[ghporter]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

And yeah, it feels good to have that new "old style" id card that says retired on it. Now can I join the AARP?

Mine is the Worst ID Card Ever Made, but I'm really happy with it. And NO. You can't join AARP until your wife gets within a few years of being eligible and they send YOU an invitation (and you're a bit younger than her). That's how it happened to me!

[zombie punk]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

When the potential harm is as significant, as serious, and as preventable, most likely I am. Care to throw out an example?

drinking beer or eating transfats?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I know you're being sarcastic, but smoking pot while driving is almost as bad as drinking. I hope you never do that.

To say nothing of installing Ubuntu on a laptop.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by zombie punk 

drinking beer or eating transfats?

Those could be two components of obesity. Drinking beer by itself isn't a bad thing; you can even replace a lot of electrolytes from a decent beer after a lot of sweating. (Not that this is a good way to rehydrate, but once you're rehydrated, a beer isn't a bad thing.) Eating transfats isn't a horrible thing by itself either. Like drinking beer, it has a lot to do with quantity and frequency. If you drink so much beer that your recycling bin is always full of beer cans, or if your diet consists of more transfats than any other kind of fats, that could be a problem. But as I said, neither, by themselves and in moderation (or very infrequently in the case of transfats), is a truly horrible thing.

[zombie punk]

Surely the same is true of pot? Eaten or smoked responsibly and in moderation it is not particularly harmful, and indeed can be beneficial.

[Uncle Doof]

Don't bother Glenn - this guy is trolling everyone both here and in the pol lounge.

[zombie punk]

It is not trolling to suggest that pot, alcohol and transfats are not dissimilar in their potentially harmful effects.

[ghporter]

I disagree that an occasional beer is comparable to an occasional doobie. A beer won't mess up your lungs and with the exception of really heavy use, beer won't mess with your memory. Both of those are potentially harmful side effects of pot. Transfats are less obvious one way or the other, but again, with moderation they shouldn't be capable of by themselves producing long-lasting problems, problems like lung damage... Now as to how eaten canabis can affect a person, that is something else, and I don't have any real data on effects outside of the memory deficits and other things like munchies.

But if we just consider the munchies, use of pot could contribute to obesity. Not a pretty thing.

[Andy8]

It would be good for the planet if this can be grown again as a commercial crop, not just to smoke, but also to make paper, clothes and so on, as it has already been said, this stuff grows anywhere and in any soil conditions with little water and without need for pesticides.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Andy8 

It would be good for the planet if this can be grown again as a commercial crop, not just to smoke, but also to make paper, clothes and so on, as it has already been said, this stuff grows anywhere and in any soil conditions with little water and without need for pesticides.

The issue with reduction of hemp crops came from the same idiocy that made everyone think that pot was "killer weed." And as it turns out, you get better fiber from LOW THC hemp than from hemp that's been bred for higher THC levels. From what I understand, there are breeds of hemp that hardly have any THC at all in the leaves, but these also have really sturdy fibers in the stems. So it was really stupid to stop growing one of the best sources of natural fiber for ropes out of fear of people smoking it.

[Ozz_man]

ghporter is correct. Hemp has taken a very bad rap because of THC levels that are almost non existent in most variations. the US Navy still used hemp rope to this day because it is the best, but they put a chemical on it to keep it from burning now.

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

You mean hangovers? I think you have that backwards. You mean liver damage? I think you have that backwards. You mean alcohol poisoning? I think you have that backwards. You mean that you can die from it? I think you have that backwards.

Uhm... that only happens when drinking too much alcohol. Drinking a small amount can be good for you.

Smoking a small amount of marijuana is still sucking smoke into your lungs.

You mean cancer? You're thinking of cigarettes. You mean it's not good for your lungs? Bake some brownies.

Do you actually believe sucking burning marijuana leaf smoke into your lungs is fine? You can get cancer from that too.

Though I take your point about the brownies though.

[davecom]

As a student of public economics, I would just like to state that cigarette taxes do not prop up the healthcare system in the US. The taxes on them are designed to exactly offset their specific cost to it and not anything additional.

[Shaddim]

Well, there is a discrepancy somewhere. Here a pack of Camels sells for $3.50, but in NJ it goes for $6. There's got be some additional "propping" going on.

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/cigarette.htm


As for pot, I've been known to sample a bit every once in a while. *ahem* If it were decriminalized I'd likely smoke the same amount.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by hayesk 

Do you actually believe sucking burning marijuana leaf smoke into your lungs is fine? You can get cancer from that too.

Not at nearly the same rate. The additives and chemicals in cigarettes make them especially dangerous, untreated tobacco is much less harmful.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I disagree that an occasional beer is comparable to an occasional doobie. A beer won't mess up your lungs

Neither will occasionally using pot. Yes, if you suck on a raw joint 24/7, it will hurt your lungs. But I mean, smoking out of a bong every once in a while is probably a net win for your lungs if you live in Los Angeles.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

and with the exception of really heavy use, beer won't mess with your memory. Both of those are potentially harmful side effects of pot.

No, beer will just ruin your internal organs and form dependency. I guess that's better than a temporary slight degradation of memory?

