• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Cannabis Is Good For You

Peter Hitchens has once again gone to battle against "Big Dope", as well a connecting usage and terrorism in his Mail on Sunday column (here for those who can stomach the Heil: http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co...a-hand-in-hand-doing-the-work-of-the-ter.html).

From that, Hitchens and David Shayler (yes, that one) are now having a ding dong on Twitter (for anyone that's interested, I'd say Hitch is winning on points)
 
David Shayler does seem to have resurfaced, most notably on Youtube.
Also, he seems to be talking rationally and doesn't seem to be barking mad. Maybe he's recovered from the nervous breakdown (or whatever it was).
 
I tend to believe it's was a gateway drug based only on my own personal experiences. For years it was weed and beer but then, that grew old and I desired barbiturates, opium, and other much more powerful substances. Got myself into a mess but have long since straightened out (not w/o help).

It's not a gateway drug. If 95 percent of heroin addicts had a cigarette first would smoking be a gateway drug? What about the overwhelming majority of pot heads who don't go on to try hard drugs? If you took a hundred people who tried pot, what percent would go on to try heroin? Less than 10 for sure. Just because you went on to try hard drugs doesn't mean everyone else does.
If they sold cannabis in stores you would have never met a drug dealer, so goes the argument. I talk to all sorts of US pot heads who have never gotten their cannabis from anywhere but a dispensary, and none of them seem to have connections for other drugs. The gateway theory is BS.
 
It's not a gateway drug. If 95 percent of heroin addicts had a cigarette first would smoking be a gateway drug? What about the overwhelming majority of pot heads who don't go on to try hard drugs? If you took a hundred people who tried pot, what percent would go on to try heroin? Less than 10 for sure. Just because you went on to try hard drugs doesn't mean everyone else does.
If they sold cannabis in stores you would have never met a drug dealer, so goes the argument. I talk to all sorts of US pot heads who have never gotten their cannabis from anywhere but a dispensary, and none of them seem to have connections for other drugs. The gateway theory is BS.
I can see both of your points but it can be a gateway drug for some people (as Jim pointed out he was only talking about his own experience) .. I wanted to try EVERY THING when I was 14 but that was because I was 14 and stupid. I was lucky in that I was never caught with illegal substance so don't have a criminal record of any kind (apart from some driving offences when I was about 20) ..... the first thing I tried was cigarettes and alcohol, then we experimented with Feminax period pain pills and Taboo wine, then weed, speed acid, magic mushrooms, mescaline then E and base speed ...... I decided to pack it all in when my niece was born because I didn't want her to have a Charlie Sheen type uncle but it wasn't easy ... I was clean for a year then briefly smoked heroin and coke before packing that in and developing a drinking problem which I'm still fighting and mostly winning now. Then all I have to do is quit smoking. I'll be me again for the first time since being 14.
 
It's not a gateway drug. If 95 percent of heroin addicts had a cigarette first would smoking be a gateway drug? What about the overwhelming majority of pot heads who don't go on to try hard drugs? If you took a hundred people who tried pot, what percent would go on to try heroin? Less than 10 for sure. Just because you went on to try hard drugs doesn't mean everyone else does.
If they sold cannabis in stores you would have never met a drug dealer, so goes the argument. I talk to all sorts of US pot heads who have never gotten their cannabis from anywhere but a dispensary, and none of them seem to have connections for other drugs. The gateway theory is BS.
Maybe.

But the damage cannabis does is not BS. Even a cursory search on my on-line library resources shows 8000 papers and of the first 20, 15 deal with harmful effects. While there is some evidence that the active ingredient(s) might help with treatment of some illnesses, in general cannabis is harmful and the younger you are, the more likely it is to harm you.

The middle-class liberals who consider cannabis doesn't do any harm might want to re-think their rather ego-centric view of 'it didn't do me any harm' might well only be true for them, and I'd argue that this belief might well be due to changes in their brain chemistry, a self inflicted Dunning-Kruger effect, so they're not in any position to judge.
 
