Is marijuana really as dangerous as heroin and LSD? Finally, a welcome legal review

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: AzureSky
Its about as easy to control as bootlegged alcohol. Which isn't an excessively huge issue is it?

I suppose the "problem" is that it's a lot easier to grow a plant than it is for people to make their own alcohol. Although my grandpa made his own wine pretty easily. But it still isn't the same as putting a seed in the ground and watering it and letting it grow. Still, as you say, most users would prefer to go to a store, where they can get a variety of strains, just like they can go to the liquor store and get a variety of booze. Without risking arrest.

I see your point there about the growing. Most people don't want to do that. Its not worth the hassle and time and cost to them. Easier to get it right at the store. There are a few people who will grow personally and they should be allowed to have a certain number of personal plants

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
So then this thread is the many uses of hemp or a discussion on the legalization of marijuana?
I want to stay on topic.

The many uses of hemp was just a disingenuous way for stoners to lobby for legalization. Now that actual legalization for recreational use is being debated, a lot of the hemp advocates are just dropping it. Yeah, it makes good rope and scratchy clothing. Whoop dee doo.

originally posted by: AzureSky
There are a few people who will grow personally and they should be allowed to have a certain number of personal plants

It would likely be like making your own alcohol. I forget the figures, but each individual is allowed by law to make up to I believe 200 gallons of their own alcohol a year. Which seems like a lot. But yeah, most people are not going to be that industrious.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
So then this thread is the many uses of hemp or a discussion on the legalization of marijuana?
I want to stay on topic.

The many uses of hemp was just a disingenuous way for stoners to lobby for legalization. Now that actual legalization for recreational use is being debated, a lot of the hemp advocates are just dropping it. Yeah, it makes good rope and scratchy clothing. Whoop dee doo.

There are many more uses for hemp than just ropes and clothes.. 50,000 to be exact.

www.voteindustrialhemp.com...

originally posted by: shanegm
There are many more uses for hemp than just ropes and clothes.. 50,000 to be exact.
www.voteindustrialhemp.com...

Sure, sure. But you don't find it strange that so many people so fervently support an agricultural product? They're not out campaigning for more research into kudzu. Do all these people work for the natural rope industry?

Come on, be honest. Enough with the drum beating. If it wasn't for the fact that a greater widespread legalization of hemp would make it much more difficult to enforce laws against growing and cultivating psychoactive marijuana, not nearly as many people would be so wildly enthusiastic about it. And when recreational marijuana use becomes generally legal in the near future, all the talk about how hemp is the savior of humanity will pretty much fade away.

a reply to: Blue Shift

Remember, in the eyes of the law when it is illegal people don't do it.

a reply to: AutumnWitch657

I was just pointing out that there is more to it than the desire to get high. The industrial hemp crowd has a stake in this too.

a reply to: Blue Shift

This is a pretty compelling use of the hemp plant..

Hemp battery

Forget lab-made materials like graphene -- natural, old-fashioned hemp may be the ticket to our energy future. Researchers have demonstrated that you can make very efficient carbon electrodes simply by heating hemp bast fibers in a two-stage process. The resulting substance holds as much energy as graphene, but is much cheaper to make. You're just using biological leftovers, after all. It's much more tolerant of temperature extremes, too, and can survive anything from freezing conditions to a scorching 200F. And before you ask -- this is hemp, not pot, so you're not going to get a contact high just by using a battery.