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Transfats are less obvious one way or the other, but again, with moderation they shouldn't be capable of by themselves producing long-lasting problems, problems like lung damage...

What on earth? Pot in moderation is way less harmful than transfats. Transfats cause damage your heart and circulatory system. That just do — that's their biological effect. Pot can potentially damage your lungs, but even among users who take it in the most harmful ways, they usually don't do it enough to cause any serious damage. And pot actually has known positive effects for some sick people, while I don't know of any case where transfats are anything but bad.

I don't mean this to sound hostile, but you seem to be looking for reasons to condemn pot rather than actually weighing the pros and cons of the various substances discussed here.

[ghporter]

Chuck, while a lot of potential pot users would indeed embrace "moderation", legalizing it would no doubt lead to plenty of binging. And even if you smoke it with a bong, you still get "smoke" into your lungs. ANY irritant can cause lung problems.

I'm not "condemning" pot at all. I'm just pointing out that it's not a benign substance. Truly moderate consumption would still (in most cases) involve smoke going into someone's lungs, and that's ALWAYS bad for the lungs.

[zombie punk]

porter - I admire your attempt, but the facts are in on this one - pot is significantly less harmful than transfats or alcohol in moderation. Most of the harm is caused by unfiltered smoking, which can be overcome either by eating, infusing, or using a nebulizer. If you are going to condemn pot for its harmful effects (which I admit there sometimes can be) you should apply the same logic to other things, and be prepared to have a pretty long list before you get to pot.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Chuck, while a lot of potential pot users would indeed embrace "moderation", legalizing it would no doubt lead to plenty of binging. And even if you smoke it with a bong, you still get "smoke" into your lungs. ANY irritant can cause lung problems.

I'm not "condemning" pot at all. I'm just pointing out that it's not a benign substance. Truly moderate consumption would still (in most cases) involve smoke going into someone's lungs, and that's ALWAYS bad for the lungs.

It's bad for the lungs, but so is breathing in many US cities. My point is that you're listing possible downsides without considering that these are no worse and in many cases more moderate than the downsides for other things. Even bingeing on pot is less harmful than bingeing on alcohol (far less harmful — alcohol binges can kill or debilitate you, but not pot), tobacco or unhealthful food. This is even more true if the pot is ingested in a relatively safe way, such as with a vaporizer, which you aren't even considering.

If you look at any substance with the "Well, what if somebody went totally crazy and used this substance in the most negative way imaginable?" frame of mind, you could argue for anything to be outlawed. Beer, cigarettes, hamburgers, salad dressing, soy, Brazil nuts — everything has potential downsides. The downside to pot is not that bad relative to many things we allow. Like I said, I don't smoke it anymore, so I'm not trying to justify anything — it just seems irrational to ban pot given that its effects are relatively mild.

[@pplejaxkz]

One thing I hate is when people say that when the smoke pot they're a better driver. I don't care what you say it's not safe and should never be done. You may not care that much about taking your life in your own hands but you need to think of others.

[sek929]

Pot intoxicates you, therefore being intoxicated on anything isn't a good idea before driving.

OT - I'd grow fields of it and start my own brand, "sek's own"

Also, when you take tar and smoke out of the equation (Vaporizer, Cooking) THC is an incredibly benign substance worthy of no more control than a Combo Meal at Taco Bell.

Yes, extreme use over decades has been shown to decrease mental acuity, but the studies on short-term side effects show up all the same...nothing. Start abusing booze and see how far you can make it before your life becomes affected.

Of course I am obligated to beat a dead horse into pulp. I can go out right now, and kill myself in a couple of hours with booze, maybe several hours. Try that with weed and you'll wake up a little groggy in the morning hugging a container of Pub Mix.

Now if you excuse me, I'm off to break the law in my own home while playing video games because the g/f is away tonight. Oh noes!! Throw me in jail!

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Also, when you take tar and smoke out of the equation (Vaporizer, Cooking) THC is an incredibly benign substance worthy of no more control than a Combo Meal at Taco Bell.

I picked up a Volcano vaporizer (classic) not too long ago, and I have to say it's an amazing product. All the benefit, even more benefit actually, without any of the harmful byproducts. I've found that "herbs" taste better and produce more mellow and lasting "effects". Not to mention it saves you money, since you get quite a bit more out of your sticky, and there's virtually no stink.

Plus, it looks really cool.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by zombie punk 

porter - I admire your attempt, but the facts are in on this one - pot is significantly less harmful than transfats or alcohol in moderation. Most of the harm is caused by unfiltered smoking, which can be overcome either by eating, infusing, or using a nebulizer. If you are going to condemn pot for its harmful effects (which I admit there sometimes can be) you should apply the same logic to other things, and be prepared to have a pretty long list before you get to pot.

Where did I "condemn" anything? I said that smoking pot had bad effects on lungs, not that "using" pot was horrible. Look closely: I even POINTEDLY said that eating it was a different matter altogether. I was talking about smoking, not any other method of use.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

It's bad for the lungs, but so is breathing in many US cities. My point is that you're listing possible downsides without considering that these are no worse and in many cases more moderate than the downsides for other things. Even bingeing on pot is less harmful than bingeing on alcohol (far less harmful — alcohol binges can kill or debilitate you, but not pot), tobacco or unhealthful food. This is even more true if the pot is ingested in a relatively safe way, such as with a vaporizer, which you aren't even considering.

