Anybody wanna do a chat w/ Steve Kyler at 4:00?

[Levation1331 0]

Marijuana will eventually be legal. Its popularity is increasing, and the government will not be able to ignore the tremendous tax revenue opportunity.

[gporter 5]

quote:

Originally posted by Levation1331:

Marijuana will eventually be legal. Its popularity is increasing, and the government will not be able to ignore the tremendous tax revenue opportunity.

 

It's popularity has never been the question. But like DOM said, there won't be a way to test for it, and how do you think they go about taxing something that pretty much anybody can grow out of their back yard anyway?

[Soul Bro 1,422]

quote:

Originally posted by Jackie Treehorn:

quote:

Originally posted by Soul Bro:

 

As for the facts, simply look around the Net using simple searches.

 

It might need be emphasized that there's a huge difference between something being physically addictive where you have withdrawal symptoms, and something being psychologically addictive.

 

And the fact is, pure and simple, that marijuana is not physically addictive. At all. It does nothing to you that causes withdrawal symptoms. Period. Study after study has been done confirming this.

 

You can argue that it is psychologically addictive, just as you can argue that anything is psychologically addictive. This forum is psychologically addictive. But that alone is not enough to put it in the same category with actual addictive drugs like nicotine, heroin, caffeine, cocaine, etc.

 

Please just check the Net. For instance, type in "withdrawal marijuana" or something similar in Google's search engine and read the data. Yes, marijuana is addictive ... physically, psychologically, emotionally, etc. Here are some scientific studies: Beardsley et al., 1986; Budney et al., 2001; Holson et al., 1989; Huestis et al., 2001; 1999; Haney et al., 1999; Mendelson et al., 1984., Kouri et al, 2002. To make it easy b/c these studies aren't user friendly, here is one link: http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/54701. I probably should have just stuck to the b-ball stuff, anyway.

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

quote:

Originally posted by gporter:

...and how do you think they go about taxing something that pretty much anybody can grow out of their back yard anyway?

 

You can make that same argument about alcohol. Anyone can make their own beer. Moonshine is still very popular in some areas. The alcohol industry doesn't seem to be hurting as a result of homebrewing and backwoods stills.

 

You could still have a law against growing it yourself, just as you can't just set up a still in your house and make a bunch of liquor. You have to be licensed and there is a ton of red tape that goes with that. Any kind of legalization measure would likely have that type of provision.

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

quote:

Originally posted by Soul Bro:

 

Please just check the Net. For instance, type in "withdrawal marijuana addiction facts" or something similar in Google's search engine and read the data. Yes, marijuana is addictive ... physically, psychologically, emotionally, etc. Here are some scientific studies: Beardsley et al., 1986; Budney et al., 2001; Holson et al., 1989; Huestis et al., 2001; 1999; Haney et al., 1999; Mendelson et al., 1984., Kouri et al, 2002. This will be my last post on this thread. I probably should have just stuck to the b-ball stuff, anyway.

 

From http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_myth9.shtml (everything is sourced on the site)

 

There is only scant evidence that marijuana produces physical dependence and withdrawal in humans.

 

When human subjects were administered daily oral doses of 180-210 mg of THC - the equivalent of 15-20 joints per day - abrupt cessation produced adverse symptoms, including disturbed sleep, restlessness, nausea, decreased appetite, and sweating. The authors interpreted these symptoms as evidence of physical dependence. However, they noted the syndrome's relatively mild nature and remained skeptical of its occurrence when marijuana is consumed in usual doses and situations. Indeed, when humans are allowed to control consumption, even high doses are not followed by adverse withdrawal symptoms.

Signs of withdrawal have been created in laboratory animals following the administration of very high doses. Recently, at a NIDA-sponsored conference, a researcher described unpublished observations involving rats pretreated with THC and then dosed with a cannabinoid receptor-blocker. Not surprisingly, this provoked sudden withdrawal, by stripping receptors of the drug. This finding has no relevance to human users who, upon ceasing use, experience a very gradual removal of THC from receptors.

 

The most avid publicizers of marijuana's addictive nature are treatment providers who, in recent years, have increasingly admitted insured marijuana users to their programs. 65 The increasing use of drug-detection technologies in the workplace, schools and elsewhere has also produced a group of marijuana users who identify themselves as "addicts" in order to receive treatment instead of punishment.

 

Saying marijuana is physically addictive is the equivalent of saying drinking water is dangerous and could kill you. Technically true, but not at normal usage levels. I'm not even sure that it isn't easier to kill yourself by drinking water than it is to induce withdrawal symptoms with marijuana.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

quote:

Originally posted by Jackie Treehorn:

quote:

Originally posted by Soul Bro:

 

Please just check the Net. For instance, type in "withdrawal marijuana addiction facts" or something similar in Google's search engine and read the data. Yes, marijuana is addictive ... physically, psychologically, emotionally, etc. Here are some scientific studies: Beardsley et al., 1986; Budney et al., 2001; Holson et al., 1989; Huestis et al., 2001; 1999; Haney et al., 1999; Mendelson et al., 1984., Kouri et al, 2002. This will be my last post on this thread. I probably should have just stuck to the b-ball stuff, anyway.

