Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Marijuana Reform. (an interesting article.)
- Thread starter cassanova
- Start date
I happen to agree with you. If the Federal Gubmint does end up leaving regulation/legalization up to the states it could be a long while, if ever, that the South comes around. Now, I have nothing against the South, and I have never been so I am only speculating. If the Feds flat out legalize it at the national level then there'd be no worries.
I guess my point doesn't have anything to do with altruism. What I'm trying to say is that the side FOR legalization should not be trying to prove it's goodness. It should simply focus on what's become obvious - that most, if not all of the reasons for it's criminalization have been based on false information.
Because the reasons that used to go unquestioned - gateway, negative health impact, addictiveness, etc... have all been questioned and exposed as nothing more than propaganda, that there is really no foundation for sustaining it's prohibition.
Forget trying to make it like penicillin. Forget trying to put it on par with booze or anti-depressants. It's simply harmless and not worthy of prohibition.
nothing is harmless. But between marijuana and prescription drugs, I'm pretty sure prescription drugs do more damage. and I am talking DIRECT damage, not some stoners getting high and then getting into a car crash because someone freaked out and the driver got distracted, but damage from directly consuming it.
Yes, harmless.
Explain to me how it - the normal, moderate use of the substance itself - harms. I am not an expert - but from what I know, there is very little evidence that it's normal, moderate use causes any harm.
It - like anything - can be used to excess and abused. One could ban butter or salt for those reasons.
OK - I'll change my comment to relatively harmless, or mostly benign and mostly harmless.
Ideas that start with "I'm pretty sure" tend to end poorly.
For example, prescription drugs can be taken with moderate side effects. So can marijuana (which, additionally, is a prescription drug).
The only real harm is in the smoking it part, which, as a user, I can be man enough to admit. Granted, there are other ways of ingesting it or vaporizing, but smoking it is just much more convenient.
I'll accept relatively harmless, but I think we all know at least someone with the chronic caugh. Also, define "moderate" use. I'm entirely too tired and it has been a really long time since toxicology, but it's not without any adverse side effects. If anyone can deny the munchies, keep in mind that America is entirely too fat as is.
Prescription drugs? Sure, there are KNOWN studies and doccumented data. Again, we're back to the defense that we should legalize it because other stuff is dangerous, too.
In some cases getting the munchies is a good thing. Thats why they'll prescribe it to cancer patients who take chemo treatments, as they often lose their appetite. Smoke a little herb and 'Hey, Im hunrgy!' Now there are certainly a lot of people who don't need the munchies, but I wouldnt go so far as saying thats an adverse side effect. Short term memory loss is an adverse side effect, but still, thats kind of a hard thing to study. My short term memory was shot long before I started smokin the reefer.
I'm sorry, but I'm a healthcare practicioner and cancer patients are really not the priority for legalization. It's about what YOU want, not cancer patients. Don't kid yourselves.
Don't tell me everyone at a Phish concert has cancer.
Anyone I know who has a chronic cough has it from smoking cigarettes.
I know many people who use it moderately - by moderately, I mean in small, but effective doses even daily - not horking down blunts alone three or four times a day - a puff here, a puff there - all that's required to get the job done - who have zero cough, zero diminished lung capacity, zero throat problems - no exaggeration - zero.
Anyone I know who appears to have ill health do to their lifestyle tends to abuse things like cigarettes and booze on top of abusing pot. But those I know who lead a life of moderation have zero detectable negative side effects.
Now you'll certainly find people who will say otherwise - but I believe if you probe further you'll find they indulge on a pretty significant level - one I'd consider to be excessive. I won't dance around the truth - I know. I am a VERY healthy 42 year old who is NOT unfamiliar with moderate consumption. I see my doctor regularly and I, along with many who use all things in moderation, see no harm.
I am simply speaking from a life of eyes-open, book-reading, people-talking, experience. I know that if you don't abuse it, you can use it, enjoy it and have no significant health problems. Just like coffee - just like salt - just like chocolate - just like...
I was responding to your own comment:
And the fact that getting the munchies is not really an adverse effect.
Will you deny that a cancer patient with a poor appetite cannot benefit from smoking pot?
And I don't know anyone with THE chronic cough.
Will you deny that you're using the cancer patient to get it legalized for use in people without cancer?
Not A chronic cough, THE chronic cough.
I sort of thought that's what you meant. But I come from the generation prior to the one that adopted that repurposed the word 'chronic' - so I still mistake it for it's actual meaning! LOL
And I'll take this chance to continue my soap box about harmless and moderate use. I know that my immediate peer group is not the norm - but they are the poster children for responsible use and moderation in all things. Diet, exercise, healthy choices - some are more extreme than others, but generally speaking, we all understand the difference between use and abuse. We all happen to have used or use pot in moderation and responsible.
When I talk about harm - I talk about things like the mild alcohol poisoning we all commonly accept as the quaint hangover. The gut popping and esophageal damage due to reflux from eating like a pig. The dangerous dehydration that comes from boozing hard and not drinking water. All excessive behavior, however.
If one doesn't overdo booze - no hangover - no harm. If one doesn't eat like a pig - no reflux, no harm. If one doesn't smoke excessive amounts of pot, no harm.
The munchies from a puff? That's not harmful unless you decide to pig out beyond unreasonably. While the use of pot may have preceded the pig out, it'd didn't put that Twinkie in your mouth.
The euphemistic 'chronic cough' is the equivalent of the mildly cirrhotic liver from drinking too much.
Again, if abused ANYTHING can have negative health effects. But that's not a foundation for prohibition - nor is it justification for labeling it as 'harmful'. If it can be used in moderation without harm, it's harmless.
I do know people with a classically defined chronic cough - not the euphemism - but again - they're also pack-a-day life-long smokers.
Ironic as hell that the very same government that prohibits the relatively benign, even potentially useful pot also condoned and even legislated in favor of the insidious proven addictive, known cancer causing cigarettes, isn't it?
I honestly do NOT know anyone who solely consumes pot who has 'chronic cough'. I don't deny that there are abusers of it who have it - but that's due to abuse. Something entirely in their control and not the fault of the substance itself.
I, personally, wouldn't. But if this is about using people, lets stop using cancer patients to get tobacco outlawed. That way, no one is being used.
