Why Is Marijuana Illegal?

the_syco

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Christ on a bike what do you mean no long term evidence, it's been written about for the last 12,000 years, it hasn't effected evolution or killed off our species. It's harmless depending on how you use it.

Jesus was written about for 2,000 years, but there still isn't scientific proof that he existed. Has there been any long term research done on the effects of weed by someone from the recognized scientific community (as opposed to some randomer with a doctorate in accountancy)?

smoking_kills wrote: »

Cigarettes, more specifically their health effects, were not really front page till the late 70's early eighties, when studies started showing their relationship to cancers and various other health problems.

Agreed, and by the time cigarettes were found to be dangerous for your health, it had a powerful lobby that worked to keep it legal.

smoking_kills

the_syco wrote: »

Jesus was written about for 2,000 years, but there still isn't scientific proof that he existed. Has there been any long term research done on the effects of weed by someone from the recognized scientific community (as opposed to some randomer with a doctorate in accountancy)?


Agreed, and by the time cigarettes were found to be dangerous for your health, it had a powerful lobby that worked to keep it legal.

Very true. They even deny it for years. Lobbyists should be outlawed.

old hippy

smoking_kills wrote: »

Very true. They even deny it for years. Lobbyists should be outlawed.

The Govt here in the UK are trying to do just that.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/03/lobbying-bill-corporate-prs-silence-protest

The "transparency of lobbying, non-party campaigning and trade union administration bill" will treat charities, thinktanks, blogs, community groups and activists of every hue as political parties. From tiny groups vocal on local matters to great national organisations, all risk being silenced in the year before a general election, to avoid falling under electoral law.

Anyways, back on topic - it's up to me what I put in my body - my body is my property - nobody elses. As for what demographic smokes weed?

Everybody. I've met police, doctors, monks and medics, couriers, receptionists, office folk, city boys, famers, labourers, life savers and lawyers who all partake.

smoking_kills

old hippy wrote: »

The Govt here in the UK are trying to do just that.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/03/lobbying-bill-corporate-prs-silence-protest

The "transparency of lobbying, non-party campaigning and trade union administration bill" will treat charities, thinktanks, blogs, community groups and activists of every hue as political parties. From tiny groups vocal on local matters to great national organisations, all risk being silenced in the year before a general election, to avoid falling under electoral law.

Anyways, back on topic - it's up to me what I put in my body - my body is my property - nobody elses. As for what demographic smokes weed?

Everybody. I've met police, doctors, monks and medics, couriers, receptionists, office folk, city boys, famers, labourers, life savers and lawyers who all partake.

Didn't know that, good to hear

Anyways, back on topic - it's up to me what I put in my body - my body is my property - nobody elses. As for what demographic smokes weed?

Same can be said for HEROIN & COCAINE (INCLUDING CRACK).

While I don't want a nanny state, government has some responsibility towards our health. Do they not?

old hippy

smoking_kills wrote: »

Didn't know that, good to hear



Same can be said for HEROIN & COCAINE (INCLUDING CRACK).

While I don't want a nanny state, government has some responsibility towards our health. Do they not?

You'd be happy to see small groups trying to save heritage or farmland silenced? Or groups seeking to promote fair trade ethics or anti-discrimination?

What's the same for heroin, cocaine and crack? The demographic or what I can put into my body?

Ray Palmer

the_syco wrote: »

Agreed, and by the time cigarettes were found to be dangerous for your health, it had a powerful lobby that worked to keep it legal.

I don't think it was a shock to find it was bad for your health. According to my Grandmother they always knew it was bad for you it was just they didn't know exactly how other than general breathing problems.

Don't kid yourself that it is now known how it effects people. The same way pro tobacco muddied data anti-tobacco organisations are just as guilty in tactics.

wexie

2218219 wrote: »

Its not like it does much for people who work or have a family anyway, did you ever hear of a parent or a person with a Job smoking weed?

You don't get out much do you?

Almost all of the people I know that smoke are either parents, employed or both. Lots of them smoke because it has a lot less negative effects the following morning and they get a lot more 'de-stressing' from a single smoke than they would get from a lot of alcohol.

smoking_kills

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I don't think it was a shock to find it was bad for your health. According to my Grandmother they always knew it was bad for you it was just they didn't know exactly how other than general breathing problems.

Don't kid yourself that it is now known how it effects people. The same way pro tobacco muddied data anti-tobacco organisations are just as guilty in tactics.

What your granny "knew" and what has been shown thru studies are 2 different things, and I'm not being a smart ass saying that. I think we should wait for evidence, not someones opinion.

The tobacco giants tried to muddie the water when the research came out first and did so for some time. The current climate deniers learned a lot from them. Thats why I said earlier knowing the difference between good and bad research is important..... But eventually the evidence for tobacco and its health implications became so overwhelming it was undeniable to any reasonable person. Hence my call for long term studies and more consensus from the scientists/researchers.

