[BRussell]

In my state there's a ballot initiative to make medical marijuana legal. I'm undecided on it. It's not like this has been approved by the FDA, and I don't particularly like a bunch of dumb-ass voters taking over the role of the FDA. On the other hand, it would only be allowed under medical supervision.

Here's your chance to influence my vote. Let's hear it.

[constrictor]

Originally posted by BRussell:
In my state there's a ballot initiative to make medical marijuana legal. I'm undecided on it. It's not like this has been approved by the FDA, and I don't particularly like a bunch of dumb-ass voters taking over the role of the FDA. On the other hand, it would only be allowed under medical supervision.

Here's your chance to influence my vote. Let's hear it.

The legalization of "medical marijuana" should only be allowed via pharmaceutical-controlled production of cannabinoids in pill form, not in the illicit, smoking form that your average loser who needs to "spice up" his worthless life acquires.

If it's to be "legalized" medically, then introduce the chemical via normal medically appropriate roots. Don't introduce the "medicine" via a root that has, at the very least, been proven to decrease pulmonary function, along with it's other ills.

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by constrictor:
The legalization of "medical marijuana" should only be allowed via pharmaceutical-controlled production of cannabinoids in pill form, not in the illicit, smoking form that your average loser who needs to "spice up" his worthless life acquires.

If it's to be "legalized" medically, then introduce the chemical via normal medically appropriate roots. Don't introduce the "medicine" via a root that has, at the very least, been proven to decrease pulmonary function, along with it's other ills.

So, are you voting for the Prohibition party? (http://www.prohibition.org/)
I have seen Alcohol do much more damage to many people's lives then I have EVER seen marijuana do, speaking from first hand experience here as a child.

I am all for legalizing marijuana BTW and if legalizing it for medical purposes is a step in that direction I would be for it.

[MATTRESS]

It's not the alcohol or marijuana that's bad but the people who abuse those substances that are the problem.

[MindFad]

Old people with glaucoma, arthritis, and munchies?

Vote YES.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
It's not the alcohol or marijuana that's bad but the people who abuse those substances that are the problem.

You might have a point... I have never seen any weed or alcohol run a stop light and kill innocent kids while they have no injuries. However, I have seem people drunk or high run lights and kill innocent kids. I say ban them all!

[MATTRESS]

We tried that once and failed. Perhaps if we pulled the money and resources away from interdiction and put those resources into more police on the streets then we'd have a better chance of catching the ones using those substances in excess.

Growing plants and fermenting their products is part of human culture. You're never going to eradicate it entirely no matter how much money is spent trying to keep it off the market. Better to spend the money and resources catching those who are abusing it and either punishing them or treating them appropriately.

[constrictor]

Originally posted by mikellanes:
So, are you voting for the Prohibition party? (http://www.prohibition.org/)
I have seen Alcohol do much more damage to many people's lives then I have EVER seen marijuana do, speaking from first hand experience here as a child.

I am all for legalizing marijuana BTW and if legalizing it for medical purposes is a step in that direction I would be for it.

Another typical reply.

"Oh yeah...this can't be bad...ummmmm.....because there's something out there that's worse!"

And yes, you make a good point. Alcohol should be prohibited.

[zigzag]

I'm in favor of devoting absurd amounts of public resources to suppressing a relatively benign, naturally-occuring substance that appears to have palliative effects for many people. I think it's particularly important to keep it out of the hands of the terminally ill, who might derive unnecessary emotional and physical pleasure from it. Better to keep it in the hands of criminals and corrupt cops.

[constrictor]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I'm in favor of devoting absurd amounts of public resources to suppressing a relatively benign, naturally-occuring substance that appears to have palliative effects for many people. I think it's particularly important to keep it out of the hands of the terminally ill, who might derive unnecessary emotional and physical pleasure from it. Better to keep it in the hands of criminals and corrupt cops.

It should be available to the infirm. The point, simply, is do it the right way. Far too few states have even considered the alternate modes of delivery.

[dgs212]

It's well known that marinol (the synthetic cannabinoid available in pill form) is not as effective as the consumption of natural cannabinoids for dilating capillaries in the eyes, providing palliative effects for intense and consant pain sufferers, or even providing the munchies to those who are wasting away due to AIDS, cancer, and other diseases.

