24 Mar 2007, 10:30 pm
24 Mar 2007, 10:38 pm
TheMachine1
Veteran
Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,011
Location: 9099 will be my last post...what the hell 9011 will be.
24 Mar 2007, 10:38 pm
jimservo wrote:
:wink:
Facts not in evidence.
Marijuana Use in Past Month -- No -- Yes
Alcohol -- 49.5% -- 86.3%
Cigarettes-- 27.2% -- 74.9%
Drugs other then Marijuanna -- 1.4% -- 24.6%
Nonmedical use of any psychotherapeutic -- 0.7% -- 10.5%
Cocaine - 0.3% -- 8.0%
(source)
So would legalizing and taxing the selling of artillery.
Machine1 these jobs take away from those held by people in industries in regards to question number 1. You have signaled alcohol consumption will drop as a result as these policies (although I do not follow for previous reasons or supply and demand reasons). Logically then the some jobs held by people in these professions (brewers, people who work for Budweiser, people who distribute to them) would be lost, along with the revenue.
Disclaimer: I smoked marijuana but it is a crime and the people who smoke it know that it is. Generally first time offenders are treated with a slap on the wrist, but sellers and large scale possessors are not. You very well may be right about some of the (relatively although not in absolute terms) innocents being caught up and sent to prison and this is unfortunate, however it is difficult to deny the connection between the rising prison population and the reduction in the crime rate.
First off this idea that Marijuana is this "safer" drug is that is the reason legalize it (in contrast to big bad tobacco, and alchohol) is preposterous. Marijuana has severe physical drawbacks (the medical evidence is clear on this) in it's effect on the brain. It also, like tobacco (although I worry less about tobacco then marijuana and alcohol), poses other health risks. In addition, and I know this is a big controversy to say, can be addictive. I realize it is not addictive in the physical sense that nicotine is addictive, but the physiological element is often much stronger. It is difficult for people to simply stop doing something that they have found comfort in.
I have a feeling this isn't entirely the case but it's late and I don't feel like running down sources. I do know that when 18-21 year olds were giving the vote they didn't vote in nearly the numbers that they were expected in nearly the national average.
It would certainly not drop belong the present level of users, or stay there. When prohibition was ended, alcohol consumption didn't take a slight up tick, it shot upward. Now the situation is somewhat different here in that most of the U.S. population oppose legalization, however that opinion skews older. If pot were legal then teenagers would not have to worry about getting caught, and hence would be likely to use it more because lower prices as mentioned in a moment. Do we really want the youth using marijuana more?
The people who run drug cartels are not idiots. They will not stand by when marijuana is legalized and do nothing. In fact, right now as mentioned in a previous report modern marijuana is a different variety the older stuff. These organizations will continue to use their efforts to push narcotics into the country. Why wouldn't they? People will continue to want to get "better stuff?" Human behavior will not suddenly change and sudden allow for the creation of a new static situation. Life is more dynamic then that.
Interesting. According to supply and demand, lower prices means increased usage. Interestingly, the drug cartels (not being idiots) have used the same tactic in the past. As the market changes, they will move new black market materials in at a reduced rate to adapt to the changing environment.
[/quote]
skafather84 wrote:
legalizing pot will:
-decrease use of alcohol (by providing an alternative that does not leave you hung over and unable to function the next day)
-decrease use of alcohol (by providing an alternative that does not leave you hung over and unable to function the next day)
Facts not in evidence.
Marijuana Use in Past Month -- No -- Yes
Alcohol -- 49.5% -- 86.3%
Cigarettes-- 27.2% -- 74.9%
Drugs other then Marijuanna -- 1.4% -- 24.6%
Nonmedical use of any psychotherapeutic -- 0.7% -- 10.5%
Cocaine - 0.3% -- 8.0%
(source)
TheMachine1 wrote:
increase tax revenue
So would legalizing and taxing the selling of artillery.
TheMachine1 wrote:
create many jobs. not just on the harvesting and processing side but also in the way of entrepreneurs who would open coffee shops that would host smokers...which is again, another tax revenue.
Machine1 these jobs take away from those held by people in industries in regards to question number 1. You have signaled alcohol consumption will drop as a result as these policies (although I do not follow for previous reasons or supply and demand reasons). Logically then the some jobs held by people in these professions (brewers, people who work for Budweiser, people who distribute to them) would be lost, along with the revenue.
TheMachine1 wrote:
-will decrease the number of drug offenders in jail substantially. this is more money the government can spend elsewheres and more space available in jail for real criminals.
