Jump to content
Premed 101 Forums

Marijuana


blind_synergy

Smoke?  

3 members have voted

  1. 1. Smoke?

    • I smoke regularly...
      19
    • I smoke on certain occassions, like parties...
      62
    • I've tried it or would like to...
      54
    • I've never tried it and never will...
      99


Recommended Posts

Firstly, isn't marijuana nowadays used against pain in patients? If it is so harmful, then why is it being used?

 

Secondly, the SOLE reason as to why cigarettes are so damaging to your health here and in the states is because of the **** they put in them. If you were to go down south (like South America) and buy their cigarettes or even go up north and buy Indian cigarettes, there's less damage to the system. Why? Because they don't put other chemicals in them - it's pure tobacco. I'm not saying smoking is good for you, however.

 

yep. helps a lot for cancer pts, stimulating appetite in AIDS pts, and is doing some wonder for a lot of neurological conditions like MS and Parkinson's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 243
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Firstly, isn't marijuana nowadays used against pain in patients? If it is so harmful, then why is it being used?

 

Secondly, the SOLE reason as to why cigarettes are so damaging to your health here and in the states is because of the **** they put in them. If you were to go down south (like South America) and buy their cigarettes or even go up north and buy Indian cigarettes, there's less damage to the system. Why? Because they don't put other chemicals in them - it's pure tobacco. I'm not saying smoking is good for you, however.

 

Morphine is also used against pain in patients, but try peddling that on a street corner and the feds will be on you like that! In the end, its all risk analysis, for the chronic pain sufferers, the government feels that relieving excrutiating pain is likely more beneficial for ones health than the problems/side effects the weed will bring. But for normal recreational use, medical imperative is not there, which is why people arent allowed to recreationally use morphine (the high from morphine will take weed high and beat it until its a bloody pulp)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Secondly, the SOLE reason as to why cigarettes are so damaging to your health here and in the states is because of the **** they put in them. If you were to go down south (like South America) and buy their cigarettes or even go up north and buy Indian cigarettes, there's less damage to the system. Why? Because they don't put other chemicals in them - it's pure tobacco. I'm not saying smoking is good for you, however.

 

 

This is incredibly wrong. Tobacco smoke alone has over 70 carcinogens. "Indian" cigarettes have never been shown to be a healthier alternative to smoking name brands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is incredibly wrong. Tobacco smoke alone has over 70 carcinogens. "Indian" cigarettes have never been shown to be a healthier alternative to smoking name brands.

 

clove cigarettes are slightly better, but still incredible in terms of cancer causing poteintial. By the way leapy, the only thing we "add' to tobacco up here in NA is flavouring post processing and perhaps some pesticide residue. But we use less pesticides than even for conventional crops, because all that crap inside tobacco? not even directed at us. Its directed towards killing all the bugs that might otherwise munch on it, and so of course it will also have a bad effect on humans

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morphine is also used against pain in patients, but try peddling that on a street corner and the feds will be on you like that! In the end, its all risk analysis, for the chronic pain sufferers, the government feels that relieving excrutiating pain is likely more beneficial for ones health than the problems/side effects the weed will bring. But for normal recreational use, medical imperative is not there, which is why people arent allowed to recreationally use morphine (the high from morphine will take weed high and beat it until its a bloody pulp)

 

yeah this post pretty much much sums it up for me that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have time to address your first point right now but why do you think European nations have lower rates of alcoholism and alcohol-related accidents?

 

 

They don't.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090626102332.htm

 

The study showed that Europe had a high proportion of deaths related to alcohol, with 1 in 10 deaths directly attributable (up to 15% in the former Soviet Union). Average alcohol consumption in Europe in the adult population is somewhat higher than in North America: 13 standard drinks per person per week (1 standard drink = 13.6 grams of pure ethanol and corresponds to a can of beer, one glass or wine and one shot of spirits) compared to North America's 10 to 11 standard drinks.