Not to mention the fact that producing synthetic cannabinoids and distributing them in pill form is much more expensive than growing a plant, which anyone can do at home with minimal supplies. Why put more money in pharmaceutical companies' pockets when there is a readily available alternative?

I agree that marijuana is dangerous in that smoking it can affect pulmonary functioning and even contribute to causing smoking-related cancers (not nearly as badly, it should be noted, as cigarette smoking). However, there are other ways to administer what could potentially be a very effective medicine. For example, as cannabinoids are fat soluble organic compounds, they can be extracted by cooking them in some type of fat (butter, oil, etc.). You can then cook with said oil and eat the products, getting all the benefits of smoking marijauna without any tar or particulate matter entering your lungs. Safe, effective, and much more efficient that smoking as the intense heat of smoking destroys many of the compounds.

Finally, let's all remember that pills and "medicine" as we know it is a relatively recent phenomenon. It was little over 100 years ago that we were still using willow bark to get rid of headaches (willow bark contains salicylic acid, the active ingredient in aspirin, and some use it still to this day). In fact, one of the most promising new cancer drugs, Taxol, was discovered in the bark of the European Yew tree. In pharmaceuticals, nature is a cheif inspiration point. Sometimes simpler is better.

[Spliffdaddy]

I've smoked pot almost daily for 15 years.

If it was harmful - I wouldn't be typing this now.

I'm of the opinion that it should stay illegal. That way the price will stay low.

Pot is easier to obtain than a loaf of bread. What's the big deal?

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I'm of the opinion that it should stay illegal. That way the price will stay low.

Because you can't just grow your own legally? Much like I can brew my own beer?

[Logic]

Well after working at a rehab clinic I must say that legalising marijuana is one of the most stupid things we could do.

And I urge those that support this to start working at rehab clinics to see the effects.

Allow research into finding the substances that have the few beneficial effects. But please don't allow this.

Among the things that smoking marijuana causes are paranoia, depression, anxiety, all the effects of smoking cigarettes(only worse), and the list goes on.

The myth about marijuana being "healthy" or not dangerous is just that. A myth.

If you want more details feel free to ask.

[Geezus_Aach]

Originally posted by constrictor:
The legalization of "medical marijuana" should only be allowed via pharmaceutical-controlled production of cannabinoids in pill form...

Pharmacuetical companies would agree only because that would keep them in business. In the event it ever did become legal, all these pill companies would go belly up... them and beer companies(one of the largest anti-pot assembly)

[constrictor]

Originally posted by Geezus_Aach:
Pharmacuetical companies would agree only because that would keep them in business. In the event it ever did become legal, all these pill companies would go belly up... them and beer companies(one of the largest anti-pot assembly)

Uh huh. Getting the medication made through the drug companies is the easiest way to ensure compliance with FDA guidelines. Plus, unlike most of you losers who need to seek out mind-altering substances to get your kicks, your average pharmaceutical customer is not filling prescriptions to get high. They're getting drugs to treat disease. Say whatever you want about the "evil" nature of drug companies and their massive profits, but they're not going "belly up" if marijuana becomes legal.

While it may be true that cannabinoids delivered via other routes are not as "effective" as through the illicit method, that is what pharmaceutical research is for. Give them the go-ahead to come up with a more effective pill, and you'll have it before you can say "I'm a friggin' loser, huh?"

[Geezus_Aach]

constrictor << works for a pharmaceutical co

[constrictor]

Originally posted by Geezus_Aach:
constrictor << works for a pharmaceutical co

I wish.

[Logic]

Originally posted by Geezus_Aach:
constrictor << works for a pharmaceutical co

If it weren't for the pharmaceutical companies we wouldn't have 50-80%(educated guess) or even more of the drugs available now.

[Twilly Spree]

Originally posted by Logic:
If it weren't for the pharmaceutical companies we wouldn't have 50-80%(educated guess) or even more of the drugs available now.

If it weren't for the soda companies we wouldn't have 50-80%(educated guess) or even more of the carbonated beverages available now.

[Logic]

Originally posted by Twilly Spree:
If it weren't for the soda companies we wouldn't have 50-80%(educated guess) or even more of the carbonated beverages available now.

I know, we need to shut 'em down!

[MATTRESS]

Let's ban everything that could cause injury (especially pointed sticks!) and encase human beings in Nerf at birth so they'll never get injured or never injure anyone else!

