. so, it is bad to breath asbestos, but, if i go outside, what do you think we are constantly breathing.

so, lets put aside the fact that the USA is one of the only countries that has weed as being illegal, and focus on if it is harmful or not. hmmm, not really, besides killing brain cells, and maybe cause weak lungs or lung cancer eventually, possibly.

you think alcohol is so much better? it destroys your liver, and kills brain cells, messes with coordination, and is addicting. so, i would never smoke weed, but, alcohol is worse IMO.

 

[Keagle]

Y'know, I'm going to have a long debate next time our drug guy comes in. Thanks for the balanced(ish) debate guys.

No, I'm not contributing anything. I don't have anything to contribute, I don't care about other people doing drugs, but I don't have any need to do them myself. I guess I'm one of those happy and optimistic people eh?

 

[Meksilon]

Melkinson, why are you trying to fight science? Don't you want to learn, or do you want to be a close minded person? I simply don't understand. You seem to be going out of your way to find irrelevant arguments in order to avoid the arguments that somebody but you wins.

That's because you have a concept that there's a winner and a loser in an argument, I hold no such concept. As for science - it depends on where and how it is used in the argument - in relation to pot the long-term effects of it have not been sufficiently studied by anyone, anywhere in the world. That doesn't mean I can't argue that from my life experience pot causes depression.

I would say smoking marijuana daily isn't very well moderated, and is dangerous. But smoking it weekly (eg at a party every friday) is absolutely fine and won't cause any harm.

Everyone thinks they're an expert. Anyway, you've proven that pot is worse then alcohol - because alcohol can be consumed every day (in moderation), without being dangerous in any way, and positively not negatively influencing your health.

P.S. You said that thousands had been bitten by that spider and nobody had died. Doesn't sound very dangerous to me.

As I said, its venom is deadly and can kill a human. And you spell my name Meksilon.

so, lets put aside the fact that the USA is one of the only countries that has weed as being illegal, and focus on if it is harmful or not.

Only illegal in the USA? It is illegal all over the world - many countries do not prosecute it to the same extent as Ice or Coke, but that's only because they prioritize other drugs more highly. If you took them away then they'd soon prioritize cracking down on pot.

 

[foo2thabar]

I love it when you ignore me, bby.

Everyone thinks they're an expert. Anyway, you've proven that pot is worse then alcohol - because alcohol can be consumed every day (in moderation), without being dangerous in any way, and positively not negatively influencing your health.

You can consume cannabis without smoking it, effectively removing any risk of lung damage associated with smoking.

That's because you have a concept that there's a winner and a loser in an argument, I hold no such concept. As for science - it depends on where and how it is used in the argument - in relation to pot the long-term effects of it have not been sufficiently studied by anyone, anywhere in the world. That doesn't mean I can't argue that from my life experience pot causes depression.

Unfortunately, because of its legal status in the United States it is very difficult to do any sort of research on cannabis. Until these constraints are relaxed, the study I linked to is all you're getting. And it's sufficient enough for me.

Only illegal in the USA? It is illegal all over the world - many countries do not prosecute it to the same extent as Ice or Coke, but that's only because they prioritize other drugs more highly. If you took them away then they'd soon prioritize cracking down on pot.

A recent Supreme Court precedent allows small amounts of cannabis for personal use in Alaska. It may have been overturned, but AFAIK it hasn't. Feel free to prove me wrong. In several governing districts in the US it has also been moved to the lowest level of enforcement.

[edit2]

No significant physical, biochemical, or mental abnormalities could be attributed solely to their marihuana smoking. Some abnormality of pulmonary function was demonstrated in many of the subjects which could not be correlated-with quantity, frequency or duration of smoking marihuana and/or tobacco cigarettes. (One other investigation recently completed uncovered no abnormalities in lung or heart functioning of a group of non-cigarette smoking heavy marihuana users). Many of the subjects were in fair to poor physical condition, as judged by exercise tolerance.

The performance of one-fifth of the subjects on a battery of tests sensitive to brain function was poorer on at least one, index than would have been predicted on the basis of their IQ scores and education. But a definite relationship between the poor test scores and prior marihuana or hallucinogen use could not be proven.

In the Jamaican study, no significant physical or mental abnormalities could be attributed to marihuana use, according to an evaluation of medical history, complete physical examination, chest x-ray, electrocardiogram, blood cell and chemistry tests, lung, liver or kidney function tests, selected hormone evaluation, brain waves, psychiatric evaluation, and psychological testing. There was no evidence to indicate that the drug as commonly used was responsible for producing birth defects in offspring of users. This aspect is also being studied further.