 

"France has the highest rate of alcoholism in the world"

http://www.alcohol-abuse-essentials.com/Alcohol_Abuse_and_World_Statistics.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah this post pretty much much sums it up for me that you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

please elaborate.. It is one of medicine's first principles to do no harm. Therefore, prescribe antibiotics when the harm of pathogenic infection > than harm of killing beneficial bacteria/antibiotic resistance. The same principle applies in prescribing weed for chronic pain patients. Benefit of reducing pain > harm of weed (although jury is out with regard to physical addiction, there is some evidence that it does cause psychological addiction)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To any one who has doubts about marijuana, I just tell them to watch The Union: The business behind getting high. Very good documentary on why marijuana is frowned upon in society. The movie is about 1h40m long, so if you have the time or just want to procrastinate, I found the link on megavideo so you can watch it online:

 

http://www.megavideo.com/?v=V0S8L2FP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is incredibly wrong. Tobacco smoke alone has over 70 carcinogens. "Indian" cigarettes have never been shown to be a healthier alternative to smoking name brands.

 

Yes. Because no research has been done to compare the 2. However, I do know about my mom who is a heavy smoker. She was smoking back home, and she NEVER, EVER coughed or had sputum. We got to Canada and she continued to smoke and she had MAJOR health issues. Because she's addicted to smoking and couldn't quit, she switched to "Indian" cigarettes and since then, she is NOT coughing and there's no sputum.

 

 

clove cigarettes are slightly better, but still incredible in terms of cancer causing poteintial. By the way leapy, the only thing we "add' to tobacco up here in NA is flavouring post processing and perhaps some pesticide residue. But we use less pesticides than even for conventional crops, because all that crap inside tobacco? not even directed at us. Its directed towards killing all the bugs that might otherwise munch on it, and so of course it will also have a bad effect on humans

 

Ummmm... have you ever looked at what stuff they put into cigarettes? I don't think so. I can say this from experience, because cigarettes that my mom smoked back in Croatia contained less **** than cigarettes that she started smoking here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

please elaborate.. It is one of medicine's first principles to do no harm. Therefore, prescribe antibiotics when the harm of pathogenic infection > than harm of killing beneficial bacteria/antibiotic resistance. The same principle applies in prescribing weed for chronic pain patients. Benefit of reducing pain > harm of weed (although jury is out with regard to physical addiction, there is some evidence that it does cause psychological addiction)

 

yes, that makes sense. That was not what I was calling you out for.

 

You were making an analogy that it wouldn't be okay to sell morphine on a street corner but they use it in a hospital, and the same should be said about marijuana.

 

They also wouldn't sell interferon, TPA, antivenom, cataract surgery on the street, but it's appropriate in the hospital.

 

my point was: your analogy was nonsensical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This website does a good job of summing up both sides of the argument:

http://www.balancedpolitics.org/marijuana_legalization.htm

 

I am pro-legalization of marijuana because it would significantly reduce gang violence and would essentially put violent gang-related pot dealers out of business. There has never been any studies that show that marijuana is more harmful than tobacco or alcohol in the long term, in fact most of the literature shows that it is much less harmful. Most importantly, I believe that it infringes on personal freedom if this drug remains illegal. The drug itself has not shown to be a danger to society, it is the violent drug culture that exists because it is illegal that is harming Canada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. Because no research has been done to compare the 2. However, I do know about my mom who is a heavy smoker. She was smoking back home, and she NEVER, EVER coughed or had sputum. We got to Canada and she continued to smoke and she had MAJOR health issues. Because she's addicted to smoking and couldn't quit, she switched to "Indian" cigarettes and since then, she is NOT coughing and there's no sputum.

 

.

 

 

If we're going to argue with anecdotes I can just as easily say that my brother smokes cigarettes that he buys from native reserves, and he coughs and has sputum all the time. Lung cancer rates on native reserves are high, it is dangerous to imply that these cigarettes are any healthier than what you buy in stores.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

good job! you answered your own questiona about why alcohol and smoking are legal!