 

From http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_myth9.shtml (everything is sourced on the site)

 

There is only scant evidence that marijuana produces physical dependence and withdrawal in humans.

 

When human subjects were administered daily oral doses of 180-210 mg of THC - the equivalent of 15-20 joints per day - abrupt cessation produced adverse symptoms, including disturbed sleep, restlessness, nausea, decreased appetite, and sweating. The authors interpreted these symptoms as evidence of physical dependence. However, they noted the syndrome's relatively mild nature and remained skeptical of its occurrence when marijuana is consumed in usual doses and situations. Indeed, when humans are allowed to control consumption, even high doses are not followed by adverse withdrawal symptoms.

Signs of withdrawal have been created in laboratory animals following the administration of very high doses. Recently, at a NIDA-sponsored conference, a researcher described unpublished observations involving rats pretreated with THC and then dosed with a cannabinoid receptor-blocker. Not surprisingly, this provoked sudden withdrawal, by stripping receptors of the drug. This finding has no relevance to human users who, upon ceasing use, experience a very gradual removal of THC from receptors.

 

The most avid publicizers of marijuana's addictive nature are treatment providers who, in recent years, have increasingly admitted insured marijuana users to their programs. 65 The increasing use of drug-detection technologies in the workplace, schools and elsewhere has also produced a group of marijuana users who identify themselves as "addicts" in order to receive treatment instead of punishment.

 

Saying marijuana is physically addictive is the equivalent of saying drinking water is dangerous and could kill you. Technically true, but not at normal usage levels. I'm not even sure that it isn't easier to kill yourself by drinking water than it is to induce withdrawal symptoms with marijuana.

 

I remember reading about a year ago about a radio host who some people were saying should be brought up on charges because he sponsered a contest where a bunch of people had to drink more and more water without using the bathroom, and a couple people died of water-poisoning.

[Soul Bro 1,422]

Okay, I will post again. So the choice in believing studies is between Erowid.org or credible new studies, including one from Harvard?

[You're Fat, Pat! 98]

Go Magic.

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

quote:

Originally posted by Drunk on Mystery:

 

I remember reading about a year ago about a radio host who some people were saying should be brought up on charges because he sponsered a contest where a bunch of people had to drink more and more water without using the bathroom, and a couple people died of water-poisoning.

 

Yeah, it was called "Hold your wee for a Wii". Whoever drank the most water without going to bathroom won a Wii. One woman died later that day from water intoxication as a result of participating in the contest.

[Murphy13 185]

^ not to mention there is the convenience factor of being able to go to the store and get mass produced quantities for cheap...we live in a world of instant gratification.

 

the tax revenue opps are excellent too. many millions of dollars worth of tax revenues is produced each year by cigarettes alone. i cant imagine why it wouldnt be more for pot...its less dangerous, so therefore more people would do it. besides, as a non smoker, i see no reason to smoke cigs bc you dont get anything out of it(once again, as a non smoker) except cancer. but atleast you achieve something with pot...and, it doesnt cause cancer!

 

i think it will be legal eventually because the main arguments against it are waning. for example, some people here say it is physically addictive, psychologically addictive...etc. well that may or may not be true. neither has been proven without a doubt. but what is true is that alcohol directly kills people. pot doesnt. alcohol is proven to be addictive. pot hasnt. cigs directly kill people as well as are excessively addictive. the same cannot be said for pot. besides, addiction is a personal stance on an object...its not set in stone. what may be addictive to you may not be addictive to me. there are plenty of people out there that exercise moderation for every vice. so, why would those things be legal and not pot?

 

one last thing for the road side pot tests like for alcohol...who says it has to be tested at a traffic stop? there is no proof to suggest it alters your driving ability(like booze). in fact, in my younger days, i actually drove more carefully for a couple reasons. one would obviously be paranoia and the other was cerebral awareness. i dont know if its that way with others, but that was my personal experience. besides, pot stays in your system for a while. so even if you havent smoked it in a couple days and get pulled over and tested you will still test hot.

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

quote:

Originally posted by Soul Bro:

Okay, I will post again. So the choice in believing studies is between Erowid.org or credible new studies, including one from Harvard?

 

The studies weren't done by Erowid. Sources are given in the text on the actual site. So to answer your question, it's not an issue of believing Erowid or Harvard.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

quote:

Originally posted by Soul Bro:

Okay, I will post again. So the choice in believing studies is between Erowid.org or credible new studies, including one from Harvard?

 

I would be ashamed if I were Harvard and I supported that study. Those are some of the least scientifically drawn conclusions I've ever seen.