Heavy smoking, no matter if the substance was tobacco or ganja, was shown to contribute to pulmonary functions lower than those found among persons who smoked neither substance. All the ganja smokers studied also smoked tobacco. In Jamaica, ganja is always smoked in a mixture with tobacco; and many of the subjects were heavy cigarette smokers, as well.

In a study of a Greek hashish-using population preliminary findings revealed poor dentition, enlarged livers, and chronic bronchitis. Further study is required to clarify the relationship of these to hashish use, alcohol or tobacco use, or general life style of this user population.

Similarly, the Jamaican and Greek subjects did not evidence any deterioration of mental or social functioning which could be attributed solely to heavy very long-term cannabis use.

These individuals appear to have used the drug without noticeable behavioral or mental deviation from their lower socioeconomic group norms, as detected by observation in their communities and by extensive sociological interviews, psychological tests and psychiatric examination.

Overall life style was not different from non-users in their lower socioeconomic community. They were alert and realistic, with average intelligence based on their education. Most functioned normally in their communities with stable families, homes, jobs, and friends. These individuals seem to have survived heavy long-term cannabis use without major physical or behavioral defects.

I'm tired of posting excerpts. Here's the whole study: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/nc/ncmenu.htm

 

[themoose]

I guess you're right about the daily thing.

edit: Reading Ben's post, I'm not sure what'd happen if you ate cannabis every day, but it does at least sound a lot less harmful than smoking it

And if that venom can supposedly kill a human but never has, seriously, doesn't sound dangerous to me. Heck, if it had any positive affects I'd make it bite me.

Status in the UK is currently Class C, and you'd only really get arrested for dealing it (although possession is still illegal).

 

[Richard]

"America - World Police"

F*ck yeah.

 

[Decker]

Status in the UK is currently Class C, and you'd only really get arrested for dealing it (although possession is still illegal).

Yep true, but has this deteriorated into a my drug is better or worse than your drug (and what is it with the spider!!).

Basically I can smoke in certain areas only (yep been doing it for 30 years when it had royal approval - wonder how much compensation they will pay out, or the gevernments that paid for everything from health to wars from the tax on it) and that's fair, I'm putting up with it (it's now a forced UK law in Scotland first, way before they dared in England, refer to UK government and lab mice for everything wrong with that) even in my own private life I only smoke outside at home as my wife doesn't smoke - and have done way before the 2nd hand arguement.

So, I have a habit I find hard to quit (nigh on impossible at times without committing a crime of at least destruction of property, as it creates rage during the process, in some, bear in mind the addictive qualities in comparison to illegal class A drugs - look it up - 20 times more), to kick it, but would love to. The people that should have been working to save us from this situation failed for so many years it's just silly that their follow on's just condemn it and say we're wrong.

So there we go - one vented spleen.

Things with medicinal use - GOOD, things recreational that cause harm - BAD

Things we enjoy but for political leen we suffer for - WRONG (that we suffer)

As it's usually the affordable stuff the rich bums can afford the better legal version of, we have a beer they have a lovely warmed 43 year old Armagnac rescued from what ever, a runaway dog or something.

If, however, a recreational drug of any kind be it gas-fluid-solid is a possible that could turn nasty - meaning your health or others, including both legal and illegal - it's not on unless there is a system that - DING! (read below)


It's impossible to police all and every, your all meant to be mature enough.

I think we all know here that cracking a litre of vodka and downing it is bad - but if done on one go you would not make it out to harm someone else. Your dead, barring throwing up and if 'younger' explaining to your parents why there is a bottle but more sick than you can fit in it.


So I'm going to leave you all to it now.
I have done my bit for rebellion while growing up and getting all through many years, just ask I might have done it, save you the time.

All questions won't require a disclaimer as I did all this too long ago to get arrested, some areas may be missing if you ask.

Specific years - $25
Down to 6 months in a year PI fees and a shed load of beer

 

[Dean]

http://www.domain.com.au/Public/PropertyDetails.aspx?adid=2006920516

 

[stuffradio]

You should buy it Dean

 

[Meksilon]

You can consume cannabis without smoking it, effectively removing any risk of lung damage associated with smoking.

I didn't argue on the basis of lung damage. You can sniff Coke - effectively removing any risk of vein damage...

Unfortunately, because of its legal status in the United States it is very difficult to do any sort of research on cannabis. Until these constraints are relaxed, the study I linked to is all you're getting. And it's sufficient enough for me.

