Adam and I had a wonderful conversation going on in another topic regarding marijuana; unfortunately, that topic was about John Walker, and not marijuana, so hopefully we can have yet another round of marijuana discussions here. Submitted for your consideration: a link Adam provided to New Scientist magazine's marijuana page. There is a good deal of information available at that page; I cannot comment on it all in one mere post. Hopefully it can serve as a reference of some sort. Articles pertaining to US Supreme Court 00-151, memory and brain function, and reclassification of cannabis were the first to catch my eye. There's one on pain that I hope to spend some time with. In the meantime, the Supreme Court decision struch me as important. Understanding the conundrum surrounding medical marijuana is important when examining the problems and benefits brought on by the substances commonly referred to as drugs. Drugs include pharmaceuticals, plants, and aerosols, among others. As a legalization advocate, one of the things which makes my skin crawl is the repeated, unjust generalization of marijuana as being like other drugs. In legalistic terms, marijuana has been largely treated as more dangerous than drugs such as cocaine or methamphetamine. Even at the time of the failure of MAPA-99 (Methamphtamine Anti-Proliferation Act of 1999), methamphetamine was still classified as Schedule II--that is, less addictive and less harmful and having greater possible medical benefit than marijuana. Another frustration, incidentally, is the manner in which the Constitution goes out the window in the Drug War; MAPA-99, for instance, flat raped the First Amendment. One of the things I urge people to understand when looking at issues of illicit substances is that presently, especially in the United States, absolutely nothing is what it seems, and nothing is true. I urge anyone to peruse the DRC Net Week On-Line Archives; I think you'll be quite surprised at the amount of information flying back and forth in the Drug War which the public never really gets to see. For instance, the myriad lies of the Drug Warriors, who, by benefit of being "on the right side" (read, "having the law on their side"), have the credibility of truth in whatever they say. Consider crime and drugs--two points: 1) When you make a substance illegal, its users become criminals overnight; 2) Do we really think criminals would operate a multibillion-dollar black-market system if it wasn't illegal? Pot costs more than gold, some days. Addicts must confess to felonies before receiving treatment. We charge the drugs on their agency of crime, yet do not allow the excuse of influence in answering other crimes; this is well and fine in principle, but there exists an underlying conundrum we can leave for another day (three cheers to anyone who identifies it). Why do the Drug Warriors have credibility when talking about how dangerous marijuana is? A World Health Organization report reaffirmed that legal alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous than weed, yet politicians--some of whom drink and smoke--drive home the dangers of marijuana. How do the Drug Warriors escape with their "Gateway Drug" excuse? Cigarettes are a gateway to marijuana; marijuana is a gateway to other drugs ... in those occasions when marijuana does, indeed, serve as a gateway to other drugs, I might inquire what to think, then, of the fact that marijuana is included alongside heroin, meth, and cocaine? I don't have to buy beer from a guy who also sells acid, coke, and little blue pills; they're not available where I get my beer. I might propose that removing marijuana from such a classification would alleviate the perceived gateway sensation. The ideological separation of marijuana from other drugs is important, but a much broader, much longer issue. Morphine and cocaine are legal for certain medical uses; neither have been subjected to the same rigor as marijuana--they have the grace of having longstanding association to the Western medical tradition. Understanding that little makes sense without assuming the Drug Warriors to be insane and the Liberators to be, well, somewhat desperate, perhaps we might delve into the sticky (sweet and green) issue of medical marijuana, starting with the United States Supreme Court decision (00-151) regarding the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative. From the slip decisision for US v. OCBC 00-151: The first thing to note is that in this case, Congress has no business determining the medical value of anything. As will be noted, such Congressional determination is, unfortunately, political bluster that, as wondered about above, receives credibility for being part of the Drug War, and thus, "on the right side". If we stop to consider the American Drug War, an interesting notion emerges: the Drug War is a commercial war. This does not invoke high-minded conspiracies or other such silliness, but we might consider, on the one hand, the Constitutionally assigned powers of Congress according to Article 1, Section 8, and then consider, to the other, that the law which first criminalized marijuana was, in fact, a commercial law (Marihuana Tax Stamp Act of 1937). The War on Drugs is a criminal undertaking, Something I'm not getting about the Constitution is where any crimefighting arm comes in; again, this is all within its regulatory power, and so forth. But we must remember that the War on Drugs is a criminal issue to the Congress, and