Many people out there argue that marijuana should be legalized. Frankly, I agree. I think people should be allowed to fuck themselves up however they want (not that I advocate it). I also believe a doctor should be able to prescribe any drug he believes will help a patient. Marijuana clearly has usefulness for problems like nausea and loss of appetite in cancer patients or AIDS patients.(the power of the munchies).

But many in the pro-pot camp take it a step further and claim that pot is nature's wonder drug. Good for what ales you, safer than tobacco, with no long term effects.

To me, a major issue with pot is the fact that it's fat soluble. A fat soluble substance can build up in your system and therefore continue to affect you even when you're not using it.

Alcohol, on the other hand, being water soluble is washed out of your system fairly quickly.

So, what's the science say? Is pot harmless? It seems that it must increase your risk of cancer and respiratory problems. Sucking up any kind of smoke into your lungs over and over again can't be good for you. More importantly, what about long term effects on your brain? I've known some stoners who seemed fucked up all the time. Maybe they were stupid to begin with, but having persistent levels of a psychoactive substance in your system must have some effect.

What do you think?

Marijuana clearly has usefulness for problems like nausea and loss of appetite in cancer patients or AIDS patients.(the power of the munchies).
serial killers are also useful.
Is pot harmless?
yes, if you are a responsible adult.
What do you think?
legalizing pot is a bad move.

Regardless of whether it is harmless or not government does not exist to protect us from ourselves, IF we are sane, responsible people. And in comparison to tobacco or alcohol it is harmless.

What do you think?
If I had to choose the drug my neighbors abused I would definitely go for marijauna over alcohol. Why?
With M
relaxed passive out of my face, for the most part
With A
often active, aggressive, in my face.

As a factor in physical violence, rape, car accidents and a sort of generalized domination of public places alcohol seems a vastly greater contributer to me. And by domination of public places I mean how much loud drunk people who have an air of hostility must be circumvented, appeased, avoided etc. I am not thrilled to be around bunch of stoned people, but I am not afraid of them. In fact if I knew a gang was gonna come and kick my ass I'd hope they all shared a big spliff first: 1) there's a good chance they wouldn't come at all. 2) I might be able to take on a big group if they did.

If I had to choose the drug my neighbors abused I would definitely go for marijauna over alcohol. Why?
With M
relaxed passive out of my face, for the most part
With A
often active, aggressive, in my face.




How about nothing at all? Why isn't that a part of your answer? Can't

people just not drink or smoke? What's up with everyone having to do

something to alter their senses of reality and become high?:shrug:

How about nothing at all? Why isn't that a part of your answer? Can't

people just not drink or smoke? What's up with everyone having to do

something to alter their senses of reality and become high?:shrug:

I find that shrug emoticon really irritating. I mean why ask a question if that's the attitude.

But anyway, my answer:
Alcohol is legal and for me as a non-user it seems much more intrusive and dangerous.
So I think it is hypocritical to have alcohol be legal and M not be.

As far as what's up with everyone that is a whole other can of beans.

Whether it's legalised or not (which it will never be), drugs in society are now so prevalent that I think drug testing should become the norm in all industries where employees are responsible for the well-being and safety of people, and also for their money. Personally, I wish it could be legal under licence for certain people such as artists, musicians etc. that use it for inspiration.

Whether it's legalised or not (which it will never be), drugs in society are now so prevalent that I think drug testing should become the norm in all industries where employees are responsible for the well-being and safety of people, and also for their money. Personally, I wish it could be legal under licence for certain people such as artists, musicians etc. that use it for inspiration.

drug testing should cut across class barriers. Members of Boards of Directors should be drug tested and not just the guys, working their asses off, in the plant. Poor decision-making by a drug addicted Board Member could do much more damage to a company than one worker lying in his own vomit in the employee lounge.

I wish it could be legal under licence for certain people such as artists, musicians etc. that use it for inspiration.


I didn't hear that the great masters like DiVinci, Raphel, Rodan ,Bach,

Beethoven or other artists used pot for insipation. They used only their own

talents to create what they did so why do people need anything to be

inspired? Perehaps they aren't talented enough to create anything without

being in an altered state?

I find that shrug emoticon really irritating. I mean why ask a question if that's the attitude.

I used it because I cannot understand taking drugs to become high. What's

the big deal to alter your sense of reality because you always have to

return to reality sometime and those that can't only become addicts. Isn't

that a great thing to become, a alcoholic or drug used of some type

because many times pot users go onto heavy drugs as we all know.

