Article: Marijuana: Legal Doesn't Mean Right

[Tim_D]

No kidding!!! I do not use pot!!!

You have admitted that you have in the past and you state that you would in order to alleviate your current anxieties. You also state that if we haven’t tried it, then we really shouldn’t be speaking against it. If it takes pot to cure your problems, then you are probably looking in the wrong direction. On one hand you are an advocate of the potential uses for pot, including your own issues, while also trying to draw an analogy to alcohol and then on the other hand state that you do not use it. If pot is such a terrific cure all, then why do you still have the problems that you do?

 

[Tim_D]

There is nothing wrong with using a drug if it works for you…there is absolutely nothing wrong with using them everyday for the rest of your life.

‘Addiction’ is the key word here…

Using something “everyday for the rest of you life” because you like the way it makes you feel is a textbook definition of “addiction.”

… its not always a bad thing… whats wrong with SAFELY using these or even being ‘addicted’ to them?

Eric Clapton was addicted to drugs for 20 years until he was finally able to kick his habit. He doesn’t nearly have such a rosy nonchalant attitude as you do about drug addiction. What’s wrong with addiction? Ask the millions of people who are trying to kick it.

 

[Rosebud77]

**Using something “everyday for the rest of you life” because you like the way it makes you feel is a textbook definition of “addiction.”

**

Eric Clapton was addicted to drugs for 20 years until he was finally able to kick his habit. He doesn’t nearly have such a rosy nonchalant attitude as you do about drug addiction. What’s wrong with addiction? Ask the millions of people who are trying to kick it.

I think the point, or part of it, he was making, was eg blood pressure pills without which daily there would be danger,

But yes I agree with you. Although that will not stop m taking Tylex tonight for pain.

 

[Tim_D]

I think the point, or part of it, he was making, was eg blood pressure pills without which daily there would be danger,

But yes I agree with you. Although that will not stop m taking Tylex tonight for pain.

One doesn’t consider the use of blood pressure medicine to be an addiction. He says "whats wrong with SAFELY using these (pain killers) or even being ‘addicted’ to them?" in the context of making one “feel” better. An addiction to any substance that makes one feel better and that must be continued in order to continue that feeling is not a good thing. That poster is trying to make the argument that sometimes addictions aren’t bad. Nonsense.

 

[Theo520]

Now you’re talking about overindulging. It does not take a genius to say that such use will likely lead to negative outcomes. But even the overindulging of plain water will have negative outcomes. Again, legalizing marijuana will likely have some positive effects and some negative effects.

Stop resorting to Red Herrings, < 0.01% of population overindulges in water.

So you agree people who abstain completely are way healthier than regular users.

Sounds like we should encourage abstinence, not mainstream drugs.

 

[Lion_IRC]

…I asked because idiomatically, the phrase “weed takers” is nonsensical. People who have used marijuana or have been around anyone who’s used it wouldn’t use this phrase. People don’t “take weed.” Forgive me but it’s a dead giveaway that someone is wholly unfamiliar with the people about whom they’re speaking.

Oh…OK. Sorry. Now I understand you thanks.

You are pointing out that ‘weed takers’ don’t refer to other ‘weed takers’ as ‘weed takers’.
In that regards it’s perfectly understandable that zamyrabyrd is “unfamiliar” with the correct vernacular these people use.

I must confess, I too am ‘wholly unfamiliar’.

…The myth of marijuana being a gateway drug centers on the fact that many hardcore drug users have also used marijuana.

I don’t think its a “myth”.

…There is correlation between the two, then, but causation has never been proven.

Why is “causation” even in question?

It’s kind of irrelevent when we are talking about addiction and the limbic system’s response to an artificial ‘high’.

Do you accept the science which shows what happens to the dopamine receptors in drug users - leading them to need stronger doses to achieve the same ‘high’?

It’s no coincidence that the marijuana being sold today has three times more THC than twenty years ago.

To deny the “gateway” effect is tantamount to claiming that a weed taker experiences the exact same high after twenty years as they dd the first time they took their first puff.

 

[gracepoole]

Oh…OK. Sorry. Now I understand you thanks.

You are pointing out that ‘weed takers’ don’t refer to other ‘weed takers’ as ‘weed takers’.
In that regards it’s perfectly understandable that zamyrabyrd is “unfamiliar” with the correct vernacular these people use.

I must confess, I too am ‘wholly unfamiliar’.

I think this shifts how one thinks about this topic.

Why is “causation” even in question?

Because it hasn’t been proven. The potency of marijuana isn’t in question. It just hasn’t been demonstrated that its potency has led marijuana users to become hardcore drug users. There’s an assumption here that marijuana users will get bored with the high it provides and will seek something more extreme. But that’s an assumption only. Not everyone who drinks beer moves on to moonshine.