not a health issue. And therein lies part of the problem. When the Supreme Court wrote, in the slip decision, that Congress had determined marijuana to be without medical benefit, we must bear in mind a couple of things: 1) That Congress has not necessarily determined cocaine (dentistry) and morphine (painkilling) to have medical benefit despite their licensed professional use; 2) That Congress' determination is a criminal decision and licenses law-enforcement spending, which is popular with conservative voters. We see from resolutions of the House of Representatives and Senate that Congress repeatedly ignores what is already apparent--that there is some medical benefit to marijuana. As one of New Scientist's articles points out: I ask a simple question: If marijuana has no medical benefit, why are people trying to reproduce its effects for the medical benefits thereof? And so we look back to the Senate resolution: Perhaps we see, then, why the Drug Warriors in the Senate do not wish to put funds toward scientific research which might, through medical research, undermine the Drug War. Presently, what works against marijuana is the lack of scientific evidence in its favor; here the Drug Warriors have that phantom-credibility of being right, despite the fact that it is the Drug Warriors who are trying to prevent the questions from being answered. My mother once e-mailed me an article about a study that talked about the dangers of marijuana, and pointed out the safety myths. I emailed her ten links pointing to all sorts of odd stuff about marijuana; at the time I had a Reuters article that I cannot reproduce here that mentioned a study which determined that statistically, stoners who eat junk food gain weight at a lesser rate ... that sort of stuff. I did not proclaim these links to be the end-all of the discussion, but wouldn't it be nice to know? The problem is not evidence for or against; the problem, if any political problem exists, is a lack of evidence. Drug Warriors point out that the only evidence that marijuana helps the fight against cancer or HIV is anecdotal. What does anecdotal evidence equal? Well, if you hear anecdotally that there occur an inordinate number of fatalities at an intersection, you research the intersection and make the corrections. Why is it that what we hear anecdotally about marijuana does not equate researching the evidentiary basis of the anecdotes? The Supreme Court notes the Congress; the Congress says, there is no evidence. Yet the Congress does not want to investigate A) the evidence that exists, B) the anecdotal evidence that exists, and C) the compelling questions raised by the available evidence both anecdotal and objective. The Court is not wrong here; unfortunately, what the Congress has given them to go on for a legal structure is faulted by politics. And so it is. Does the death of Sid Vicious (heroin overdose) mean my grandfather should not have had morphine to alleviate the pain of dying? Does the comedy of Cheech Marin mean that J, an HIV patient I know, should not have marijuana to stimulate his appetite and keep his psyche light? I hope to explore any aspect of marijuana anyone wants to put up. Hopefully, we can skip the latest mod-interpretive rendition of Dave's Not Here, Man, but given how large the topic can get, and given the wonderful link provided by Adam, how could I resist inviting people to yet another go-round on the issue of marijuana, drugs, legalization, and so forth. thanx much, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I've never understood that thing about booze and tobacco being legal when hootch isn't. I'm actually quite happy for anyone to do anything that doesn't harm anyone else, as long as they understand and accept the associated risks. Better education. Good stuff. Just reiterating something I mentioned in another thread. In Australia, we grow both opium and marijuana for medical use. Marijuana is available on prescritption from a doctor. Opium is used of course in regulated medicines. In South Australia, I believe each house is allowed to own two marijuana plants, and a person can carry a small amount for personal use. In most states here it is still illegal to grow, and illegal to carry without a prescripition. I suppose there are two reasons for this: 1, it makes a taxable industry; 2, some regulation may prevent problems of irresponsible use. However, as Tiassa has pointed out, getting stoned generally doens't cause car accidents and such, and kills far fewer people than tobacco. Tobacco is only sold here to people 16 years old and over. Now that I think about it, replacing the entire tobacco cigareet industry here with marijuana would allow smokers to continue smoking, and would reduce the number of smoking-related health problems. Keep the age rules, keep it a regulated industry just as tobacco is, so levels of various chemicals can be monitired. I'm not sure if all smokers suddenly switching to marijuana would reduce the rates of heart disease and such; does anyone else know much about health effect comparisons in this regard? If 20% of tobacco smokers get cancer or heart attacks, would 20% of marijuana smokers get the same? If the rates are lower, I think it might be a damn good idea to switch from tobacco to hootch. It would save the entire country billions of dollars. Hell, offcuts go into paper production. I'm not a fan of smoking in general, but in comparison to tobacco, I do like the marijuana alternative.