Disclaimer: I smoked marijuana but it is a crime and the people who smoke it know that it is. Generally first time offenders are treated with a slap on the wrist, but sellers and large scale possessors are not. You very well may be right about some of the (relatively although not in absolute terms) innocents being caught up and sent to prison and this is unfortunate, however it is difficult to deny the connection between the rising prison population and the reduction in the crime rate.
TheMachine1 wrote:
-will take one item off the black market and make that one item that much safer because it has to follow harvesting procedures and laws set up by the FDA.
First off this idea that Marijuana is this "safer" drug is that is the reason legalize it (in contrast to big bad tobacco, and alchohol) is preposterous. Marijuana has severe physical drawbacks (the medical evidence is clear on this) in it's effect on the brain. It also, like tobacco (although I worry less about tobacco then marijuana and alcohol), poses other health risks. In addition, and I know this is a big controversy to say, can be addictive. I realize it is not addictive in the physical sense that nicotine is addictive, but the physiological element is often much stronger. It is difficult for people to simply stop doing something that they have found comfort in.
The Machine1 wrote:
the down side will be an initial boom of pot smokers....it's to be expected with anything that's made legal
I have a feeling this isn't entirely the case but it's late and I don't feel like running down sources. I do know that when 18-21 year olds were giving the vote they didn't vote in nearly the numbers that they were expected in nearly the national average.
TheMachine1 wrote:
curious people will go "hmm...it's legal now...guess i might as well try it" then again, there are people who will never try it and will never be interested in it. just like there are people who have never drank alcohol and never will. i'd say after the first 2 or 3 years of legalization, the number of pot smokers would drop down to a more moderate number comparable to that of alcohol drinkers.
It would certainly not drop belong the present level of users, or stay there. When prohibition was ended, alcohol consumption didn't take a slight up tick, it shot upward. Now the situation is somewhat different here in that most of the U.S. population oppose legalization, however that opinion skews older. If pot were legal then teenagers would not have to worry about getting caught, and hence would be likely to use it more because lower prices as mentioned in a moment. Do we really want the youth using marijuana more?
TheMachine1 wrote:
keeping it illegal creates a dangerous black market, keeps money that could go to taxes from getting to the government, puts more money in the hands of gangs and other less than desirables who would take advantage of such an easy crop where your customers actually don't die and don't try to kill you to get the drug.
The people who run drug cartels are not idiots. They will not stand by when marijuana is legalized and do nothing. In fact, right now as mentioned in a previous report modern marijuana is a different variety the older stuff. These organizations will continue to use their efforts to push narcotics into the country. Why wouldn't they? People will continue to want to get "better stuff?" Human behavior will not suddenly change and sudden allow for the creation of a new static situation. Life is more dynamic then that.
TheMachine1 wrote:
it would also more than likely result in a price drop of marijuana and probably the creation of a proof system similar to alcohol with similar pricings according to quality and strength (top shelf vs bottom shelf).
Interesting. According to supply and demand, lower prices means increased usage. Interestingly, the drug cartels (not being idiots) have used the same tactic in the past. As the market changes, they will move new black market materials in at a reduced rate to adapt to the changing environment.
Minor error skafather84 wrote that not me.
25 Mar 2007, 12:13 am
25 Mar 2007, 10:30 am
25 Mar 2007, 10:52 am
25 Mar 2007, 12:07 pm
25 Mar 2007, 12:42 pm
25 Mar 2007, 1:10 pm
25 Mar 2007, 1:39 pm
25 Mar 2007, 1:41 pm
25 Mar 2007, 1:46 pm
Flagg wrote:
Nobody should believe Wikipedia.
That's certainly a fair criticism. Forgive me for being lazy
. This gels with my understanding though (I would remove the "stereotypical reader part," however).
25 Mar 2007, 2:12 pm
25 Mar 2007, 2:49 pm
25 Mar 2007, 3:13 pm
Corvus wrote:
Hell, may cause cancer but they are just having a TOUGH time trying to proof it (in fact, they disproved it - oops) - but I mean, they are SURE of it, but they just keep conflicting results with other results.
Reuters, 10-27-05 wrote:
NEW YORK (Reuters) — Although both marijuana and tobacco smoke are packed with cancer-causing chemicals, other qualities of marijuana seem to keep it from promoting lung cancer, according to a new report.
The difference rests in the often opposing actions of the nicotine in tobacco and the active ingredient, THC, in marijuana, says Dr. Robert Melamede of the University of Colorado in Colorado Springs.
He reviewed the scientific evidence supporting this contention in a recent issue of Harm Reduction Journal.