[gadster]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I've smoked pot almost daily for 15 years.

Ah, hence your eccentricity!

If it was harmful - I wouldn't be typing this now.

I thought you used speech recog as yer interface?

I'm of the opinion that it should stay illegal. That way the price will stay low.

I thought you were conservative? Free markets etc...

Pot is easier to obtain than a loaf of bread. What's the big deal?

Now, if only it were as cheap as bread, then we'd be on a winner.

[MATTRESS]

Oh, and my 2 cents worth: natural treatments/remedies are much better for the body than the poisons sold by the pharmaceutical companies. That's why the drug companies don't like natural remedies because anyone can grow them or prepare them. Natural substances can't be patented. It's all about money.

[Logic]

Spliffdaddy hasn't perhaps noticed the effects but we sure as hell see them just by looking at his posts. Wonder how he is in real life

[constrictor]

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
Oh, and my 2 cents worth: natural treatments/remedies are much better for the body than the poisons sold by the pharmaceutical companies. That's why the drug companies don't like natural remedies because anyone can grow them or prepare them. Natural substances can't be patented. It's all about money.

I would like to see this:

MATTRESS smokes all his life.

Gets lung cancer.

Takes herbs.

Byebye.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Logic:
Spliffdaddy hasn't perhaps noticed the effects but we sure as hell see them just by looking at his posts. Wonder how he is in real life

Careful there... you probably smoke almost as much as he does.

Come to think of it, *I* probably smoke almost as much as he does... nevermind.

[Mrjinglesusa]

This is great entertainment. We have a topic on legalizing marijuana. Out come the posts ragging on pharmaceutical companies (yeah, I guess we don't need: polio vaccine, flu shots, aspirin, cold medication, cholesterol-lowering medication, heart medication, anti-cancer drugs, anti-epileptic drugs, etc.), and bragging about how much pot they smoke. What's even more hilarious is that some of these pot smokers are the CONSERVATIVES on this board. Hypocrisy at it's best.

[Logic]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Careful there... you probably smoke almost as much as he does.

Come to think of it, *I* probably smoke almost as much as he does... nevermind.

I probably smoked more than him the 1 year - year and a half I smoked but now I "only" smoke regular cigarettes. Damn addiction genes are killing me.

[Geezus_Aach]

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
Oh, and my 2 cents worth: natural treatments/remedies are much better for the body than the poisons sold by the pharmaceutical companies. That's why the drug companies don't like natural remedies because anyone can grow them or prepare them. Natural substances can't be patented. It's all about money.

Well said! Now not all pharmaceutical companies are like that...and yes, some meds made are necessary. But for the most part, the painkiller types are totally against the legalization. And who do they think they're foolin'... hands down, mother nature is the best chemist!

BTW, I'm not a smoker nor a non-smoker...I'm an EX-smoker

[Mrjinglesusa]

For the record, I agree with those who think marijuana should be legal. It is NO WORSE (occasionally) than alcohol (in moderation). However, just as with alcohol, if abused it can get you into trouble (health and otherwise). There are a lot better things the police could be doing with their time and money than going after a guy for smoking a joint. In SF, a friend of mine was walking in the park with another friend smoking a joint. A cop on horseback rode by, turned around, and motioned for him to put it out. Then the cop went on his merry way.

[MATTRESS]

Originally posted by constrictor:
I would like to see this:

MATTRESS smokes all his life.

Gets lung cancer.

Takes herbs.

Byebye.

Why would I need chemothreapy if I didn't smoke?

By the way, have you looked at the side effects for just about every drug available? Got a runny nose? Never fear any of these wonderful side effects:

Claritin side effects include dry mouth, fatigue, headache, and sleepiness. If side effects continue or become bothersome check with your doctor. Less common or rare Claritin side effects may include abdominal discomfort or pain, abnormal dreams, agitation, anxiety, back pain, blurred vision, breast enlargement, breast pain, bronchitis, change in salivation, change in taste, chest pain, confusion, conjunctivitis (pinkeye), constipation, coughing, coughing up blood, decreased sensitivity to stimulation, decreased sex drive, depression, diarrhea, difficult or labored breathing, difficulty concentrating, difficulty speaking, discoloration of urine, dizziness, dry hair, dry skin, earache, eye pain, fainting, fatigue, fever, flushing, gas, general feeling of illness, hair loss, hepatitis, hiccups, high blood pressure, hives, hyperactivity, impotence, increased appetite, increased or decreased eye tearing, increased sweating, indigestion, inflammation of the mouth, insomnia, irritability, itching, joint pain, laryngitis, leg cramps, loss of appetite, loose stools, low blood pressure, memory loss, menstrual changes, migraine, muscle pain, nasal congestion or dryness, nausea, nervousness, nosebleeds, palpitations, rapid heartbeat, rash, ringing in ears, seizures, sensitivity to light, sinus inflammation, skin inflammation, sneezing, sore throat, stiffness, stomach inflammation, swelling, thirst, tingling, toothache, tremor, twitching of the eye, upper respiratory infection, urinary changes, vaginal inflammation, vertigo, viral infection, vomiting, weakness, weight gain, wheezing, and yellow eyes and skin.

Yes, the miracle of modern poisons!

[ironknee]

Originally posted by MindFad:
Old people with glaucoma, arthritis, and munchies?

Vote YES.

[UNTeMac]

From what I understand about marijuana for medical uses, the effects, especially on glaucoma relief, are extremely temporary; lasting only months. After that, the brain becomes accustomed to the chemical stimulation and adapts. The "high" still exists but the medical benefits eventually cease. (don't feel like finding links, but you can )

In Humboldt County, CA, (weed capital of the U.S.) it's so easy to get a medical marijuana license, it's scary. All you need is a sympathetic doctor and an apathetic police force. I say leave it up to the states to legalize it. There are some areas of the country where it's simply part of the culture and barring any findings of permanent neurological damage, what's the problem? I don't smoke and don't plan to, btw.

(Incidentally, I don't think unbiased research is really possible until this substance is legal because it polarizes the conduct and interpretation of researchers.)

[Logic]

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
Why would I need chemothreapy if I didn't smoke?

By the way, have you looked at the side effects for just about every drug available? Got a runny nose? Never fear any of these wonderful side effects:



Yes, the miracle of modern poisons!

Let me guess. You don't have the slightest clue about what you are talking about do you?

Do you know the rules and regulations for information on medicines the pharmaceutical companies are required to disclose? Do you know what they mean with side effects, and the definition of rare and common? Do you know what a side effect is and when checking for side-effects how they filter out "noise"?

[MATTRESS]

I'm sorry, but that's illogical. I look at one problem (runny nose) and consider that I could get one or more of hundreds of other issues and decide it's not worth it just to stop a runny nose. Is it logical to dump liver damaging chemicals into one's body just to stop sneezing or stop a runny nose? I don't think so. I have been a victim of drug side effects in the past due to a vehicle accident and since I have stopped using Western medicine for illness my health has improved greatly especially when I'm sick (which is exceedingly rare now). If I get a cold, for example, I no longer purchase chemicals to reduce the effects of the cold. I simply deal with it and eat foods that will provide the body the energy needed to fight the cold.

A good medicine helps the body heal itself. When that medicine causes other side effects then exactly how is the body supposed to heal when it has to fight new problems?

We are a product of nature and we should be treating disease (a naturally occurring problem) with natural remedies and natural cures. Leave the chemical soups and cocktails for fixing non-living objects.

[Logic]

A good non answer.

And what you said has nothing to do with Evil Western Medicines™. It has to do with living a healthy life and only use medicines when you need them.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
Why would I need chemothreapy if I didn't smoke?

By the way, have you looked at the side effects for just about every drug available? Got a runny nose? Never fear any of these wonderful side effects:



Yes, the miracle of modern poisons!

You have no idea what you are talking about. If ONE person out of 1,000 in a trial complain about a "side-effect" they have to list it. Hell, that ONE person could have had a headache from staring at a computer all day but if they were in the drug trial they have to list it as a "complaint."

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
I'm sorry, but that's illogical. I look at one problem (runny nose) and consider that I could get one or more of hundreds of other issues and decide it's not worth it just to stop a runny nose. Is it logical to dump liver damaging chemicals into one's body just to stop sneezing or stop a runny nose? I don't think so. I have been a victim of drug side effects in the past due to a vehicle accident and since I have stopped using Western medicine for illness my health has improved greatly especially when I'm sick (which is exceedingly rare now). If I get a cold, for example, I no longer purchase chemicals to reduce the effects of the cold. I simply deal with it and eat foods that will provide the body the energy needed to fight the cold.