Many people out there argue that marijuana should be legalized. Frankly, I agree. I think people should be allowed to fuck themselves up however they want (not that I advocate it). I also believe a doctor should be able to prescribe any drug he believes will help a patient. Marijuana clearly has usefulness for problems like nausea and loss of appetite in cancer patients or AIDS patients.(the power of the munchies).

But many in the pro-pot camp take it a step further and claim that pot is nature's wonder drug. Good for what ales you, safer than tobacco, with no long term effects.


I agree that drugs should at least be decriminalized and some (like marijuana) entirely legalized. While I wouldn't call it a wonder drug there are a number of potential health benefits to marijuana besides those related to digestion and appetitie--it can inhibit some kinds of tumor growth, is a less dangerous aid to sleep than what's being prescribed now, and improves some neurological conditions, etc. So overall the Federal governments continued war on pot is absurd.

To me, a major issue with pot is the fact that it's fat soluble. A fat soluble substance can build up in your system and therefore continue to affect you even when you're not using it.

Alcohol, on the other hand, being water soluble is washed out of your system fairly quickly.


The fact that it is fat soluble has both good and bad aspects. Because the THC is rapidly absorbed into fat it is almost impossible to overdose from it unlike alcohol, but it will continue to effect someone for a while after smoking.

The instant uptake and unlimited storage of THC by neutral fat limits the molecular concentration of the drug present in the plasma to a level which does not exceed 6 x 10(14) molecules/ml. The physicochemical nature of the membrane lipid bilayer (of the blood-brain barrier) will restrict the access of THC into the bilayer receptors and its: reactive enzymes.
from Nahas, GG. The pharmacokinetics of THC in fat and brain: resulting functional responses to
marihuana smoking. Hum Psychopharmacol. 2001 Apr;16(3):247-255.

So, what's the science say? Is pot harmless? It seems that it must increase your risk of cancer and respiratory problems. Sucking up any kind of smoke into your lungs over and over again can't be good for you. More importantly, what about long term effects on your brain? I've known some stoners who seemed fucked up all the time. Maybe they were stupid to begin with, but having persistent levels of a psychoactive substance in your system must have some effect.

What do you think?

No drug is harmless but marijuana is certainly one of the safest of recreational drugs. Smoking can cause emphysemia and other respiratory conditions but it's not as bad as tobacco in that department (in part because no one is going to smoke pot with same frequency they smoke tobacco).

Marijuana does affect the brain and there are withdrawal symptoms after long-terms use (in both humans and animals) so it can be addictive.

It may effect mental disorders--the best researched aspect of this is that it significantly increases the chances that an individual will have a psychotic episode (in other words it appears to trigger psychosis in individuals who may be predisposed to the disorder but would not otherwise have had it surface). Interestingly though, among schizophrenics it also appears to improve their performance on certain cognitive tests. It may also increase anxiety and depression.

A lot of research has been done showing its negative effects on long-term memory, although those effects do appear to clear up after a period of abstinence. The exception may be people who started smoking at a young age when their brains were still developing but there are other some confounding factors involved there relating to the sorts of kids (I was one of them) who start smoking pot before they were 18. As with other drugs, I also suspect there are also issues involved in contextual learning--i.e., if you learn something under the influence of a drug you will have a better chance of recalling it under the influence.

I didn't hear that the great masters like DiVinci, Raphel, Rodan ,Bach,

Beethoven or other artists used pot for insipation. They used only their own

talents to create what they did so why do people need anything to be

inspired? Perehaps they aren't talented enough to create anything without

being in an altered state?

Not everyone is a natural genius, yet we don't really know whether the great minds of the past used or abused certain drugs, the chances are that at least some of them did. In modern times, the great phenomenon of blues, jazz and rock that influences all contemporary music probably just wouldn't have happened had it not been for drugs.

The amount of artists who drank, smoke or used other drugs is rather large. YOu think Da vinci didn't drink wine?

If I had to choose the drug my neighbors abused I would definitely go for marijauna over alcohol. Why?
With M
relaxed passive out of my face, for the most part
With A
often active, aggressive, in my face.

Sure, if your main criteria is people not annoying you. But my biggest problem with pot is that, being fat soluble, it builds up in your system and continues to affect you even when you haven't smoked it recently.

Have you ever noticed the reverse tolerance with pot? It seems to take a new user more to achieve the same high as a chronic user. Why should that be? Unless the chronic user is half stoned all the time.

The amount of artists who drank, smoke or used other drugs is rather large. YOu think Da vinci didn't drink wine?


Can you substantiate your remarks since there were no records of those

artists I mentioned taking any types of drugs except perhaps wine.