It's easy to see the potential impact. Graphene is already being tested for both regular batteries and supercapacitors, which charge up almost instantly and don't degrade; it's feasible that future electric cars and mobile devices could have affordable, hemp-based energy packs that top up within seconds. The technology might also be useful as a graphene substitute in other areas, such as solar cells and touchscreens. It's not just a proof of concept, either -- a small Canadian firm is working on scaling hemp electrode production, and US production is increasingly realistic as legal hemp production expands. If all goes well, you may eventually carry a phone powered by the same plant used to make your handbag.

a reply to: Blue Shift

One of the major reasons weed became illegal in the first place is because the Rockefellers thought they had a corner on the paper market having bought-up huge tracts of woodlands in Maine and elsewhere (to produce pulp). Then competitors began to show that hemp made superior pulp, was cheaper, could be grown to yield multiple annual crops, and could be cultivated on sub-par land. The Rockefellers then used their political leverage to make hemp cultivation illegal using Reefer Madness as their PR engine. It's always about the money.

originally posted by: jtma508
a reply to: Blue Shift

One of the major reasons weed became illegal in the first place is because the Rockefellers thought they had a corner on the paper market having bought-up huge tracts of woodlands in Maine and elsewhere (to produce pulp). Then competitors began to show that hemp made superior pulp, was cheaper, could be grown to yield multiple annual crops, and could be cultivated on sub-par land. The Rockefellers then used their political leverage to make hemp cultivation illegal using Reefer Madness as their PR engine. It's always about the money.

All of this.

originally posted by: buster2010

I see you have a problem with the English language. I said there is a mild mental addiction but not physical. For one there is no nausea connected with pot it stops nausea also the depression, anxiety and agitation are mental not physical. Also if you say the psycho active elements is the same in all variates of pot then you know nothing about pot.

No problem, just continuing to point out your ignorance in the first post and this one. There IS nausea associated with marijuana withdrawal in many individuals. It also helps combat nausea while using. Both of these are well known. There IS insomnia, which is a physical manifestation. At what point does something "mental" not become physical? The line is rather blurry, or do you not think so? Tell me then, what are these "physical" symptoms that you don't think can happen with marijuana. Convulsions? Do you think this is merely "physical" and not mental?

I did not say the psychoactive elements are the "same" I said they occur in all strains, the difference is the ratios of each from strain to strain. I seem to know quite a bit more about pot than you do. The ones which are advertised as containing "no" thc, or whatever other psychoactive bit, are below legal thresholds which qualify them to use such terminology.

Eh, I decided to do your homework for you. Not really for you, but more for the few who might bother to take notice. I think most people are pretty well set in their beliefs. Meh.

Physical dependence can manifest itself in the appearance of both physical and psychological symptoms which are caused by physiological adaptions in the central nervous system and the brain due to chronic exposure to a substance. Symptoms which may be experienced during withdrawal or reduction in dosage include increased heart rate and/or blood pressure, sweating, and tremors. More serious withdrawal symptoms such as confusion, seizures, and visual hallucinations indicate a serious emergency and the need for immediate medical care.

Link

Now I must throw back the same to you, so you note I said the stronger physical addictions don't seem to occur from marijuana withdrawal. That would be the seizures and visual hallucinations. I've seen no reports of this. The confusion, sweating, elevated blood pressure and heart rate... well, lets just say last year this was all a concern of mine, and I made sure to do my research. Come to find out, plenty of people do in fact experience these PAWS symptoms. The severity, and length of which each may occur, seems to be dependent on a variety of factors, usage history and genetic variation seeming to be the biggest ones. What do you know? The same as every other drug out there. You might find it a bit enlightening to spend an hour or two on such forums. You'll see quite a bit of people suffering from marijuana withdrawal, both acute and long-term. Definitely gets better over time. That's the good news!

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Is Marijuana as Dangerous as Heroin and L.S.D

>heroin and L.S.D
>L.S.D

allofmywats

a reply to: intrptr

You are misrepresenting addiction. Not all addictions deal with substances! What about gambling and sex addictions?
Regardless of what you are addicted to everyone is addicted to something. You have your addictions let them have theirs.
Would I be wrong to say that you are addicted to ATS ? Do you use it daily? Some people might say that your addiction is unhealthy. Does it make it so?
People just need to let others make their own decisions. We already have to many dictators in the world. Don't be one of them!!!!

