MJ - Your Opinions

tHeGiNo · 08-18-04, 11:51 PM

**NOTE** Please sway away from politics at all costs so that this subject may be discussed without being deleted.

Well, I had an interesting conversation with a co-worker in regards to the use of marijuana. From my point of view, there are two distinct sides - some believe there is absolutely nothing wrong with it, where others put it in the same category with hard substances. From my point of view, I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. If society accepts alcohol, that should give all lee-way to the use of marijuana from the way I see it.

Also from my point of view, the reason behind the opposition is such propaganda which states such effects as killing brain cells. I watched a movie the other day which was called 'Reefer Madness.' It exemplifies such propaganda put fourth by the government towards the opposition of the use of marijuana. In the opening of the movie, it states that the use of marijuana will lead to "acts of shocking violence, ending often in incurable insanity."

Anyhow, out of boredom I decided to do some research to cure personal curiosity. I found some interesting information as I searched for information for or against the common misconceptions, or facts, of marijuana. I will only tackle the main two:

It is addictive.
The majority of sources were against this, and relate those individuals who appear 'addictive' to their 'addictive personalities' which 10% of our population possesses. I also found sources stating that on a relative scale, marijuana is less habit forming than either sugar or chocolate.

Marijuana kills brain cells.
Of all things I found, this was the most interesting. Why? Because this is one of the key 'facts' against MJ. This idea was generated through Professor Gabriel Nahas's study on the Rhesus Monkey in the late 1970's. The study was based on four monkeys, each of which a mask was attached to their face. In five consecutive minutes, the monkeys were forced to breathe in the amount of smoke equivalent to sixty seven joints. Through these conditions, the animals died of asphyxiation, and brain damage was recorded. Smoke from burning wood would cause the same damage. In another study, laboratory rats were injected with pure THC, at doses corresponding to twelve hundred times that is ingested by a marijuana smoker. This test showed degeneration of the nerve connections between brain cells in the hippocampus, where THC is known to be active. Similar studies were done through Dr. Robert G. Heath, both of which are heavily criticized and proven to be inconclusive.

I came upon other interesting snippets, such as the fact that there has never been one death attributed to the use of marijuana. THC is one of the few chemicals for which there is no known toxic amount. The federal agency NIDA says that autopsies reveal that 75 people per year are high on marijuana when they die: this does not mean that marijuana caused or was even a factor in their deaths. This chart in particular shocked me; it compares the number of deaths attributable to selected substances in a typical year:

Tobacco-----------340,000 - 395,000
Alcohol (excluding crime/accidents)----------125,000+
Drug Overdose (prescription)----------24,000 - 27,000
Drug Overdose (illegal)----------3,800 - 5,200
Marijuana----------0

I found it interesting that the majority of damage caused through the use of marijuana is through the burning of the plant itself - smoking anything is harmful to ones' health. I thought this would be an interesting discussion for the general forum - although I am not an advocate, I feel if society can accept caffeine, tobacco and alcohol, there is a huge bias somewhere along the line. The other night, I was thinking about all the negative effects of alchohol, which I have seen first hand (such as 'encouraging' a female to have sex) and how it could have possibly been accepted.

exotic_66 · 08-19-04, 12:03 AM

I feel there is absolutely nothing wrong with the recreational use of marijuana

~NESSY~

jmkhets · 08-19-04, 12:05 AM

i agree there is absolutely nothing wrong and i disagree about it being addicive...my own opinion

Derrick · 08-19-04, 12:16 AM

I'm not going to go into a long rant on the PROs and cons as this will be deleted. For the record i am on the PRO side but i definatly have to argue with the death stat.

The 0 deaths from pot annually is 0 overdoses which would be next to impossible to do as you would pass out ong before you could smoke enough to kill ya. But a joint is just as hard on you lungs as a cigarette. Not much of a concern for an ocasional smoker but you cant right it off as a benign. Also smoking moldy bud is directly attributed to lung infections. I'm sure there are people who have died as a result of thier pot smoking its just not something thats easily tracked

jmkhets · 08-19-04, 12:30 AM

what if you eat it?i dont smoke but i have friends who take pot and cram it into empty pill capsuls and you eat two you are completely obliterated....

