[andyt]

Can you back that up with a link for where somebody here said that?

Anything you smoke will have adverse effects, anything that gets you high, ie alters brain chemistry can have adverse effects. But, just as a drink or two can actually have positive effects (while still causing cancer and affecting your brain) or several cups of coffee are deemed good for you these days, so moderate marijuana consumption may also have positive effects. Overdoing anything is bad for you - people have died from water intoxication. Are we going to ban water too?

[OnTheIce]

andyt andyt:

Can you back that up with a link for where somebody here said that?

Anything you smoke will have adverse effects, anything that gets you high, ie alters brain chemistry can have adverse effects. But, just as a drink or two can actually have positive effects (while still causing cancer and affecting your brain) or several cups of coffee are deemed good for you these days, so moderate marijuana consumption may also have positive effects. Overdoing anything is bad for you - people have died from water intoxication. Are we going to ban water too?

It's been said by Curtman, Lemmy, Zipperfish, 2cdo, Canadian Mind, etc.

It's often said as "virtually harmless" , "pretty much harmless" or "relatively harmless".

[andyt]

A quote would really help to see how close you are to the mark.

Same thing people seem to say about booze. In fact the only bragging I've seen here about how wasted somebody was recently was in relation to booze.

If we're going to ban everything that's at the level of harm of pot, we'd have to ban a lot of OTC drugs, many of which have caused many deaths, vs no deaths for pot. (Do you know what Tylenol does to your liver?) We'd have to ban booze, cigs, etc. Just makes no sense to make pot this one exception that has to prove complete innocuity, vs all those other things. And again, it relaxes people, lowers blood pressure, treats pain, seems to improve lung capacity all when used in moderation. Just don't see all the fuss about keeping it illegal vs all the other drugs I mentioned.

[Zipperfish]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

It's been said by Curtman, Lemmy, Zipperfish, 2cdo, Canadian Mind, etc.

It's often said as "virtually harmless" , "pretty much harmless" or "relatively harmless".

My point of view has been pretty consistent the past few years. There are clearly adverse efffects of marijuana, however those risks are overwhelmingly personal, as opposed to societal risks, and therefore in keeping with the idea that people should be free, even to make bad decisions, it should be legalized.

In comparison to cigarettes, alcohol, crack and crystal meth, marijuana is virtually harmless from a societal perspective. Pot is very bad for a few indiviudals.

[andyt]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

In comparison to cigarettes, alcohol, crack and crystal meth, marijuana is virtually harmless from a societal perspective. Pot is very bad for a few indiviudals.

Pot is nowhere near as bad from a personal perspective either, taking the population as a whole. Ie any of the substances you mentioned will be very bad for more than a few individuals. OTOH, only 6% of people who have tried crack go on to become long term addicts. Meth (not crystal) is dispensed by the army and you can get it under prescription.

Cigs cause by far the most health costs of any of those substances. Booze causes by far the most societal harm from violence, including domestic, murder and drunk driving. Incomparable to the other substances in that regard.

[OnTheIce]

andyt andyt:

A quote would really help to see how close you are to the mark.

Same thing people seem to say about booze. In fact the only bragging I've seen here about how wasted somebody was recently was in relation to booze.

If we're going to ban everything that's at the level of harm of pot, we'd have to ban a lot of OTC drugs, many of which have caused many deaths, vs no deaths for pot. (Do you know what Tylenol does to your liver?) We'd have to ban booze, cigs, etc. Just makes no sense to make pot this one exception that has to prove complete innocuity, vs all those other things. And again, it relaxes people, lowers blood pressure, treats pain, seems to improve lung capacity all when used in moderation. Just don't see all the fuss about keeping it illegal vs all the other drugs I mentioned.

If you're that concerned, search the forums. You're here all day. You have the time. You know it's been said many times on here because you're always involved in the conversations. Stop being a lazy troll.

Doing lines of coke is virtually harmless compared to shooting apples off the top of my head with a crossbow. When you compare smoking weed to eating or taking things that are vital to life (water) or actual medication for pain, you're going down the path of hilarity.