 

[Robert_Sock]

You have admitted that you have in the past and you state that you would in order to alleviate your current anxieties. You also state that if we haven’t tried it, then we really shouldn’t be speaking against it. If it takes pot to cure your problems, then you are probably looking in the wrong direction. On one hand you are an advocate of the potential uses for pot, including your own issues, while also trying to draw an analogy to alcohol and then on the other hand state that you do not use it. If pot is such a terrific cure all, then why do you still have the problems that you do?

My position is that marijuana has BOTH positive and negative effects and that they both need to be considered when the issue of legalization arises.

Yes, I have used marijuana during several time periods during my life, but I doubt that I’ll ever go back to it unless my severe panic attacks return.

 

[Rosebud77]

One doesn’t consider the use of blood pressure medicine to be an addiction. He says "whats wrong with SAFELY using these (pain killers) or even being ‘addicted’ to them?" in the context of making one “feel” better. An addiction to any substance that makes one feel better and that must be continued in order to continue that feeling is not a good thing. That poster is trying to make the argument that sometimes addictions aren’t bad. Nonsense.

Depends what you mean by “feeling better”. I feel better when in less pain. So yes painkillers must be continued and thus your theory needs a more compassionate extension. The idea re addiction is a side effect of many meds. Inevitable.

 

[Rosebud77]

It’s kind of irrelevent when we are talking about addiction and the limbic system’s response to an artificial ‘high’.

Do you accept the science which shows what happens to the dopamine receptors in drug users - leading them to need stronger doses to achieve the same ‘high’?

It’s no coincidence that the marijuana being sold today has three times more THC than twenty years ago.

To deny the “gateway” effect is tantamount to claiming that a weed taker experiences the exact same high after twenty years as they dd the first time they took their first puff.

Was hoping someone would mention this…

 

[mikekle]

Using something “everyday for the rest of you life” because you like the way it makes you feel is a textbook definition of “addiction.”

.

How do you explain the fact as recently as early 2000s up to about 2011, many doctors were doling out powerful painkillers to just about anyone with any kind of minor pain, I believe a study found during this time, enough prescriptions were written for Oxycodone that every single person on the planet could have been given their own bottle of pills.

A person would walk into an ER complaining of a twisted ankle, toothache, etc and it was almost the norm for them to get some kind of opiate painkiller…but then all the sudden, when Govt/ DEA started getting involved, this was stopped and everyone was told to just deal with the pain or find other ways to relieve it?? Today its almost impossible to get prescription for even the mild painkillers, like Vicodin! (this also brings up something mysterious, the big pharmaceutical companies, they just accepted the new Govt regulations resulting in a drastic decrease in their products being prescribed?..yeah, something fishy about that in itself!!)

My point is, the medical professionals thought they were right in doing this just about 10 yrs ago, how do we know what they are telling us now is correct when they admit they were so wrong then?

And really, why they think this was wrong is debatable, its seems like its only ‘wrong’ because the DEA and heavy monitoring of doctors says its wrong, and this was all done to address a small percentage of users who were abusing these drugs, majority of people did not become a problem for them.

 

[Lion_IRC]

@Rosebud77
Yeah, me too.
It kinda got lost in the kerfuffle about the term “weed takers”.

I’m not sure why there was so much "pushback’ when it seems cllear to me that addictive narcotics are a gateway - a gateway to ADDICTION.

 

[Rosebud77]

@Rosebud77
Yeah, me too.
It kinda got lost in the kerfuffle about the term “weed takers”.

I’m not sure why there was so much "pushback’ when it seems cllear to me that addictive narcotics are a gateway - a gateway to ADDICTION.

Because no one likes being called an ADDICT is why… truth can hurt.

 

[Lion_IRC]

That may be so.

Of course nobody was actually being called an addict. The point was that the undeniably addictive nature of these narcotics makes taking them a gateway to just that - addiction.

And despite gracepooles’ protestations about there being no proven[sup]TM[/sup] link, nobody was claiming that correlation equals causation or that the term ‘gateway drug’ necessarily implies a causal link between taking weed and a progression onwards to harder drugs.

How could we scientifically prove causation from anecdotal and subjective evidence like this;

Subject : …oh yeah well I started when I was 15, smoking cigarettes, you know…peer pressure and all that. Then I got offered some weed at a party. And by the time I was 20 I was into it on a daily basis. After I while I started experimenting with hash oil and blends. At 28 I tried my first cocaine and my circle of friends started to change…life moved on and soon I was on heroin. After that things got a little bit messed up…it’s hard to remember how or why but I met a dealer who got me some ice and stuff sort of got out of control

Interviewer : What do you think caused you to progress from marijuana to crystal meth?

Subject : …wut ?

 

[gracepoole]

How could we scientifically prove causation from anecdotal and subjective evidence like this;

Subject : …oh yeah well I started when I was 15, smoking cigarettes, you know…peer pressure and all that. Then I got offered some weed at a party. And by the time I was 20 I was into it on a daily basis. After I while I started experimenting with hash oil and blends. At 28 I tried my first cocaine and my circle of friends started to change…life moved on and soon I was on heroin. After that things got a little bit messed up…it’s hard to remember how or why but I met a dealer who got me some ice and stuff sort of got out of control

Interviewer : What do you think caused you to progress from marijuana to crystal meth?