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Is Marijuana as Dangerous as Heroin and L.S.D

>heroin and L.S.D
>L.S.D

allofmywats

Sorry but I've gotta go with... what?

Seriously though, it doesn't matter if there are health-benefits to anything that we ingest--or if the substance we are ingesting is bad for our health. No one has the right to make those decions for us.

It's pretty pathetic that marijuana is being seriously considered for legalization because of it's health benefits. That whole argument implies that the government does have the right to make health decisions for us.

protip: they don't.

There are a multitude of activities that we engage in that are unhealthy. Why don't we ban meat and force everyone to be vegetarians because it's healthier?

Why don't we ban our sedentary lifestyles and the government can institute mandatory exercise regiments at the threat of arrest if you don't comply (no more TV, Internet, or sitting around all day reading).

Ban smoking.
Ban sugary drinks.
Ban sugar.
Ban alcohol.
Ban sexual encounters with anyone other than your spouse (STDs).
Ban sexual encounters with anyone with STDs.
Ban travel to foreign countries (the spread of disease).
Ban meat.
Ban coffee.
Ban sports (too violent, really, no one but the athletes get any benefit from sports. Watching sports just makes you lazy--and finding entertainment value in watching sports doesn't constitute an activity utilitarian enough to not be banned. Remember, you can take drugs as a form of entertainment, too, but that's not utilitarian enough to warrant their legalization).
Ban television (contributes to sedentary lifestyle).
Ban internet (contributes to sedentary lifestyle and carpletunnel, maybe proletariat uprisings).
Ban guns.
Ban bombs.
Ban any material that can be used to make bombs.
Ban over-the-counter meds for kind of the same reason (can be used to make meth, and you can accidentally overdose, and Tylenol PM sort of gets you high and that's bad).
Ban makeup (heard it can give you cancer).
Ban obesity.
Ban fried food.
Ban extreme activities like skydiving.
Ban tattoos and body piercings (or any body modifications).
Ban trampolines (those things are dangerous).
Ban swimming pools (slipping, concussions, and drowning).
Ban bathtubs (same as swimming pools, the state will enforce mandmandatory showering in a chair).

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Is Marijuana as Dangerous as Heroin and L.S.D

>heroin and L.S.D
>L.S.D

allofmywats

Sorry but I've gotta go with... what?

Heroin and L.S.D are two completely different substances. It's like comparing mustard gas to table salt.

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Is Marijuana as Dangerous as Heroin and L.S.D

>heroin and L.S.D
>L.S.D

allofmywats

Sorry but I've gotta go with... what?

Heroin and L.S.D are two completely different substances. It's like comparing mustard gas to table salt.

Cool. I just didn't get it at first. You are right. Legal heroin(morphine derivatives) are dispensed daily. As are opiates(barbiturates). L S D not so much. Well, never.

a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

It's as if you're not aware of the concept of -risk vs reward-. How bizarre. There is no weighing of these in your list. Certainly you're smart enough to take these into consideration. Why then, would you choose to omit these?

To be clear, there is certainly some things which are legal which should not be, that make no sense when taking in risks vs rewards. So there's no need to try and appear correct by listing off the most obvious ones from your list. You'll have to do better than that.

My point was that to equally weigh all of these, and make it an all or nothing, everything is legal or everything is illegal, POV, is just not reasonable, or well thought out.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

It's as if you're not aware of the concept of -risk vs reward-. How bizarre. There is no weighing of these in your list. Certainly you're smart enough to take these into consideration. Why then, would you choose to omit these?

Risk vs. Reward is subjective.

There is no reward in sitting in front of a TV all day vegging-out. People do it because it's "entertaining," but it has been shown that our sedentary lifestyles are damaging our health.

I'm sorry. I just don't see the value in people being able to make the choice to watch television for hours at a time just because it's "entertaining." That kind of "reward" doesn't warrant television being legal.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
Why then, would you choose to omit these?

The T&C limits what we can discuss here. At least we can discuss some of it now.