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

My point of view has been pretty consistent the past few years. There are clearly adverse efffects of marijuana, however those risks are overwhelmingly personal, as opposed to societal risks, and therefore in keeping with the idea that people should be free, even to make bad decisions, it should be legalized.

In Canada, the risks aren't personal. Recreational drugs have risks to society and our health care system just like booze and cigarettes. In a taxpayer funded system, things are different.

[Zipperfish]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

In Canada, the risks aren't personal. Recreational drugs have risks to society and our health care system just like booze and cigarettes. In a taxpayer funded system, things are different.

I agree, they aren't wholly personal. Driving under the influence of drugs impacts us all. Treatment of individuals affected by pot may burden the health care and welfare systems. But it's a matter of degree to me. Those impacts are relatively minor, and can be managed by less blunt instruments than total prohibition.

[OnTheIce]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I agree, they aren't wholly personal. Driving under the influence of drugs impacts us all. Treatment of individuals affected by pot may burden the health care and welfare systems. But it's a matter of degree to me. Those impacts are relatively minor, and can be managed by less blunt instruments than total prohibition.

They might just be minor, but do we know for sure the effects on the system of long term and legal use of such a drug? We don't.

Add that to an already strained health care system with an ageing population.

We've been down this road before. Many physicians claimed that tobacco was an effective medicine and we now know where we are. We have governments suing big tobacco and citizens suing the government.

[Zipperfish]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

They might just be minor, but do we know for sure the effects on the system of long term and legal use of such a drug? We don't.

Add that to an already strained health care system with an ageing population.

We've been down this road before. Many physicians claimed that tobacco was an effective medicine and we now know where we are. We have governments suing big tobacco and citizens suing the government.

It's just a different mindset. It's my general philosophy that people should be free, which includes the freedom to make bad decisions. That's where I'll land unless there is some overriding social risk that justifies prohibition.

Others want everything to be illegal until it's proven safe.

[raydan]

I don't think we've ever said that pot was harmless... and while we're at it, we've never said that Rob Ford was harmless either.

[stratos]

I know the source is sucky as all get out but a month or so ago I seen on Face Book something about how smoking pot puts more tar and other junk in your lungs then smoking a cig. Is there any truth to this?

[andyt]

$1:

“It has been estimated conservatively that 16,500 NSAID-related deaths occur among patients with rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis every year in the United States. This figure is similar to the number of deaths from the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome and considerably greater than the number of deaths from multiple myeloma, asthma, cervical cancer, or Hodgkin’s disease. If deaths from gastrointestinal toxic effects from NSAIDs were tabulated separately in the National Vital Statistics reports, these effects would constitute the 15th most common cause of death in the United States. Yet these toxic effects remain mainly a “silent epidemic,” with many physicians and most patients unaware of the magnitude of the problem. Furthermore the mortality statistics do not include deaths ascribed to the use of over-the-counter NSAIDS.”

http://americannutritionassociation.org ... dly-nsaids

marijuana deaths = 0. Yet you need a docs prescription for pot for pain, but not for NSAIDS. Why?

[Jabberwalker]

marijuana deaths = 0.

I'm genuinely surprised that there are no lung cancer deaths. Maybe, they're not separating out pot smoking from tobacco smoking. How can you tell which is doing what if you smoke both?

[andyt]

No deaths from overdose. I doubt they know if there are any lung cancer deaths from pot - it hasn't been studied enough. Seems likely to me that heavy pot smokers would have the same risk as heavy tobacco smokers. But as I said above, a study found that moderate pot smokers had better lung capacity than non-smokers. Maybe all that holding it in has an effect? Or the relaxation effect increases lung capacity?

My point is that pot isn't any more harmful than tons of substances we allow people to access. What's with the demonization of this one substance?

[Jabberwalker]

Seems likely to me that heavy pot smokers would have the same risk as heavy tobacco smokers.

Burning pot probably generates hundreds of tars, chemicals of all sorts some of which almost certainly be carcinogens. Burning anything seems to generate carcinogens.

Bake brownies man.