A good medicine helps the body heal itself. When that medicine causes other side effects then exactly how is the body supposed to heal when it has to fight new problems?

We are a product of nature and we should be treating disease (a naturally occurring problem) with natural remedies and natural cures. Leave the chemical soups and cocktails for fixing non-living objects.

OK. Next time you have a heart attack, let nature take it's course. Next time you break a bone, don't go to the doctor to have a cast put on, rely on nature. If you get cancer, take your "herbal remedies" and see how long you last. Next time you have a knee problem, where you can't walk without pain, eat your herbs and see how you feel.

[MATTRESS]

Originally posted by Logic:
A good non answer.

And what you said has nothing to do with Evil Western Medicines™. It has to do with living a healthy life and only use medicines when you need them.

It has everything to do with Evil Western Medicines™. Those chemicals should be avoided at all costs whenever there's a natural substitute to treat the same problem.

And, whether or not a side effect shows up 1/1000 or 1/1 in "trials" it's still a side effect. Are any of those side effects worth stopping a runny nose?

[MATTRESS]

Originally posted by Mrjinglesusa:
Next time you break a bone, don't go to the doctor to have a cast put on, rely on nature.

What exactly do you think a cast does?

[MATTRESS]

Originally posted by Mrjinglesusa:
Next time you have a knee problem, where you can't walk without pain, eat your herbs and see how you feel.

That's exactly what I did after the car accident because the Western chemical drugs weren't helping at all.

[Logic]

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
It has everything to do with Evil Western Medicines™. Those chemicals should be avoided at all costs whenever there's a natural substitute to treat the same problem.

And, whether or not a side effect shows up 1/1000 or 1/1 in "trials" it's still a side effect. Are any of those side effects worth stopping a runny nose?

You do know that most medicines today are just more effective natural remedies don't you?

If you just got a runny nose you shouldn't take any medicines.

[Logic]

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
That's exactly what I did after the car accident because the Western chemical drugs weren't helping at all.

What Evil Western Medicines™ did you take? Just out of curiosity. Also, what were your injuries?

[Dakar]

Man, people on political forums will argue about anything.

[MATTRESS]

Originally posted by Logic:
What Evil Western Medicines™ did you take? Just out of curiosity. Also, what were your injuries?

It's been about 12 years so I don't recall any of the names of them. Between the drugs prescribed for headaches (from concussion due to my head slamming into the steering wheel), whiplash, and back injuries I spent nearly a year out of work and dealing with daily occurances of hallucinations, mood changes, intestinal discomfort, etc. in an attempt to control the pain. I got tired of dealing with the side effects (not to mention the effect it was having on my marriage), and, upon consultation with my grandfather (who was a pharmacist) he suggested I get away from the chemicals and try natural healing methods (massage, chiropractic, herbs, topical ointments, etc). Once I did that the pain was quikcly under control and I didn't have to suffer from the mind altering effects of the medicines I was prescribed by several neurologists and other therapists (I really wish I could remember the names of those drugs). Plus, since the case hadn't gone to court yet the cost of the drugs and other doctors was eating up my personal injury protection coverage on my automobile insurance. By switching away from the higher cost drugs and doctors and using massage for the neck and back pain and natural rememdies for the headaches the cost of treatment went way down, I was able to not only get the pain under control but without the horrendous side effects as well.

Speaking of side effects, I remember seeing two grandparents suffer from the side effects of chemotherapy for cancer and before they both died they stated that they had wished that they never started those treatments because of the horrible way they looked just before they died.

[mo]

Originally posted by Dakar:
Man, people on political forums will argue about anything.

No they won't! You're wrong!

[nredman]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I've smoked pot almost daily for 15 years.

If it was harmful - I wouldn't be typing this now.

[Logic]

Originally posted by mo:
No they won't! You're wrong!

No he's right!

[boots]

:Shakes head:

Where to start...let's see....

Addiction:
Two experts on addiction, one at The National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) and the other who leads a group at UCSF, ranked six drugs (Nicotine, heroin, cocaine, alcohol, caffeine, and marijuana) on the criteria of withdrawal, reinforcement, tolerance, dependence and intoxication. A rank of 1 is the worst drug for this effect and a 6 is the most harmless of the six. In order, NIMDA ranked marijuana 6 (withdrawal), 5 (reinforcement), 6 (tolerance), 6 (dependence) and 4 (intoxication). The UCSF group ranked it 5,6,5,6,4. Notably, both studies ranked it 6 (least likely) to induce dependence.