Notes, considerations, musings Adam Thanks for the info. At some point, I intend to start dealing with the United States' political badgering of other countries; such as when McCaffrey (our Drug "Czar") harassed Australian politicians over the heroin control trials. Hopefully, in the long run, I'll be able to show what many of us already know, that US policy on drugs has a resounding effect on local economies and social structures worldwide. Consider the dictatorships that survive on drug money: if it was a legitimate industry, we would have more diplomatic (read commercial) opportunities in handling these regimes. That, of course, is for another day. Your Now that I think about it paragraph pretty much sums up the whole thing. The problem is convincing the politicians. When it comes to the voters, we still run into that strange bulwark of credibility maintaining lies. Ask the average American voters about increased tax revenues, reduced crime, and the massive reduction of law-enforcement dollars spent fighting the black market, people will say they're all for it. But put that into terms like legalization, and suddenly the old prejudices bubble up: marijuana kills people (false), that medicinal marijuana will effectively legalize all marijuana (false), that "marijuana causes cancer" (on the one hand, considered false for lack of data, and on the other hand, this threat is viewed as far worse than the cigarette-cancer connection; and, furthermore, that the carcinogenic potential of marijuana is a greater danger than the mortality rate). It's kind of like another irony related to marijuana; have you ever read Douglas Adams' "Babel-fish scenario"? (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) People held the Babel fish to be evidence of God (an irrelevant argument) based on its wondrous presence and seeming natural function in the Universe (an animal that excretes energy similar to brainwaves allowing all people to hear all languages in their own tongue); that is, its "miraculous nature" was its evidence of God. That miraculous nature is the relevant point. While it is strange to consider all the problems that come from the existence of a plant, we migh also wonder at how strange is the breadth of problems legalization addresses. Healthcare, crime, paper, cloth, rope, fuel, food for many species, and a regeneration cycle that outdoes trees for paper, is at least comparable to cloth, and provides a useable yield sometimes on a 10:1 ratio per acre (e.g. paper/trees). It seems almost like utopiate proselytizing to claim that marijuana will "solve" these problems; of course it won't, but it will give us a chance to get certain aspects of these problems under control; in the 80s and early 90s, a stat reflected that 1 in 3 black males in the US would serve "prison" (post-sentence, as opposed to "jail") time before his 30th birthday. There was also a stat that 1 in 3 black males in the US would not reach their 18th birthday. Thus, 2/3 of black males are statistical non-realities in certain ways: voting, for instance. Furthermore, the stigma that comes in the job market with having been sent to prison creates further social burdens. There are chldren who are 16 years old right now who know no other way of carrying on than running coke and guns. But yes, there is a reason beyond smoking dope that I prefer the "marijuana alternative", as you have termed it. Of heart disease and cancer, there is some speculation to be had; pot's contribution ot cancer is not yet separated from tobacco. Heart disease might, indeed, see a reduction, as a number of things will occur; A) we've read some of the fatty-acid articles on eating hemp; B) removal from the black market will, in addition to encouraging dietary change, result in less people setting it on fire as a means of induction; C) research based on fatty acid and stress data will contribute to the reduction of non-congenital heart disease. And here, for the benefit of whomever, let me please point out a rhetorical nicety of the Drug War: Adam pointed out, in the Walker therad, the seeming errancy of Jack Herer's website, to which I responded that the statements, if taken sheerly at face value, probably were correct, and that reading the modifiers and limitations of the statement helped establish the truth of the statement. Above I wrote that research based on fatty acid and stress data will contribute to the reduction of non-congenital heart disease. This statement is true and correct; were I a scientist who made that statement at a press conference, the heaadline would read, Researchers to tap marijuana's healing power in fight against heart disease, which headline could create the impression that we have a definitive data set and deriviative conclusion. This Drug War is a commercial war in this country; I encourage people to remember who is saying what; again we run into the credibility