Ray Palmer

smoking_kills wrote: »

Hence my call for long term studies and more consensus from the scientists/researchers.

Fair enough but some are patently untrue and require no research.
It will ruin your life, gateway drug, unable to function etc...

Snake Pliisken

smoking_kills wrote: »

Well Long term effects is what I said. No Long term evidence.

And those reasons you mentioned are nonsense.

the_syco wrote: »

Jesus was written about for 2,000 years, but there still isn't scientific proof that he existed. Has there been any long term research done on the effects of weed by someone from the recognized scientific community (as opposed to some randomer with a doctorate in accountancy)?
.

While it's not a peer reviewed study, the reality of the situation is that if there was a problem with long term cannabis use(not abuse), it would've ended up in the lore of the indigenous cultures that use the drug; that hasn't happened.

Drunkmonkey was drawing your attention to the fact there has been no differentiation in birthrates, cancer rates or birth defects among cultures that have had a relationship with marijuana for many centuries/millennia.

smoking_kills

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Fair enough but some are patently untrue and require no research.
It will ruin your life, gateway drug, unable to function etc...

True, but they are not core health issues from the drugs use , but I take your point.

While it's not a peer reviewed study, the reality of the situation is that if there was a problem with long term cannabis use(not abuse), it would've ended up in the lore of the indigenous cultures that use the drug; that hasn't happened.

Drunkmonkey was drawing your attention to the fact there has been no differentiation in birthrates, cancer rates or birth defects among cultures that have had a relationship with marijuana for many centuries/millennia.

They are your and DrunkenMonkeys assertions. And the FACT that there has been "no differentiation in birthrates, cancer rates or birth defects among cultures that have had a relationship with marijuana" is meaningless. How do you know that's where long term effects would manifest themselves???????

The long term effects might be NILL, they might increase the risk of (insert disease here). If you were ok smoking it in the house with kids and it did have some effect, wouldn't you like to know????

We simply don't know.

Look, I have and I'm sure I will smoke some weed in the future. I'm going of the assumption that low usage will do no harm just like everyone else, but i know nothing is proven yet......

magic_murph

Would love to see the stuff widely available - Allowing people to buy trusted stock.
Being able to get the strain that you like (indica vs sativa depending on what high you want)
Being able to get a strength that suits - buying from a deal you get to chose from product A, Product A or Product A - regardless of your tolerance.

The idea of walking into a shop, stating your needs, something mellow etc, and walking out with a trusted product. Nice thought huh.

I totally get it's not for everybody much like smoking or drinking isn't for everybody.

I do think if it was legalised in the morning there would be a mad rush and everybody would be buying the stuff but eventually people would get over the novelty and a more sustainable norm would kick in.
Much like if they introduced 24hour drinking.
For the first couple of months / year it would be madness, but eventually it would calm down - people wouldn't have the money to go drinking all day / night and simply wouldn't have the desire too - once that initial novelty value wore off things would level out.

There is the obvious money to be made form tax etc plus the potential uses of hemp farms - the uses of hemp are wide and varied and there's plenty of examples on line.

If the country is looking to bring in the money would this be a good start? tax, hemp farms for export etc?

There is certainly more to it then just 'weed is now legal' and would take a couple of years to have support structure in place but I am hopeful.

wexie

magic_murph wrote: »

There is the obvious money to be made form tax etc plus the potential uses of hemp farms - the uses of hemp are wide and varied and there's plenty of examples on line.

If the country is looking to bring in the money would this be a good start? tax, hemp farms for export etc?

There is certainly more to it then just 'weed is now legal' and would take a couple of years to have support structure in place but I am hopeful.

I actually think it could fit in quite well with the whole new 'eco-friendly-artisan-food-and-artsy-fartsy-stuff-producer' imagine a lot of people seem to be steering towards for Ireland.

When you get severe munchies you can help yourself to some homemade artisan carrotcakes, wear irish-hand-woven hemp clothing and have a deep conversation with the smoked salmon about why apple-smoked streaky rashers are much superior over back bacon.

Holsten

I really don't understand why it's still illegal, the waste in time and money of bringing people to court over it is insane.

It should be 100% legal.. even the US are heading that way.

I hate the stuff cause it turns me into a paranoid zombie but if people want to smoke it let them go right ahead.

magic_murph

Holsten that's a good point. Sounds to me if it was legal tomorrow you wouldn't rush out and make a savage of yourself on the stuff - perhaps try a bit here and there but certainly not change your habits overnight

Worth a read - possible step in the right direction.
http://m.vice.com/en_uk/read/will-legalising-weed-in-venezuela-stem-some-of-the-countrys-violent-crime?utm_source=vicefb

dublinbhoy88

Holsten wrote: »

I really don't understand why it's still illegal, the waste in time and money of bringing people to court over it is insane.