Firstly, the USA is not the foremost authority on medicine - it's one of them, yes, but Australia is as well, as are many other countries I'm sure. You may be happy with that evidence - I wouldn't be. If a doctor prescribed me a drug and said to me "we do not know the long term effects" - I'd ask to take an alternative.

[rant]

This reminds me of an argument I've had with friends - from time to time - when they've brought up 2nd-hand smoke. I say "there's no evidence it kills" - they disagree. Show me a study, I keep asking - but there aren't any - the largest such study was one financed by the tobacco industry, but of course people "well you can't trust that". If memory serves me correctly, those who did the study took a sample of people and then asked questions about who was or wasn't exposed to 2nd-hand smoke growing up, and who was/wasn't married to a smoker - etc, and at the conclusion of the survey found that there was no distinguishable difference in the risk of cancer between those around 2nd hand smoke, and those not around it. Yet even in the light of that very strong scientific evidence most people refuse to believe it.

Asbestos was brought up earlier - and in case you don't know who he is, Bernie Banton died recently after a long battle with asbestos related diseases, and a long battle against James Hardie. One of the things he said publicly was that a single asbestos fibre can kill because no one in the world knows a safe level of the substance. Now, if I was so inclined I could use that logic against cannabis - and say that no one can give you a healthy dose, and guarantee you won't suffer long-term side effects.

However, I don't agree with that P.O.V. - but it is one that exists, and so is worth mentioning. I don't have to prove anything to anyone here - as I've already said I have studied this and reached my conclusions. I study a lot of things, because as soon as someone makes a claim they believe - and an opposing point of view can potentially exists I want to find out more.

For instance, I'm currently making a very anti-DRM (digital rights management) website. Things like Region Coding I see as bad for the consumer, and a violation of the consumer's rights. On the other hand, a good friend of mine has just this week said the following (this is a direct quote from an email):

Now, as to all that garbage about region coding, it’s crap. The designers are just protecting what’s rightfully theirs and you know it. The premise of what the website will be about is unchristian and you should know better.

It’s STEALING.

So now I've been studying the other POV. It is very hard to reconcile because I still don't, and cannot accept that a publisher has the right to dictate what their customer can do with the product in a way of restricting the product geographically. If this was the case, every book seller in Australia - including Christian ones - would be doing something that breeches the "designer's" rights - because retail can import books from another country without permission from the copyright holders. Their copyright is still valid - so they can't import copyright-infringing works.

[/rant]

Okay, back on topic - the most basic conclusion I have drawn with drugs (and I use this term to represent ALL drugs) is the following:

1. All drugs are bad when abused.
2. Therefore you should never take medicine you don't need.
3. As such you should consult your doctor prior to taking any drug for the first time.
4. You should always avoid drugs where the side-effects are not controlled/known.

Yes that'll do.

In several governing districts in the US it has also been moved to the lowest level of enforcement.

That's because in the USA you have a big drug problem, and the resources are better spent fighting Crystal Meth and Opiates.

Pot is an anti-social drug. When I've been around a bunch of pot-head peers it is anti-social - they just want to watch TV and much down food (or sleep); whereas if I go down to the pub it is very social. People want to talk or shoot pool, or play cards - whatever, it is much more social. This is my point of view - when I have been around stoned peers, I just have to look at them to know I do not want to be like that.

 

[Decker]

I didn't argue on the basis of lung damage. You can sniff Coke - effectively removing any risk of vein damage...

I have to repeat, and no wonder your absence on forums has been many and several, you talk the biggest pile.

Get out more, see the world, get attacked by a drug crazed or just a hacked off person (same effect).

You give that land down under a bad name (by constantly dwelling on it), maybe the genetic reason has followed through with you from the worst of them, thankfully not with others.

Yes I don't like your thinking, my perogative, you just talk so much (muffled for the sake of younger folks)....

 

[Meksilon]

The people that should have been working to save us from this situation failed for so many years it's just silly that their follow on's just condemn it and say we're wrong.

For someone who insults me, you really do post way off topic Decker.

I think we all know here that cracking a litre of vodka and downing it is bad - but if done on one go you would not make it out to harm someone else. Your dead, barring throwing up and if 'younger' explaining to your parents why there is a bottle but more sick than you can fit in it.

Downing a litre of vodka won't kill you. It wouldn't be pretty, but you wouldn't kill yourself. Unless you do it repeatedly and don't give your body a chance to repair the damage.