Sure, if your main criteria is people not annoying you. But my biggest problem with pot is that, being fat soluble, it builds up in your system and continues to affect you even when you haven't smoked it recently.


I consider rape, assault and drunk driving more than annoying, but I get your point.

I am thinking on a societal level. That pot has fat soluble compounds affects, primarily the user. So a por for me, especially in terms of legalization, is that the effects are more localized on users.

Have you ever noticed the reverse tolerance with pot? It seems to take a new user more to achieve the same high as a chronic user. Why should that be? Unless the chronic user is half stoned all the time.

I don't know what the neurochemical explanation is, but I believe the brain learns the alternate state. Like an experienced meditator could reduce his heart rate with much less 'effort' than a beginner. There is a groove in the brain and the brain slides over there. Pardon the non-scientific language, but however sloppy this may seem, I think it actually is pointing in the right direction.

Can you substantiate your remarks since there were no records of those

artists I mentioned taking any types of drugs except perhaps wine.

I didn't say anything about the other artists.
But as it happens it is pretty common knowledge that Beethovan's health was badly affected by alcohol consumption.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/459365_2

I think it is common knowledge that Michaelangelo and Da Vinci both drank wine, but I could find no link I felt would be compelling. I have to say I found your attitude rather smug and unnecessary. Many artists, writers, actors...creative people in general have used drugs of various kinds while creating their work. And some wonderful music in the 20th century was made by people who were even destroyed by drugs.

I am not making the case that drugs are necessary for creativity. It just seemed like you were on a high horse for some unjustified reason.

I tried to follow the link above and oddly it does not work though via google the same address brings you there. In any case, the pertinent part of the article:

Is there a single disease that could explain all of Beethoven's symptoms?

Experienced clinicians always attempt to find a single diagnosis to explain the patient's findings. Although it seems impossible to attribute all of Beethoven's symptoms and signs to one cause, many of Beethoven's problems can be attributed to his drinking. Beethoven consumed moderate-to-large amounts of alcohol, often drinking a bottle of wine with meals. Complications relating to alcohol-induced liver failure could explain many of the findings such as the jaundice, ascites, shrunken liver, and splenomegaly.

The findings in the pancreas can also be explained by alcohol, the most common cause of chronic pancreatitis. In addition to alcohol, tobacco is a suspected risk factor for pancreatitis -- and Beethoven was a pipe smoker. Chronic alcoholic pancreatitis could explain the persistent diarrhea, and often leads to diabetes. The findings in the kidney are characteristic of renal papillary necrosis, which is commonly found in patients with diabetes.[1]

I don't know what the neurochemical explanation is, but I believe the brain learns the alternate state. Like an experienced meditator could reduce his heart rate with much less 'effort' than a beginner. There is a groove in the brain and the brain slides over there. Pardon the non-scientific language, but however sloppy this may seem, I think it actually is pointing in the right direction.But why don't other drugs follow that pattern? Practically every other drug requires more and more to achieve the same result the longer you use it. I think the effect is due to THC already being in your system.

If pot were legal and less expensive, you wouldn't have to smoke it. It can be incorporated into foods and drinks.

But why don't other drugs follow that pattern? Practically every other drug requires more and more to achieve the same result the longer you use it. I think the effect is due to THC already being in your system.

Could be. I have heard of similar effects with other hallucinogens. Especially around speed of effect. I suppose these too could be collected in the fat, but my sense is it has something to do with some sort of global effect on the brain. People who are hypnotized can also go much more quickly into trance states. I think the brains get used to these states. That there is some physical thing happening in the brain, I have no doubt, but I suspect it is more of a pattern than an already existing threshold of the hallucinogen.

My speculation for what it's worth.

If pot were legal and less expensive

That's what they said about tobacco and look at its price now!

The cons: Productive members of society sent to jail. People who would enjoy marijuana never trying it because it is illegal. Billions of tax dollers wasted. Police manpower wasted.

Pros: (not including agriculteral) Some people would enjoy a happier existence.

(In the U.S. the constitution gaurantees the right to pursue happiness)

Could be. I have heard of similar effects with other hallucinogens. Especially around speed of effect. I suppose these too could be collected in the fat, but my sense is it has something to do with some sort of global effect on the brain. People who are hypnotized can also go much more quickly into trance states. I think the brains get used to these states. That there is some physical thing happening in the brain, I have no doubt, but I suspect it is more of a pattern than an already existing threshold of the hallucinogen.

My speculation for what it's worth.

Cognitive expectancies do play a big role in any drug use but I think there are especially important for marijuana. A lot of people don't get high the first time they use it and I think that's because they have to learn to recognize the effects and how to respond to them. But it is also true that THC remains in your system a lot longer than many other recreational drugs--urine drug tests can pick up pot smoked a month or more earlier, which is a lot longer than any other tested substance.