In total ranking score, the NIDA ranked marijuana the same as caffeine, the UCSF study ranked marijuana as less addictive than caffeine.

(source: Hilts, P. J. The New York Times, 2 August 1994, C3.)

In the Netherlands, people have been able to study the relationship between addiction and marijuana (or hashish) for about 20 years. One of the leading researchers in addiction (Dr. Janhuib Blans) estimates that the total yearly number of referrals (for cannabis addiction) from the entire Amsterdam metropolitan area is 60. Yep: 60. Of these 60, half are schizophrenic (clinically diagnosed) who try to self medicate with marijuana or hashish. He says cannabis is essentially not a problem. The problems are alcohol, heroin, cocaine, and gambling. (source: see Perrine reference at the end of this post, p.356)

The effects of long term use:

"Amotivational syndrome" (or the "pot-head" effect) needs to be considered. There is a correlation between people without motivation and drive (work ethic) and marijuana smoking. There is also a correlation with alcohol. The causality has always been assumed, but a study in Jamaica showed that ganja smoking by the working class is looked upon as a stimulus for hard work...like coca-chewing in the Andes. (source: Rubin, V.; Comitas, L. Ganja in Jamaica [in New Babylon: Studies in the Social Sciences, Vol 26], Mouton: The Hague, 1975, pp. 146-151. See also: Beaubrun, M.H., "Cannabis or Alcohol: The Jamaican Experience," Cannabis and Culture[World Anthropology, Tax, S., Ed.,] Rubin, V., Ed., Mouton: The Hague [Aldine: Chicago], 1975, pp. 485-494.) There is little evidence to support a causal link. It is more likely that a particular personality is more prone to use (actually, this is a reverse causality...you smoke pot because you have amotivational syndrome), but this is not proven either. All we have is a correlation. The same source reported a lowering of the incidence of alcoholism compared with similar populations that did not use marijuana; no evidence of marijuana as a "gateway" drug to cocaine or heroin; no correlation with marijuana use and crime; no evidence of of brain damage or chromosomal damage associated with cannabis use; and no significant psychiatric or medical isues except functional hypoxia among long-term, heavy smokers who use both tobacco and marijuana. (pp. vi, 164-166. Lots of tabular data presented in the appendix.)

"Aside from respiratory irritation, heavy marijuana use does not seem to cause other medical problems....Studies of populations that have smoked cannabis for many years do not reveal obvious illnesses that can be linked to marijuana." (source Weil, A.; Rosen, W., From Chocolate to Morphine: Everything You Need to Know about Mind-Altering Drugs, revised and updated, Houghton-Mifflin: Boston, 1993, p. 118.)

"...since the Indian Hemp Commission's report in 1894 on the effects of cannabis, vigorous efforts by scientists have repeatedly failed todemonstrate long-term harmful effects associated with cannabis use and there has been little evidence to seriously challenge the conclusions of the Hemp commission that moderate use of cannabis produces no adverse effects." (source Deahl, M., "Cannabis and Memory Loss," British Journal of Addiction, 1991, 86, 249-252.)

Respiritory function:

In 1994, Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program in California did a retrospective study on hospital visits due to respiratory conditions in marijuana smokers. In the end, they concluded that "the relative risk for the marijuana-smoking group compared with the non-smoking group was elevated but not statistically significant." (source: Polen, M. R.; Sidney, S.; Tekawa, I. S.; et al., "Health care used by frequent marijuana smokers who do not smoke tobacco," Western J. Med.,1993, 158, 596-601. See also: The Drug Policy Letter, [b]1993/b], 20, 26.)

That should give people reason to think about the dangers of marijuana. It's all backed up by peer reviewed data in reputable academic/government sources. Later I'll present some data about the use of synthetic cannabinoids. There's a lot of misinformation on here already about them not working, so I'll have to clear that up.

Much of the information comes from: Perrine, D. M., The Chemistry of Mind-Altering Drugs: HIstory, Pharmacology, and Cultural Context. American Chemical Society (Washington, DC), 1996. An excellent read for those who are interested.