issue. Poiliticians say marijuana is harmful, with no real data to support them; politicians also decry marijuana data as anecdotal. The anecdotal nature of marijuana data is twofold: on the one hand are the stories, I smoke pot and look at me ...., and on the other are the objective surveys suggesting further research. I'm not about to call pot the next miracle diet, but negative data shows changes in metabolism and absorption, while advocate data demonstrates objectively that pot smokers gain weight at a lesser rate, despite our junk-food benders. To suggest that the "negative" changes in absorption and metabolism might somehow effect weight gain in pot smokers, however, is an unacceptable leap of logic; strangely, that people who smoke pot also sometimes die of cancer is apparently sound evidence that marijuna kills. Let me note that Clinton hurt his knee at Greg Norman's house once; did his doctors give him a synthetic opiate to quell the pain? Opium has enough medical value to synthesize, and sometimes we don't even bother to do that, but merely derive. If Congress sees no medical value in pot, it is clinging to Harry Anslinger's malicious characterization that, while opium has a Jekyll/Hyde effect, marijuana is solely the evil Hyde without a trace of Jekyll's benevolence. I do intend to revisit the New Scientist page, but presently, the first issue I've picked from it is still afoot. thanx much, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
On most points I do agree with this. The only concern for me regarding this whole issue is the effect of Marijuana on the psyche of some people. Some recent studies reported here (I'm not sure where they were done, here in australia I think but uncertain) would seem to indicate that people normally susceptible to Schitzophrenia and some other mental diseases can have their conditions exascerbated by prolonged use of the drug. Having said this, it would still appear that there are far fewer harmful effects from Marijuana use than other products such as tobacco or alcohol, and such studies only serve to give ammunition to those who prefer to control what other people do while turning a blind eye to their own habits of choice. I myself have seen this effect in action on some friends I used to have when I was younger. Studies only seem to confirm what most people already know or suspect when you get right down to it. [edit : sp]
A study I'm pretty sure i read in a New Scientist magazine a while ago stated that long term pot use causes schitzophrenia and that pot is addictive.. While casual use probably won't cause these conditions, it is still commonly believed that pot/THC is not addictive.. studies have proven that it is, i wish I could give the sources but I read them in new scientist a long time ago..
Sorry, can't buy the addictiveness of pot. At least not for average Joe Blow. It's like saying buying guns leads bank robbing. You can argue statistics saying that only guns are used in bank robbing therefore guns lead to bank robbing. That is the problem with most of the surveys and tests. Most of the interperters of the data have an axe to grind. On the nature of pot for paper... Slow growing trees make for good writing paper, fast growing trees (like the southern pines make for long fibers and hence strength in the paper), for such as cardboard and bags. As fast growing plant such as hemp will have the long fibers. It will not make good writing paper when bleached. The hemp plant, as mentioned many time before in sciforums is not a good producer of THC. Which mean as far as getting high on the Hemp growing species, it's a waste of time. So why is it illegal to grow hemp? It's all painted with the same brush. The laws for pot and hemp plants are a checkerboard of vague reasons and fallacies. The legal system of the US would run into a recession if the drug use of pot were taken out of the books. No one wants to see that happen in the political side of it. Where would they get the money to coninue? Think of all the judges, counsulers, clerks of the court, bailiffs, lawyers, guards, and administration that would suddenly find that they had no job because of the reduction in traffic through the legal system.
<i>"Some recent studies reported here (I'm not sure where they were done, here in australia I think but uncertain) would seem to indicate that people normally susceptible to Schitzophrenia and some other mental diseases can have their conditions exascerbated by prolonged use of the drug. "</i> It's true. Even more distressing is the fact that many of the mentally ill often abuse drugs, even though such activity will exacerbate their condition, sending them into crisis. Crazy, eh?
One of those articles from New Scientist seems to answer one of my questions. I was wondering whether there would be fewer health problems from smoking if tobacco was replaced all over with marijuana.