If you look at any substance with the "Well, what if somebody went totally crazy and used this substance in the most negative way imaginable?" frame of mind, you could argue for anything to be outlawed. Beer, cigarettes, hamburgers, salad dressing, soy, Brazil nuts — everything has potential downsides. The downside to pot is not that bad relative to many things we allow. Like I said, I don't smoke it anymore, so I'm not trying to justify anything — it just seems irrational to ban pot given that its effects are relatively mild.

I didn't know people used vaporizers or nebulizers to ingest pot... never, ever occurred to me. On the other hand, one can avoid the negative effects of "bad air days" in those cities with really bad air by staying indoors, so that's an avoidable risk, where actively smoking anything is obviously a sought-out risk.

I hadn't known how very creative pot users were... Nebulizers? Wow!

[zombie punk]

You should try them - they are very cool!

[voodoo]

If it were legal I still wouldn't smoke it. Alcohol is more than enough for me thanks.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I know you're being sarcastic, but smoking pot while driving is almost as bad as drinking. I hope you never do that.

Based on experience, I'd say worse. Scary

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by lavar78 

No, I worded it awkwardly. The nasty side effect to smoking is the smoke itself. I hate smoke.

You are correct. Smoke is nasty. The smoke itself has a more pleasant smell than cigarette smoke though. I just came home from a festival and nearly choked on all the smoke

[- - e r i k - -]

It is also good to keep in mind that harm-minimisation is a complex issue. You should all familiarise yourself with this study:

Development of a rational scale to asses the harm of drugs

where this handy graph comes from:

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

It is also good to keep in mind that harm-minimisation is a complex issue. You should all familiarise yourself with this study:

Development of a rational scale to asses the harm of drugs

where this handy graph comes from:

When are laypeople ever going to realize that they are incapable to understand and unqualified to interpret scientific articles. Not anytime soon apparently.

This study builds on parameters vaguely described as physical harm, dependence and social harms. While such parameters could give a non-quantitative list from the least harmful to the most, a stupid graph like that can be easily dismissed.

The values given to each parameter are completely arbitrary and therefore irrelevant. The most funny thing (as in ha ha) about this Powerpoint 'science' article is the very end:

Conflict of interest statement
We declare that we have no conflict of interest.

Indeed. That may be true, or not, but it doesn't make their stupid graphs any more valid. Gave me a laugh though.

[lavar78]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

You are correct. Smoke is nasty. The smoke itself has a more pleasant smell than cigarette smoke though. I just came home from a festival and nearly choked on all the smoke

Agreed. Cigarettes suck.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

It is also good to keep in mind that harm-minimisation is a complex issue.

So was that study commissioned by the section of the government which wants weed reclassified as a Class B or was it be the section which wants it to remain a Class C?

Or was it commissioned by the sector of society who've been trying for years to demonise alcohol and tobacco?

And let's look closer at it.
"A Rational Scale To Assess The Harm Of Drugs Of Potential Misuse".

Note how cannabis, tobacco and alcohol are all classed as able to be misused more than GHB. Really? I've never known anyone be date raped after being slipped a Benson and Hedges.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by lavar78 

Agreed. Cigarettes suck.

Yeah, you're doing it wrong. You're supposed to suck on them, not let them do the sucking themselves.

[lavar78]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

Yeah, you're doing it wrong. You're supposed to suck on them, not let them do the sucking themselves.

No, you're supposed to just leave them alone. Those things are gross.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

The values given to each parameter are completely arbitrary and therefore irrelevant. The most funny thing (as in ha ha) about this Powerpoint 'science' article i...

Powerpoint science article? This was published in The Lancet, one of the oldest and certainly one of the most respected peer-reviewed medical journals in the world.

It is a perfectly valid attempt at quantitating a complex issue. But please go ahead and knee-jerk in place of real criticism. It's what you are best at after all.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

So was that study commissioned by the section of the government which wants weed reclassified as a Class B or was it be the section which wants it to remain a Class C?

Or was it commissioned by the sector of society who've been trying for years to demonise alcohol and tobacco?

Neither. It was an independent study that came about from scientists observing a clearly broken and arbitrary government drug classification scheme. In this case the British one:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6474053.stm?ls

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

And let's look closer at it.
"A Rational Scale To Assess The Harm Of Drugs Of Potential Misuse".

Note how cannabis, tobacco and alcohol are all classed as able to be misused more than GHB. Really? I've never known anyone be date raped after being slipped a Benson and Hedges.

The study place less importance on short time criminal misuse. I can slip you a whole lot of legal drugs that would be more effective than GHB if I wanted to rape you.

Originally Posted by BBC

The researchers said the current ABC system was too arbitrary, and failed to give specific information about the relative risks of each drug.

It also gave too much importance to unusual reactions, which would only affect a tiny number of users.