It changed my brain chemistry so much I have a masters degree with an A- average. So if alcohol caused YOU damage I shouldn't be able to drink it? That's what the argument is it seems. Either you support prohibition or you don't. I never said it caused no damage anywhere in my post. If cannabis caused you problems, it's flat out your fault. Same as if you drank yourself into alcoholism. Should you not be allowed to drink because other people get addicted? Why should I not be able to smoke pot just because other people can't keep their kids away from it? It's caused me zero problems and most of the papers citing damage are from extremely biased sources. Yeah your right about one thing, I don't care about other people who can't handle their drugs, they are not a valid reason to restrict my rights.
 
It changed my brain chemistry so much I have a masters degree with an A- average. So if alcohol caused YOU damage I shouldn't be able to drink it? That's what the argument is it seems. Either you support prohibition or you don't. I never said it caused no damage anywhere in my post. If cannabis caused you problems, it's flat out your fault. Same as if you drank yourself into alcoholism. Should you not be allowed to drink because other people get addicted? Why should I not be able to smoke pot just because other people can't keep their kids away from it? It's caused me zero problems and most of the papers citing damage are from extremely biased sources.

So, as I said, it didn't affect you (you believe) - that doesn't mean it is safe for all. 'You' as a single data point are not a clinical trial. Did you master's degree cover this type of testing and it's statistical significance? You've kind of made my point.

Comparing it with alcohol is irrelevant. Cannabis is illegal, alcohol is not, that's how it is.

Papers citing damage that I've looked over (the abstracts at least), and there are many (thousands), are not biased, they are written by qualified psychologists and neurologists and use carefully peer-reviewed experimental protocols. These effects, permanent and otherwise, were even covered in lectures.

Yeah your right about one thing, I don't care about other people who can't handle their drugs, they are not a valid reason to restrict my rights.

Where are these 'rights to take drugs' enshrined?

This argument, that 'your right to take drugs' should not be affected by those who 'can't handle their drugs'.

Isn't that the same argument that the NRA use in America? They have a 'right to bear arms' that shouldn't be affected by 'those who can't handle their guns'?
 
A point that is often forgotten is that smoking cannabis also has most of the dangers associated with smoking tobacco. It's the burning herbal stuff that causes tar, and all the consequences that go with it, not nicotine.

So put it in the brownies, folks. Or in coffee - that works quite well speaking from (very old) experience.

I find myself caught in the middle on this debate. I never thought of cannabis as harmful, but in the light of later experience (and with no medical knowledge) I am personally acquainted with two heavy cannabis users who certainly have acquired mental difficulties. Whether they would have if they didn't smoke a lot of weed is something I can't really say.

So on the one hand it strikes me as ridiculous that people should be prevented from doing what they want to themselves, on the other hand we do do our best as a society to prevent people from self harm. Also, making things illegal undoubtedly makes them if possible more attractive to youth, and it is very easy, if you have to go to an illegal source for your drug, to be pressured by the supplier into trying something harder. And the sources tend to coalesce into large gang related organisations whose motivation is not your personal well-being.

On balance I guess I'm in favour of making cannabis legal, but controlled, exactly like alcohol and tobacco. And for basically the same reasons as the US abandoned its alcohol ban. But I'd also start an education campaign about the possible risks.
 
So, as I said, it didn't affect you (you believe) - that doesn't mean it is safe for all. 'You' as a single data point are not a clinical trial. Did you master's degree cover this type of testing and it's statistical significance? You've kind of made my point.

Comparing it with alcohol is irrelevant. Cannabis is illegal, alcohol is not, that's how it is.



Where are these 'rights to take drugs' enshrined?

This argument, that 'your right to take drugs' should not be affected by those who 'can't handle their drugs'.

Isn't that the same argument that the NRA use in America? They have a 'right to bear arms' that shouldn't be affected by 'those who can't handle their guns'?