Points of disagreement I've been off in my own corner, ignoring this topic for a few days ... seems I shouldn't. Which kind of writing paper? Works fine either way, though. I can say this from having used the stuff. Various colors, various textures. Sure, there are some that shouldn't be handwritten on, and there are some that shouldn't be typed or printed on, but how is that any different from any other paper. I remember a front-page article in ... '98 or '99 in our newspaper about a federal hearing on drugs; I forget which subcommittee. But the "addictiveness" of pot had been established. It ranked right next to caffeine, according to the anti-drug expert who testified. Everyone in the dope community laughed really hard that day. In fact, I call that one so not credible that I've never heard the caffeine comparison again. Which is well and fine because I do fine without dope, and it's harder to do without caffeine. On that note, though, consider what "addictive" means. Heroin is addictive enemy #1 these days in the Drug Warrior circles. It used to be crack. However, during the Clinton anti-smoking push, we heard medical doctors saying such things as, "I would much rather have to kick heroin than quit smoking; that's why I never started." Point being, it depends on which debate you're in. In the Drug War, addictive substances actually get knocked down a notch to up the "damage estimate" of marijuana. Of drugs and addictiveness, let me make the following points: * I consume caffeine; I have reconciled myself that, while I have a comparatively low caffeine intake, I cannot exscind it from my life--I've tried. * I smoke cigarettes; this is problematic and about once a year I actually try to quit smoking. One of these days, I might get it. * I smoke marijuana; when the market dries, we usually hit a quality wall and, twice a year, everyone I know endures two weeks without. Big deal. * I have used cocaine: How do people get addicted? If the stuff was five bucks a gram, I might develop a habit. I do not fear cocaine; it isn't worth using. * I do not use crack, and cannot speak for its addictive nature. * I do not fear heroin: I won't use the stuff because ... * ... opium resin is the most dangerous drug I have ever used. Why? Because it's two months since I last had opium resin; I still want more. Not enough to go out and get it, but I can hear it knocking. Before that it was six months, and the effect of the mere presence of this beautiful, red opium (I'd never had red before) was Pavlovian. I stand in absolute awe of opium resin. I do not fear heroin because I cannot conceive of any reason why I would want to concentrate opium, and therefore empower this most dangerous of goddesses. Be very very careful with opium resin. Don't do it unless you're prepared to commit a portion (a very small, nearly infinitesimal portion, but a portion nonetheless) of your life to it. I prevent myself from seeking it because I am fully capable of destroying myself with it. When it drops in my lap, I make a calculated gamble of whether I want to or not (right ...), but it's to the point where I don't buy "opium" incense. Pavlovian, seriously. As I look back over those notes on addictive substances, I think its telling how many words I spend on each. Coke is known to be directly and acutely harmful to me; I don't do it because it turns out I'm the luckiest of the lucky ones. Like opium to heroin, then, I won't even bother with crack ... I have signs that make perfect sense to me not to go there. But I stopped babbling about opium because I realized I was babbling. That is how addictive it is. Marijuana? Addictive? Surely, you jest. Only in the way that red meat, Tillamook strawberry milk, Northlake pizza, or Dick's fries are addictive. Girl Scout cookies are addictive: Breyer's makes Thin Mint Cookie ice cream that makes a divine milkshake ... Take a block of Velveeta and a can of Ro-Tel and throw 'em on a gas flame and gently melt it all together; serve with tortilla chips--addictive? Yeah, marijuana's addictive. F--k! Now I have the f--king munchies. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Notes: Dick's fries: Don't ask if you're not from Seattle or haven't at least heard Mix-A-Lot's Posse on Broadway. To put it another way, don't be shocked at the number of women in Seattle who are "going to get some dicks". I almost forgot, about the Velveeta: A soup pot. Use a soup pot when you throw the Velveeta and Ro-Tel on the gas flame; it makes an awful f--king mess if you just throw it on the flame. Uh, that's stoner humor for the rest of you ...
Re: Points of disagreement Picked it up immediately. You shoulda let that one hang for the 'in' crowd. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I saw an ad this morning for the first time (though a co-worker says it's been running since the Super Bowl - shows how much television I watch) that once again reminded me of how pissed off I am about this “war on drugs” crap. The United States government is running some annoying ads (produced and aired at great expense) to tell us, the public, that anyone who buys illegal drugs is supporting terrorism, because the terrorists finance their activities by selling illegal drugs. Nonsense. The enormous profit to be made from selling illegal drugs results from the existence of the foolish, futile, failed war on drugs. It is the war on drugs that funnels money to terrorists. If we want to deprive terrorists of fat drug profits, we need to end the war on drugs (there was a beautiful full-page ad by the Libertarian Party in USA Today – you will need Adobe Acrobat.) You want to talk violence? Bootleggers during Prohibition were a particularly ruthless lot, yet legalization seems to have done a pretty good job of ending the violence associated with alcohol production and distribution. I mean, when was the last time you saw two package store owners have a shoot out in the streets. No… end this silly unwinnable war on drugs and you might actually have some room in the prisons for oh, I don’t know… criminals? Peace.
<i>"I was wondering whether there would be fewer health problems from smoking if tobacco was replaced all over with marijuana."</i> Hmm, I smoke a pack each day. If I substituted my tobacco with the other blend, I would be walking around with a huge buzz.