Whereas nicotine has several effects that promote lung and other types of cancer, THC acts in ways that counter the cancer-causing chemicals in marijuana smoke, Melamede explained in an interview with Reuters Health.
"THC turns down the carcinogenic potential," he said.
For example, lab research indicates that nicotine activates a body enzyme that converts certain chemicals in both tobacco and marijuana smoke into cancer-promoting form. In contrast, studies in mice suggest that THC blocks this enzyme activity.
Another key difference, Melamede said, is in the immune system effects of tobacco and marijuana. Smoke sends irritants into the respiratory system that trigger an immune-regulated inflammatory response, which involves the generation of potentially cell-damaging substances called free radicals. These particles are believed to contribute to a range of diseases, including cancer.
But cannabinoids -- both those found in marijuana and the versions found naturally in the body -- have been shown to dial down this inflammatory response, Melamede explained.
Another difference between tobacco and marijuana smoking, he said, has to do with cells that line the respiratory tract. While these cells have receptors that act as docks for nicotine, similar receptors for THC and other cannabinoids have not been found.
Nicotine, Melamede said, appears to keep these cells from committing "suicide" when they are genetically damaged, by smoking, for instance. When such cells do not kill themselves off, they are free to progress into tumors.
THC, however, does not appear to act this way in the respiratory tract -- though, in the brain, where there are cannabinoid receptors, it may have the beneficial effect of protecting cells from death when they are damaged from an injury or stroke, according to Melamede.
All of this, he said, fits in with population studies that have failed to link marijuana smoking with a higher risk of lung cancer -- though there is evidence that pot users have more respiratory problems, such as chronic cough and frequent respiratory infections.
If marijuana does not promote lung cancer, that could factor into the ongoing debate over so-called medical marijuana. Melamede said he believes "marijuana has loads of medicinal value," for everything from multiple sclerosis, to the chronic pain of arthritis, to nausea caused by cancer treatment.
U.S. government officials, however, maintain that the evidence for medical marijuana is not there. Ten states allow people to use marijuana with a doctor's prescription, but the Supreme Court has ruled that federal law trumps state law.
The difference rests in the often opposing actions of the nicotine in tobacco and the active ingredient, THC, in marijuana, says Dr. Robert Melamede of the University of Colorado in Colorado Springs.
He reviewed the scientific evidence supporting this contention in a recent issue of Harm Reduction Journal.
Whereas nicotine has several effects that promote lung and other types of cancer, THC acts in ways that counter the cancer-causing chemicals in marijuana smoke, Melamede explained in an interview with Reuters Health.
"THC turns down the carcinogenic potential," he said.
For example, lab research indicates that nicotine activates a body enzyme that converts certain chemicals in both tobacco and marijuana smoke into cancer-promoting form. In contrast, studies in mice suggest that THC blocks this enzyme activity.
Another key difference, Melamede said, is in the immune system effects of tobacco and marijuana. Smoke sends irritants into the respiratory system that trigger an immune-regulated inflammatory response, which involves the generation of potentially cell-damaging substances called free radicals. These particles are believed to contribute to a range of diseases, including cancer.
But cannabinoids -- both those found in marijuana and the versions found naturally in the body -- have been shown to dial down this inflammatory response, Melamede explained.
Another difference between tobacco and marijuana smoking, he said, has to do with cells that line the respiratory tract. While these cells have receptors that act as docks for nicotine, similar receptors for THC and other cannabinoids have not been found.
Nicotine, Melamede said, appears to keep these cells from committing "suicide" when they are genetically damaged, by smoking, for instance. When such cells do not kill themselves off, they are free to progress into tumors.
THC, however, does not appear to act this way in the respiratory tract -- though, in the brain, where there are cannabinoid receptors, it may have the beneficial effect of protecting cells from death when they are damaged from an injury or stroke, according to Melamede.
All of this, he said, fits in with population studies that have failed to link marijuana smoking with a higher risk of lung cancer -- though there is evidence that pot users have more respiratory problems, such as chronic cough and frequent respiratory infections.
If marijuana does not promote lung cancer, that could factor into the ongoing debate over so-called medical marijuana. Melamede said he believes "marijuana has loads of medicinal value," for everything from multiple sclerosis, to the chronic pain of arthritis, to nausea caused by cancer treatment.
U.S. government officials, however, maintain that the evidence for medical marijuana is not there. Ten states allow people to use marijuana with a doctor's prescription, but the Supreme Court has ruled that federal law trumps state law.
it was an article i made sure to save.
25 Mar 2007, 3:25 pm