So I'm going to leave you all to it now.

Then you come back just to flame?

Post something on-topic if you have something to discuss.

 

[Decker]

At last a response to my go away you annoying git posts.

And read what you post and hopefully someday they will loosen the ties on the back of the jacket.

Downing a litre of vodka won't kill you.

Depends - you love quoting stuff you don't understand, quote timescales and adsobsion rates, with body mass,etc.

Reply to above post only which is off topic Oh and just a flame response with no real reason.

 

[krakjoe]

I don't know how many people have been following this, but I didn't realize the hearing was this soon.

http://www.cannabisculture.com/noextradition/



When will our government understand -- it's just a ----ing plant! These people were running a business, they aren't "typical drug dealers."

[edit]
I should also mention that Emery's signed a plea bargain to remain in a Canadian prison for 5 years.

To be totally fair Ben, cocaine is also "just a ----ing plant", heroin is a product of Opium, again a plant .... I got nothing else to say ...

 

[Meksilon]

+ rep kJ

 

[krakjoe]

It would seem to me this guy is a total son of a -----, while he shouldn't be extradited to a country where he faces death for his crimes, he is definately a criminal by his own admission, as such he needs to be punished, with prison.... you're getting so caught up in his civil rights being violated that you're actually ignoring the fact that he is a criminal.

@Colin, mary jane is still very much illegal in this country, it was reclassified as a class C narchotic, however NO LAWS WERE CHANGED. Punishment for possesion of cannabis in this country can be 2 years in prison, and 14 for dealing .... while normally the police will caution you and confiscate the drug - NOTHING has changed for your pot head on the street, you're caught more than once and you face two years in jail, of which you'll serve at least a year .... just to clarify ...

 

[foo2thabar]

It would seem to me this guy is a total son of a -----, while he shouldn't be extradited to a country where he faces death for his crimes, he is definately a criminal by his own admission, as such he needs to be punished, with prison.... you're getting so caught up in his civil rights being violated that you're actually ignoring the fact that he is a criminal.

@Colin, mary jane is still very much illegal in this country, it was reclassified as a class C narchotic, however NO LAWS WERE CHANGED. Punishment for possesion of cannabis in this country can be 2 years in prison, and 14 for dealing .... while normally the police will caution you and confiscate the drug - NOTHING has changed for your pot head on the street, you're caught more than once and you face two years in jail, of which you'll serve at least a year .... just to clarify ...

In Canada, the country where the crimes were committed, he would just be faced with a fine. Compare with the United States' (and apparently the UK's) archaic recreational drug laws. And yeah, I agree the "just a plant" deal is a little weak - like you said, diacetylmorphine is a derivative of morphine, found in the "Opium Poppy".

As for Meksilon, as far as I'm concerned you've thrown in the towel. You've shown me nothing that I have asked for, which includes studies debunking what I have been saying. Recent, unbiased studies - preferably done by a university. All you've done is replied with your own opinion. I'm done with you; have fun in your sheltered little world.

 

[themoose]

It would seem to me this guy is a total son of a -----, while he shouldn't be extradited to a country where he faces death for his crimes, he is definately a criminal by his own admission, as such he needs to be punished, with prison.... you're getting so caught up in his civil rights being violated that you're actually ignoring the fact that he is a criminal.

I couldn't care less of his crime, even if he murdered someone, he's a resident of Canada and has never been to the States, so he's Canada's problem and the US simply have no right arresting him.

 

[iBrightDev]

that is the way i see it, but, thats my opinion.

 

[TRUNKS]

This reminds me of a study done last year...

Alcohol is ranked much more harmful than the Class A drug ecstasy in a controversial new classification system proposed by a team of leading scientists.
The table, published today in The Lancet medical journal, was drawn up by a team of highly respected experts led by Professor David Nutt, from the University of Bristol, and Professor Colin Blakemore, chief executive of the Medical Research Council.
The authors proposes that drugs should be classified by the amount of harm that they do, rather than the sharp A, B, and C divisions in the UK Misuse of Drugs Act.

“The most striking observation is that there is no statistical correlation between this ranking of harm of drugs and the ABC classification.”
In the new system legal drugs, such as alcohol and nicotine, are ranked alongside illegal drugs.
The new ranking places alcohol and tobacco in the upper half of the league table. These socially accepted drugs were judged more harmful than cannabis, and substantially more dangerous than the Class A drugs LSD, 4-methylthioamphetamine and ecstasy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2007/03/23/nalcohol123.xml