Subject : …wut ?

I think I’m confused. Are you saying here that it would be impossible to ever prove causation even if it exists?

 

[Robert_Sock]

I think I’m confused. Are you saying here that it would be impossible to ever prove causation even if it exists?

Normally you cannot suggest causality from a correlation, especially a small correlation. In order to suggest causality here, you would need to select a random group of teen, divide them randomly into an experimental group and a control group. The experimental group would then be given marijuana and both groups would then be followed into adulthood and the experimenters would have to determine how many from each group went on to hard drugs. The catch is that such a study would be unethical.

Believe it or not, we do not really know if smoking cigarettes cause cancer for the same reason. A true experimental design was never done.

 

[hu324b]

That may be so.

Of course nobody was actually being called an addict. The point was that the undeniably addictive nature of these narcotics makes taking them a gateway to just that - addiction.

And despite gracepooles’ protestations about there being no proven[sup]TM[/sup] link, nobody was claiming that correlation equals causation or that the term ‘gateway drug’ necessarily implies a causal link between taking weed and a progression onwards to harder drugs.

How could we scientifically prove causation from anecdotal and subjective evidence like this;

Subject : …oh yeah well I started when I was 15, smoking cigarettes, you know…peer pressure and all that. Then I got offered some weed at a party. And by the time I was 20 I was into it on a daily basis. After I while I started experimenting with hash oil and blends. At 28 I tried my first cocaine and my circle of friends started to change…life moved on and soon I was on heroin. After that things got a little bit messed up…it’s hard to remember how or why but I met a dealer who got me some ice and stuff sort of got out of control

Interviewer : What do you think caused you to progress from marijuana to crystal meth?

Subject : …wut ?

Isn’t if funny the interviewer skipped right past cigarettes and right to marijuana and blamed it on that - it starts with cigarettes - a horrible addiction - and moves on from there for most people. How can they just skip over one of the most horrible addictions in the world next to alcohol like either of these two substances did not have anything to do with it.

It should all be legalized and the emphasis and money should be on helping people who are addicted and educating our youth - what is the point of putting a user in Jail - how does that help. Law enforcement is addicted to the money as much as the dealers and don’t want it legalized because the huge amounts of money would be shifted away from them to treatment instead of incarceration.The current way we do thing has failed - everything is done selfishly and not to benefit of the user to help them who are the one’s who really needs our help. Until this changes in North America we will not have progress on this subject - same old same old.
People will always abuse drugs but throwing them all in jail has never helped - controlling it is a better strategy where we can identify the users and offer the help required - and safer for the user - I know some won’t like it but what if it was your son or daughter or mother or father - then you will understand

 

[on_the_hill]

How do you explain the fact as recently as early 2000s up to about 2011, many doctors were doling out powerful painkillers to just about anyone with any kind of minor pain, I believe a study found during this time, enough prescriptions were written for Oxycodone that every single person on the planet could have been given their own bottle of pills.

Because…and this is documented and has been used as evidence in courtrooms across the country…the manufacturers of opioid pain killers LIED about the negative effects. THEY LIED. They came up with the term “pseudo-addicted”, meaning that opioid addicts weren’t *truly *addicted. They traveled around the country and paid doctors to prescribe opioids.

I personally, in real life, met one of the doctors who was found by a court of law to have been doing these things. His name is a matter of public record.

The reason there was a surge in opioid Rx in the 1990s and early 2000s was because this is when the manufacturers were peddling opioids. Prior to this, they were mostly reserved for terminally ill cancer patients. This is when a doctor came out with research that concluded that opioids were safe and effective for all pain. He has since rescinded his findings and says he was WRONG about the safety and efficacy of the drugs.

Opioids work very well for terminally ill cancer patients. They do not work for many other types of pain. I actually met, in real life, a medical researcher who works for a drug manufacturer that makes opioids and she told me directly that opioids are **not **effective for most types of pain.

 

[on_the_hill]

Because no one likes being called an ADDICT is why… truth can hurt.

I’ve met addicts, and they quite frankly use the term addict to describe themselves.

 

[on_the_hill]

The myth of marijuana being a gateway drug centers on the fact that many hardcore drug users have also used marijuana.

It probably has to do with a few things. First, marijuana is illegal. Therefore, it follows that if you want to buy marijuana, you’d have to buy it from someone who is engaged in illegal activity. Cocaine and heroin are illegal. Therefore, it’s likely that the same person who deals marijuana would also deal other illegal drugs.

Second, addiction is being shown to have a strong connection to activity in the brain that regulates mood, pleasure, and even survival. What it boils down to is that some people will self-medicate, and if you are someone predisposed to self-medication, then there would easily be a gateway between marijuana and other drugs–however if you’re NOT someone with that predisposition, you’re probably a lot less likely to have that gateway.