Cannabis is legal here, your laws are not the world's laws. My right to smoke cannabis was enshrined by numerous superior court decisions including R. vs Smith as well as others: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_cannabis_in_Canada I have the RIGHT to grow it. I don't care if it's safe for all. YOU can't handle the drugs, that's your problem not mine. Alcohol isn't safe for all either. How is my drug use the same as a gun? My drug use effects me, guns effect everyone. If you don't want to do drugs, don't do them. If you don't want an abortion, don't have one of those either. Sorry though you don't get to tell me what I do with my body.
 
It's not a gateway drug. If 95 percent of heroin addicts had a cigarette first would smoking be a gateway drug? What about the overwhelming majority of pot heads who don't go on to try hard drugs? If you took a hundred people who tried pot, what percent would go on to try heroin? Less than 10 for sure. Just because you went on to try hard drugs doesn't mean everyone else does.
If they sold cannabis in stores you would have never met a drug dealer, so goes the argument. I talk to all sorts of US pot heads who have never gotten their cannabis from anywhere but a dispensary, and none of them seem to have connections for other drugs. The gateway theory is BS.
Seen it with my own eyes times and time again. Don't care what some studies say, this is what the street says. Alcohol, pot, pills, opiates (including heroin) - crack - crystal meth. Some stop at pot and alcohol, some don't. Never knew anyone to start at opiates (including heroin) - crack - crystal meth.
 
Seen it with my own eyes times and time again. Don't care what some studies say, this is what the street says. Alcohol, pot, pills, opiates (including heroin) - crack - crystal meth. Some stop at pot and alcohol, some don't. Never knew anyone to start at opiates (including heroin) - crack - crystal meth.
One again the majority of pot heads don't go on to hard drugs and the majority of hard drug users smoked cigs first. Why aren't cigs the gateway drug and why don't the majority of users represent the norm. I have never met a sinlge meth user yet I know hundreds of pot heads.

All too soon it becomes everyone's problem. The self-centred universe of the drug-user is predicated on the notion of rescue on the days your self-handling fails.

You still can't explain why the drunk alcoholic is not your problem in the same way as the teenager who smokes pot is my problem. Alcohol is not good just because it's your drug
 
Alcohol's one of the most dangerous drugs there is because of its easy availability and also because people with severe drink problems can die if they suddenly stop drinking all together through the risk of seizures, I'll stick up with you on that point paranoid420 but I can't help wondering why you chose your user name? .. paranoia is often a side effect of smoking too much of 'the herb'. All drugs are shit if they've been legalised or not, let's be honest, we're all putting poisons into our bodies, even people who's only perk is coffee or tea. THC in weed is created by the plant to repel insects .. my mate used to stick match sticks in the base roots of his home growing plants just before he was going to crop them, this makes the plant think it's being attacked and ups its THC defences making for an eventual stronger smoke. The technique's called 'torturing the roots' ...

I think weed should be legal for anyone to use who has multiple sclerosis, it helps them enormously.
 
Cannabis is legal here, your laws are not the world's laws. My right to smoke cannabis was enshrined by numerous superior court decisions including R. vs Smith as well as others:
Ah, apologies, didn't realise that. Assumption on my part.
 
*hands Swifty packet of plain crisps, a paintbrush and a bowl of melted chocolate*
 
Founders of Western civilisation were prehistoric dope dealers

It must have been something in the air. During a short time window at the end of the last ice age, Stone Age humans in Europe and Asia independently began using a new plant: cannabis.

That’s the conclusion of a review of cannabis archaeology, which also links an intensification of cannabis use in East Asia with the rise of transcontinental trade at the dawn of the Bronze Age, some 5000 years ago.

Central Eurasia’s Yamnaya people – thought to be one of the three key tribes that founded European civilisation– dispersed eastwards at this time and are thought to have spread cannabis, and possibly its psychoactive use, throughout Eurasia.

The pollen, fruit and fibres of cannabis have been turning up in Eurasian archaeological digs for decades.

Tengwen Long and Pavel Tarasov at the Free University of Berlin, Germany, and their colleagues have now compiled a database of this archaeological literature to identify trends and patterns in prehistoric cannabis use.

It is often assumed that cannabis was first used, and possibly domesticated, somewhere in China or Central Asia, the researchers say – but their database points to an alternative.