tHeGiNo · 08-19-04, 12:30 AM

Actually Derrick, I did some research in regards to cigarettes vs. marijuana as well. You see, despite cigarette companies having you believe that it is solely tar that causes lung cancer, the real danger is radioactivity - in fact, I recall seeing on television that radioactivity, not tar, accounts for 90% of all smoking related lung cancer, at least 90% that is. Tobacco is fertilized with phosphates rich in radium 226; this is added in addition to the fact that many soils have a natural radium 226 content. Radium 226 is decomposed into two 'daughter' elements, lead 210 and polonium 210. These now airbourne particles attach to the leafs of tobacco plants. Polonium 210 and lead 210 deposits accumulate in the those exposed to cigarettes. Polonium 210 is the only component of cigarette smoke which has caused tumors when inhaled by itself.

All this radioactivity is not present when smoking this plant. In addition, MJ has 33% as much tar. Also, MJ is an expectorant, meaning it facilitates the secretion of mucus and other matter from the respiratory tract. I am not saying that it WONT cause cancer, but it definitely is not capable of being compared to the damage caused by cigarettes. Not to mention, in most cases I would imagine one smokes many more cigarettes then they would marijuana.

tHeGiNo · 08-19-04, 12:31 AM

Quote:

what if you eat it?i dont smoke but i have friends who take pot and cram it into empty pill capsuls and you eat two you are completely obliterated....

I read that ingesting the THC this way eliminates just about any negative effect of smoking marijuana.

Matt.B · 08-19-04, 12:41 AM

I was skimming through(im in a hurry) and remembered a fact (dont know if its stated already) Tobbaco causes more diseases than MJ.
Matt

Jessica G · 08-19-04, 12:41 AM

I also am going to try to stay in the guide line.
If your work sends you for a blood test and it come back positive. How are they going to determan when you smoked to joint? If you were drinking they could tell how much and how long ago. Because you stay high longer then if you were drinking.
I think it make it hard on the owners of companys to know who is doing what and when.

I can say for sure.
I have a pinched nerve in my back. So I take meds. for it.
A doctor gave me marijuana to see if it would get my blood flowing though my legs. a couple years back. It did. But, when it ware off , I had twice as much pain.. This wasn't for me.

I think people need to use comon sence.. I don't know to many that do.. I don't mean anyone here.
Just my 2 .$
Jess

tHeGiNo · 08-19-04, 12:48 AM

Jessica, either you made a mistake and flipped around what you meant to say, or you are mixing up the two. MJ stays in your system for a few months, depending on such factors as your metabolism, as it is stored in your fat. It isn't that you stay high longer, its that it stays in your system longer. They are capable to determine when and how much you have smoked, if I am not mistaken.

Derrick · 08-19-04, 12:51 AM

as far as the raidoactivity and heavymetals go it it is present in a lot of liquid fertilizers and is just as much a problem in the hydroponic solutions used in grow ops. Organised crime funds most of the comercial pot production in north america. I highly doubt these guy are making thier own organic teas to fertilize the plants. they are useing chemical fertilizers to get the plants big fast. They care as little about your health as the tabacco companies.

Its all about the money

Jeff_Favelle · 08-19-04, 12:53 AM

How does one police the gange if under the influence while driving? If someone's hammered (drunk), there are tools in place to determine and prosecute drunk driving. How does one do the same for sparking up? What if a major car accident is caused by impaired stoners? What if someone dies? Do you have any idea of the logistics involved to legalize a drug that could cause slower reactions and is not easily testable? Roadside blood tests? Yikes. In the days of AIDS and Hepititis? No thanks.

Errr....anyone got a blunt? heh heh.....

tHeGiNo · 08-19-04, 12:55 AM

LOL! Jeff.

I totally agree, that is definitely a problem. However, I heard on the news a few weeks ago, that they are considering enforcing roadside bloodtests.

Derrick · 08-19-04, 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tHeGiNo
They are capable to determine when and how much you have smoked, if I am not mistaken.

You are mistaken. they can only tell the levels in you system. Some one who never smoked pot and went out and smokes a big fat joint may test along the same lines as as a heave toker is tested the next day. also a moth to clean out is a rough estimate. I know a guy who tested positive after 6 weeks of being clean. he smoke close to half an oz a week.

ChokeOnSmoke · 08-19-04, 01:12 AM

I'm pro pot. I don't see anything wrong with it...
Eating it is a good alternative to smoking it. You can cook it into pretty much anything.