Geez, Bowser If you smoked 20 joints a day, you'd be Jerry Garcia Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! To the other, being capable of smoking 4 grams a day when I, uh, put my mind to it ... er, yeah ... anyway, smoking that much ... you get used to it in a certain way. Being familiar with addiction (e.g. cigarettes), I can assure you that the getting used to it is a far different process. Certainly, in a year's time you'd go from being ripped on a bowl to buzzed on one (call it a threefold downgrade), but how is that any different, in effect, from those who start with their morning cup of coffee or morning cigarette and progress from there. After a while, it would become either a comfortable state to exist in or one which you would find just hazardous (e.g. dangerously clumsy) enough to pull back from. The only problem right now, of course, is that where your cigarette habit equals about $2,100 ($5.75/pk per Seattle area prices), a daily pot habit would run you anywhere between $2,100 and $16,650 Range is standard street price, $40 per 0.125 oz/3.325 g, 0.125 oz/wk - 1 oz./wk, At 1/2 oz a week, at the price I get, a year's habit would cost around $7,300. So yeah, you could make the conversion right now for the same price, but it would be tough cutting back on the physical sensation of taking in so much smoke. 0.125 (1/8) ounce a week doesn't add up to much once you're happy with weed as your drug of choice. just thought I'd check in on that ..., Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
MacGyver! Alright! I'm calling a MacGyver Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I will not be held responsible for a Velveeta holocaust on anyone's stovetop. One of the two episodes of MacGyver I ever saw was one of the ones that got sued. A kid blew his hands off when he tried to make a pipe bomb from a car muffler, some nylons, and a bit of motor oil Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Amazing, eh? Thus I must disclaim myself against possible Velveeta tragedies. To the other, if you meant that I should save the recipe for the "in" crowd, well ... that's my hope, to offer people an incentive to get stoned. Cheese dip, chips, and beer are perfectly complimented by a bong and, say, the coming baseball season. Hey ... I think I have opening day tickets ... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! If you make the cheese dip on an electric range, watch out for scorching; I used to get these great brown-cheese spirals on the bottom of the pan. I can control gas better, but if you can manage a double-boiler (not enough of a chef to know what the real unit is called) and melt the stuff at 100º centigrade, that spares you the scorching problem. But always tend your cheese vigilantly. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
<i>"The only problem right now, of course, is that where your cigarette habit equals about $2,100 ($5.75/pk per Seattle area prices), a daily pot habit would run you anywhere between $2,100 and $16,650 Range is standard street price, $40 per 0.125 oz/3.325 g, 0.125 oz/wk - 1 oz./wk, At 1/2 oz a week, at the price I get, a year's habit would cost around $7,300."</i> As it is now, I can afford only the generic brands. Might be cheeper to move to Amsterdam if I were a pot smoker. $40.00 for an eigth! Wow! When I was a youngster that would buy you 2 full bags--but, then again, 35 cents would get you a pack of smokes, too. Either way, my body is telling me that I shouldn't be smoking either.
Hmmm ... Bowser A friend of mine has pointed out that Jerry Garcia may not serve as the best example, since he's dead. In that vein (heh-heh) I'll just remind everyone that Garcia was a diabetic who did smack. Jerry, we love ye, but come on .... The only downside to being a lifetime stoner is the strange magnetism you possess which attracts rainbow-colored crap and Volkswagens. Old, beat-up Volkswagens. Which is just scary, the number of guys I know who have lived their whole lives smoking joints over car repairs without blowing themselves up. Nonetheless, don't try it at home. Really. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Correct me if I am wrong, but surely the health effects of smoking marijuana are comparable to the risks of cigarette smoking (in terms of lung cancer, heart disease and so on)? Isn't that reason enough not to use it? Note that I am not touching on whether it should be legalised or not, which is a completely separate issue.
JR, I think that is a safe assumption. Unfortunately, it has also been one of the excuses for denying people their privilege of choice.
Hurry! Before Your Government Hears About It! These days, acid is just speed. Peyote makes you barf. Shrooms are only good eaten straight out of the field. If you're looking for the newest way to walk with the gods or to become one with your big toe, check out Salvia divinorum. Peace.
I would have expected so. That material at New Scientist seems to indicate that the health effects of replacing all tobacco smoking with cannabis smoking would be less nasty. Unfortunately I don't know enough about the various chemicals found in each to compare them myself.