Some of the most recent studies included in the database suggest that the herb entered the archaeological record of Japan and Eastern Europe at almost exactly the same time, between about 11,500 and 10,200 years ago.

“The cannabis plant seems to have been distributed widely from as early as 10,000 years ago, or even earlier,” says Long. ...

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...rehistoric-dope-dealers/#link_time=1468498668
 
Finally, the catalyst for current consciousness.
But seriously, what a plant. Useful for so much more than is recognised. Probably the most important multi-property crop in history, no?
My take on cannabis is that it is good for you but only when taken in small doses and even then, rarely .. of course, it's illegal, so I'm not advocating the use of it .. just be sensible or you run the risk of going bonkers X
 
My take on cannabis is that it is good for you but only when taken in small doses and even then, rarely .. of course, it's illegal, so I'm not advocating the use of it .. just be sensible or you run the risk of going bonkers X
It's also a handy opiate for the masses...
 
I was surprised to find we don't have a drugs in the water supply thread, so I'm putting this here instead. Officials in the town of Hugo, Denver, U.S.A. are telling people to avoid drinking or bathing in the water, as test indicate it contains THC, the active ingredient in marijuana. They also say it may be due to possible tampering with a well.

http://www.denverpost.com/2016/07/21/colorado-town-thc-in-water/
 
25 years ago, pharmacologist M. E. West of the University of the West Indies in Kingston, Jamaica, noted that local fisherman who smoke cannabis or drink rum made with the leaves and stems of the plant had “an uncanny ability to see in the dark,” which enabled them to navigate their boats through coral reefs. “It was impossible to believe that anyone could navigate a boat without compass and without light in such treacherous surroundings,” he wrote after accompanying the crew of a fishing boat one dark night, “[but] I was then convinced that the man who had taken the rum extract of cannabis had far better night vision than I had, and that a subjective effect was not responsible.”

Some of these crew members told West that Moroccan fishermen and mountain dwellers experience a similar improvement after smoking hashish, and in 2002, another research team travelled to the Rif mountains in Morocco to investigate further. They gave a synthetic cannabinoid to one volunteer, and hashish to three more, then used a newly developed piece of kit to measure the sensitivity of their night vision before and after. Confirming West’s earlier report, they found that cannabis improved night vision in all three of their test subjects.

Now, another study provides hard evidence for the claim, revealing a cellular mechanism by which cannabis might improve night vision. The findings, published recently in the open access journal eLife, could eventually be applied to the treatment patients with degenerative eye diseases such as retinitis pigmentosa. ...

https://www.theguardian.com/science...e-night-vision?CMP=twt_a-science_b-gdnscience
 
SANTA ANA – The city will pay a Santa Ana marijuana dispensary $100,000 to settle a federal lawsuit in connection with a controversial raid last year where police officers were caught on hidden video eating snacks and making disparaging remarks about a handicapped woman.

As part of the settlement agreement finalized earlier this month, the city of Santa Ana will also dismiss misdemeanor charges against a dozen people accused of unlawfully operating Sky High Holistic at the time of the May 26, 2015 raid.

The settlement proceeds will be divided among Marla and David James, who are volunteers at Sky High, and Dr. Bradley Idelshon, a physician whose nearby office was left without power and water during the raid and is not affiliated with the dispensary, its attorney Matthew Pappas said.

"The settlement of civil rights claims and dismissal of criminal actions shows Santa Ana is taking responsibility for improper actions it took, including the raid of Sky High Holistic, in support of its lottery-based marijuana regulation ordinance, Pappas said Tuesday in an email. ...

http://linkis.com/www.ocregister.com/a/yk3CJ?platform=hootsuite
 
Marijuana might be a God. I saw the Phoenix on it.
 
I saw a statement on a pro marijuana website that left me puzzled and laughing.

Marijuana was first brought to earth by space aliens as a gift to mankind.
 
That's right. Female aliens holding a beehive. Except there are no aliens. I prefer to call them goddess. Now the male gods gave us drugs conducive to war like alcohol and tobacco. Why, because we like dying.
 
Back
Top