It should be 100% legal.. even the US are heading that way.

I hate the stuff cause it turns me into a paranoid zombie but if people want to smoke it let them go right ahead.

Its not illegal for health reasons,that's for sure

sin_city

Don't know if this has been posted but it is pretty clear in why it's illegal.

More for money reasons than anything:

Skip to 1 minute

drunkmonkey

smoking_kills wrote: »

They are your and DrunkenMonkeys

I'll tell you what it does do, improve your spelling and grammar.

smoking_kills

sin_city wrote: »

Don't know if this has been posted but it is pretty clear in why it's illegal.

More for money reasons than anything:

Skip to 1 minute

Thanks for proving my point about not watching crap on the internet.

I should have stopped watching when he said it was a gift from god....

But anyway a few min in he claims it Cures Cancer :eek:, and a Harvard University study said so....

So off we go to the page he shows on the video....


"Harvard University researchers have found that, in both laboratory and mouse studies, delta-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) cuts tumor growth in half in common lung cancer while impeding the cancer's ability to spread"

Oh that says nothing about curing cancer, also the study is using lab mice...

"According to the researchers, THC fights lung cancer by curbing epidermal growth factor (EGF), a molecule that promotes the growth and spread of particularly aggressive non-small cell lung cancers. "It seems to go to (EGF) receptor sites on cells and inhibit growth," said Horovitz, who was not involved in the study"

That says it curbs the growth of PARTICULAR TYPES of lung cancer????

"The findings are preliminary, however, and other outside experts urged caution.

"It's an interesting laboratory study (but) you have to have enough additional animal studies to make sure the effect is reproducible and to make sure that there are no overt toxic effects," said Dr. Norman Edelman, chief medical officer of the American Lung Association. "It's a little more than tantalizing because it's a compound that we know has been in humans and has not caused major problems."

Tantalizing, but still no "Cures Cancer" ....

Stopped watching there...






@ DrunkenMonkeys
I'll tell you what it does do, improve your spelling and grammar.

Well is that all you have??? Still nothing to support your <--- opinions eah... If I cant spell i must be wrong :eek:

wexie

smoking_kills wrote: »

"Harvard University researchers have found that, in both laboratory and mouse studies, delta-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) cuts tumor growth in half in common lung cancer while impeding the cancer's ability to spread"


"According to the researchers, THC fights lung cancer by curbing epidermal growth factor (EGF), a molecule that promotes the growth and spread of particularly aggressive non-small cell lung cancers. "It seems to go to (EGF) receptor sites on cells and inhibit growth," said Horovitz, who was not involved in the study"

That says it curbs the growth of PARTICULAR TYPES of lung cancer????

"The findings are preliminary, however, and other outside experts urged caution.

You're not actually arguing those aren't good results are you?

May not be a cure but it's sure worth looking into. So what if some people are hyping things up a bit, can you really say that's not happening on both sides of the debate?

smoking_kills

wexie wrote: »

You're not actually arguing those aren't good results are you?

May not be a cure but it's sure worth looking into. So what if some people are hyping things up a bit, can you really say that's not happening on both sides of the debate?

No not at all....Some exciting results, and seeing as i smoked for 20 years..well fingers crossed...


But the guy in the video said it cures cancer. I have seen that claim on other pro weed blogs and web sites... Quite simply that claim is wrong, if not an outright lie..

wexie

smoking_kills wrote: »

No not at all....


But the guy in the video said it cures cancer. I have seen that claim on other pro weed blogs and web sites... Quite simply that claim is wrong.

Well yes, and frankly a bit worrying as it's clearly a claim that's out there now potentially doing harm to people.

On the other side of the same coin though, there could be people out there greatly benefitting from a bit of weed (be it smoked, tea or whatever) that aren't because it's illegal or they think it's the devil's work.

An old friend of mine got great relief from her MS by drinking 'herbal' tea.

No denying there are great benefits (and enjoyment) to be had. It just needs to be used by responsible adults. (as much as some people will think that's a contradiction in terms given the subject). Or even responsibly by adults.

smoking_kills

wexie wrote: »

Well yes, and frankly a bit worrying as it's clearly a claim that's out there now potentially doing harm to people.

On the other side of the same coin though, there could be people out there greatly benefitting from a bit of weed (be it smoked, tea or whatever) that aren't because it's illegal or they think it's the devil's work.

An old friend of mine got great relief from her MS by drinking 'herbal' tea.

No denying there are great benefits (and enjoyment) to be had. It just needs to be used by responsible adults. (as much as some people will think that's a contradiction in terms given the subject).

I couldn't agree more....:)

But I will stand by my earlier statement, that long term studies need to be done, so we don't end up in a hole of our own making.