That's what they said about tobacco and look at its price now!

Wait, what're you talking about? Do you have a price for cigarettes in a market where it was banned to compare to today's cigarette prices?

Also, the price depends on where you live. Places like NYC have a high tax on them resulting in $8 packs whereas moving just a state or even a city over can get you $5-6 dollar packs.

That's what they said about tobacco and look at its price now!

When was there ever prohibition on Tobacco anywhere?


This is a slightly off topic question, but if the [U.S.] govt. decided to legalize marijuana, what happens to all the people they already put in jail?

Should a government legalize something that "we, the people" don't want in our society? Should the needs/wants of a few outweigh the needs/wants of the many?

I think MJ is illegal because "we, the people" don't want it legalized.

Baron Max

Should a government legalize something that "we, the people" don't want in our society? Should the needs/wants of a few outweigh the needs/wants of the many?

I think MJ is illegal because "we, the people" don't want it legalized.

Baron Max

How about some evidence? Because the latest National poll I've seen from Zogby found that when asked "Should federal law be changed to let states legally regulate and tax marijuana the way they do liquor and gambling?"
46% said yes, 49% said No & 5 % said not sure, with a 3 % margin of error.

How about some evidence?

Well, I think it's been voted on in California several times ...and lost. And California has most of the heaviest MJ druggies on the planet!

Because the latest National poll I've seen ...

Sorry, I don't believe in polls ...the results can be slanted to say anything that the purchaser wants. Polls are worthless except to people who like sensationalism ...like the news media.

Baron Max

Well, I think it's been voted on in California several times ...and lost. And California has most of the heaviest MJ druggies on the planet!
Baron Max

I'm not sure whether you pay much attention to the news but Proposition 36 won in California making treatment rather than incarceration the State's response for drug offenses. So did the iniative for medical marijuana making it legal to have pot (in the State) as long as a doctor write's a prescription for it. Of course the Federal gov't continues to prosecute people for marijuana in spite of those initiatives but that's clearlty in opposition to the people of California.

Pot.. Harmful?

Of course it can be. There's no doubt about that.

Pot legalized?

The governmant could stop their rediculous war on pot and put that money as well as money accumulated from a tax on the substance to a very good and very much better use.

After all, people will do just as they please whether it's legal or not.. remember prohibition?

Pot making people stupid?

Oh yes. Drugs affect different people differently. I have know people that have virtually smoked for twenty plus years and they are some of the most intellegent and honorable people I have ever met, but inversely, I have also known those who have completely been changed [by way of mental state] by the plant [and what a waste!].

Ultimately it's a personal choice whether it's right or wrong.

What's

the big deal to alter your sense of reality because you always have to

return to reality sometime and those that can't only become addicts.

It's not just to lose it and be in another reality, many drugs and herbs increase various senses as well, whether it's sight, sound, whatever. Many can be helpful in every day use if used sparingly, not to get wasted, but we're all free to do that as well.

- N

Good for what ails you, safer than tobacco, with no long term effects.Well good goddess, tobacco is just about the most dangerous drug there is. Even when not smoked, it seems to be a carcinogen in any form. It is also the most addictive of all popular drugs. Harder to kick than heroin and more likely to relapse months later than alcohol.To me, a major issue with pot is the fact that it's fat soluble. A fat soluble substance can build up in your system and therefore continue to affect you even when you're not using it.Your chemistry is a little weak there. The metabolites of THC remain in your fat, but not the THC itself. That means the drug nazis can tell that you smoked it three months ago, but it's not still making you high. Marijuana is not a "time-release" drug. :)Is pot harmless? It seems that it must increase your risk of cancer and respiratory problems. Sucking up any kind of smoke into your lungs over and over again can't be good for you.Yeah yeah. And there are lots of ways to get your pot without smoking it. People who care make tea, bake it into brownies, use an alcohol infusion, vaporize it, or do it a dozen other ways. I understand there are some high-tech vaporizers coming out of Holland.I've known some stoners who seemed fucked up all the time. Maybe they were stupid to begin with, but having persistent levels of a psychoactive substance in your system must have some effect.As I explained, the metabolites of THC are not psychoactive. I've spent my life surrounded by lawyers, computer programmers, engineers and scientists, people who were smart to begin with. Getting stoned a lot didn't seem to do their careers any harm. In fact it helped them, because it seems to reduce the dominance of the left hemisphere when they're stoned and exercise their other mental skills. They all pulled out their guitars and paint brushes. It didn't make them brilliant artists, but it at least allowed them to live that way for a few hours and get some much-needed balance in their lives. Losing 20 IQ points and thinking holographically instead of linearly for a few hours can be a real relief when you're Mensa material. Obviously it would be a disaster for somebody with an IQ in the 90s like George Bush.Have you ever noticed the reverse tolerance with pot? It seems to take a new user more to achieve the same high as a chronic user. Why should that be? Unless the chronic user is half stoned all the time.Stoned isn't just a state of intoxication, it seems to actually give people new ways of thinking, which they can remember and regain more easily the next time. Often they can do it without the drug. I've seen people get in touch with something elusive in a piece of music when they were stoned, and for the rest of their lives they could recapture that even when sober. I've also seen lawyers find new angles to case law and chess players develop new approaches toward the game. This is not the typical "intoxication" syndrome of reduced mental capacity, it probably goes back to that right-hemisphere holographic way of thinking that's easier to access when stoned, and establishes new synapses that can be exercised later.But why don't other drugs follow that pattern? Practically every other drug requires more and more to achieve the same result the longer you use it. I think the effect is due to THC already being in your system.Have not observed that, and I've been hanging out with stoners since they called the stuff "reefers."