Grayson

I think it should be legal for recreational and medicinal use. But I can see that they are two different situations and each has different arguments for and against. I can't however understand how it's illegal for people on chemo or people with MS for example. It's been proven to be better than any of the alternatives used at the moment. The only reason it's banned for medicinal use is because of societal pressures. However on the other hand we're more likely to give someone opiates rather than cannaboids because of that social stigma.

wexie

Grayson wrote: »

However on the other hand we're more likely to give someone opiates rather than cannaboids because of that social stigma.

I've a relative who'll swear high and low they're not addicted to solpadol....which they get legally from the pharmacy.....but has to have it several times a day.

Also a complete pothead but that's not the point

Snake Pliisken

smoking_kills wrote: »

They are your and DrunkenMonkeys assertions. And the FACT that there has been "no differentiation in birthrates, cancer rates or birth defects among cultures that have had a relationship with marijuana" is meaningless. How do you know that's where long term effects would manifest themselves???????

The long term effects might be NILL, they might increase the risk of (insert disease here). If you were ok smoking it in the house with kids and it did have some effect, wouldn't you like to know????

We simply don't know.

Look, I have and I'm sure I will smoke some weed in the future. I'm going of the assumption that low usage will do no harm just like everyone else, but i know nothing is proven yet......

Yes the hard science will be welcome. Is it needed before we legalise though?

While we haven't officially been allowed take cannabis, there has been a fairly sizeable population of people partaking in the drug in western society for the last 60 years. Has there been any ill health effects not related to prohibition and misinformation reported? No.

If we look at the indigenous people's around the world who have used it for centuries, are there stories in their folklore of use having a negative effect on the user? No.

In these native cannabis-using populations, has there been any effect on their reproduction? There has been no noted effect.

I'm not saying it is scientific fact that cannabis isn't bad for you in the long term but I am saying that there is some intuitive evidence that there are no alarming health risks lurking around the corner for this country if we decided to legalise.

downonthefarm

keep your filtthy bog hands f our beautifull plant,
we dont wnat it being taxed and regulated,one of the main reasons l enjoy it is beacause it is my way of giving the man the two fingers

wexie

downonthefarm wrote: »

keep your filtthy bog hands f our beautifull plant,
we dont wnat it being taxed and regulated,one of the main reasons l enjoy it is beacause it is my way of giving the man the two fingers

You do of course realise that if it's legalised you'd likely still be able to grow your own? Except now legally? :rolleyes: (in Holland you can have up to 5 plants, in the (extremely unlikely) event your house would be raided and you have up to 5 plants in almost all cases the worst that would happen is that you have to give up the plants)

and....(and don't take offence to this please) coming out with arguments like that, phrased and written like that isn't exactly doing much for the cause of getting it legalised.

scamalert

For all the cloudy heads out there,its already legal to use cannabis in medicine for like 5-10 years,its ingredients used in inhalers and cancer patients,but only needed ingredients,there are factories across uk that grow weed and carefully process and prepare it for medical use.So skip the stone head excuses that it should be legalized for only reason that it would be easier and free to get high otherwise. As if it was legalized here as medical treatment mostly only those that really suffer with cancer and what not symptoms would get their hands on it,and yet it would most likely be synthesized ,so nothing would change for regular Joe Pot smoker,as it still wouldn't be close to legal. As for those who say US is legalizing cannabis across states,one doesn't need to look much to see how,ridiculously its being abused,watched videos on YouTube where you need to mention that you have troubles sleeping and away you go with free pot pass.Doesn't even take 5 minutes to obtain card for Medical marihuana,now they have those people who dont need it selling it to others.And even its became legal the amount of drugs haven't dropped being brought into states. Otherwise there are people that grow mushrooms and their own weed to treat their illnesses that are almost impossible to manage with medicine and no one stops them because their condition is so bad.

InTheTrees

smoking_kills wrote: »

I couldn't agree more....:)

But I will stand by my earlier statement, that long term studies need to be done, so we don't end up in a hole of our own making.

There have been quite a few long term studies. This quote is from a 30 year study in CA.

Not from the wiki article but Its also worth noting that while alcohol is responsible for 79,000 deaths in the US every year nobody has been able to document any deaths from Cannabis. None. Not a one.

"In the largest study of its kind, researchers found no cancer-cannabis connection.[89] Donald Tashkin, a pulmonologist at University of California, Los Angeles who studied marijuana for 30 years, "hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use". Instead, the study found "no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect".[89] The study, which involved a large population sample (1200 people with lung, neck, or head cancer, and a matching group of 1040 without cancer), with some of the most chronic marijuana smokers having smoked over 22,000 "joints",[90][91] found no correlation between marijuana smoking and increased lung cancer risk, with the same being true for head and neck cancers as well. The results indicated no correlation between long and short-term cannabis use and cancer, indicating a possible therapeutic effect."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_effects_of_cannabis