Television seems like a vastly more dangerous drug than marijuana. It is the easiest way to manipulate a population into a war. It is consistantly used to mythologize the world and create a hallucinatory set of priorities in its abusers. Pot smokers tend to be off on their own watching silly movies. I challenge any despot to use marijuana to get a war going.

TV is also a gateway drug, having been abused first by abusers of all heavy narcotics. (I say this with a wry smile, but the anti-drug pundits deserve this coming back at them).

TV also creates a situation where people think they informed about secular matters when in fact they are not. This is vastly more dangerous than the pot smokers who think they are informed about spiritual matters and in fact they are not. (and their spirituality tends to be pretty peaceful in any case.)

Cigarrettes kills more chronic users and TV deadens more brains. And alcohol causes vastly more problems for non-users.

Let's talk about gambling.....

Interesting discussion this.

Is pot expensive in the US ?

I think that pot sould be legalised or at least decriminalised unless dealing. With it being legal, here anyway, there would be alot less Nigerians on the street corners harassing every passerby.

Personally I find that I do my best programming after a joint and prefer weed to both alcohol and tobacco.

I agree with Grantywanty that there are alot of other legal vices out there that are way more harmful that a few poeple having a puff or two on a daily basis.

I think that pot sould be legalised
no, bad move.
before the US legalizes pot it should look at some country's that already have.
or at least decriminalised
a better route.
i think it is totally outrageous to be sent to jail for having 4 or 5 joints in your pocket.

Your chemistry is a little weak there. The metabolites of THC remain in your fat, but not the THC itself. That means the drug nazis can tell that you smoked it three months ago, but it's not still making you high. Marijuana is not a "time-release" drug.

Do you have a reference for this? Everything I've read says that THC (as well as other cannabinoids) is fat soluble. For example, the reference I cited earlier by Nahas I referred to earlier says so. Here's the whole abstract if you're interested:

A pleasant sensory perception (PSP), the high of THC or of marihuana consumption, is a consistent functional response to this drug only manifested by man, and which occurs concurrently with an increased heart rate. However, it has not been possible to relate consistently magnitude and duration of these functional markers to THC plasma concentration, whatever the route of administration. A re-analysis of all the available clinical and experimental data reporting the pharmacokinetics and storage of THC in tissues in function of time, have indicated that the discrepancies between functional responses and plasma molecular THC concentration may be accounted for by the pharmacokinetics of THC. The instant uptake and unlimited storage of THC by neutral fat limits the molecular concentration of the drug present in the plasma to a level which does not exceed 6 x 10(14) molecules/ml. The physicochemical nature of the membrane lipid bilayer (of the blood-brain barrier) will restrict the access of THC into the bilayer receptors and its: reactive enzymes. The PSP and increased heart rate of marihuana is correlated with the molecular concentration of THC in the bilayer (blood-brain barrier) of the order of 10(12)-10(14) molecules/ml. This number in turn would be related to the number of functional THC receptor sites in the lipid bilayer. THC would exert its functional properties on PSP and heart rate through a molecular transmission to specific receptor site and bilipid layer physicochemical interations. Rapid uptake and slow release of THC in fat associated with a rate-limited uptake into brain may be a general philogenetic mechanism which would protect brain function from prolonged exposure to xenobiotics like THC and other fat soluble drugs.

http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=2644

http://www.sinfest.net/comikaze/comics/2007-12-02.gif