 

but if the marijuana addicts increase, productivity will decrease too... so eventually the government will lose

 

Oh give me a break. If certain people were going to become addicted to marijuana, they would become so regardless of whether or not it is legal or not. The same applies for alcohol. If you banned it now, do you actually think that you'll see a decrease in the number of alcoholics? Please. Let's be realists here.

 

 

I'm not saying smoking marijuana is healthy for you. I am saying, however, that people are going to do it regardless of what you say and that its risk are along the lines of things already accepted in our society as acceptable. Accordingly, there is no reason to keep it illegal - except for the ignorant line of thinking that if it is illegal, somehow, people will stop using it.

 

 

If you make it legal, then all the drug dealers who are illicitly profiting off of it would lose this opportunity. As with smoking, it could be regulated so that it is harder for minors to get access to it. The government would receive tens of billions of dollars in tax revenue from its sales, and manufacturers could be regulated to watch what chemicals are placed in it.

 

I think keeping it illegal is a really archaic line of thinking. Polls have shown, anyway, that the majority of Canadians are in favour of its legalization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes, that makes sense. That was not what I was calling you out for.

 

You were making an analogy that it wouldn't be okay to sell morphine on a street corner but they use it in a hospital, and the same should be said about marijuana.

 

They also wouldn't sell interferon, TPA, antivenom, cataract surgery on the street, but it's appropriate in the hospital.

 

my point was: your analogy was nonsensical.

 

but thats exactly the situation we are in. Street weed is illegal, medical weed is not. Just like with strong painkillers, to be able to get weed legally, you have to demonstrate a legitimate reason for doing so

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh give me a break. If certain people were going to become addicted to marijuana, they would become so regardless of whether or not it is legal or not. The same applies for alcohol. If you banned it now, do you actually think that you'll see a decrease in the number of alcoholics? Please. Let's be realists here.

 

 

I'm not saying smoking marijuana is healthy for you. I am saying, however, that people are going to do it regardless of what you say and that its risk are along the lines of things already accepted in our society as acceptable. Accordingly, there is no reason to keep it illegal - except for the ignorant line of thinking that if it is illegal, somehow, people will stop using it.

 

 

If you make it legal, then all the drug dealers who are illicitly profiting off of it would lose this opportunity. As with smoking, it could be regulated so that it is harder for minors to get access to it. The government would receive tens of billions of dollars in tax revenue from its sales, and manufacturers could be regulated to watch what chemicals are placed in it.

 

I think keeping it illegal is a really archaic line of thinking. Polls have shown, anyway, that the majority of Canadians are in favour of its legalization.

 

Law is change we can believe in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but thats exactly the situation we are in. Street weed is illegal, medical weed is not. Just like with strong painkillers, to be able to get weed legally, you have to demonstrate a legitimate reason for doing so

 

it's simply because, compared to the other things that are killing us at younger ages (alcohol, cigarettes, saturated/trans fat, sodium), marijuana is NOT that bad for you. Go find the stats on how many marijuana overdoses there has ever been compared to cases of alcohol poisoning or overdosing on painkillers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but thats exactly the situation we are in. Street weed is illegal, medical weed is not. Just like with strong painkillers, to be able to get weed legally, you have to demonstrate a legitimate reason for doing so

 

Well yes, in that way there is a similarity. There are real reasons that morphine should be illegal on the street. First it is highly addictive, both physiologically and mentally. You also rapidly become tolerant, meaning you need to up your dose. This leads to very strong drug-seeking behaviour on the street, people go through serious physical withdrawal and will do almost anything to get more drugs. Also, there is a huge risk of overdose when a patient is "Self-medicating" on the street.

 

Marijuana is low risk, only very mildly addictive, there is no chance of overdose, and users rarely exhibit any form of harmful "drug seeking" behaviour like violence and theft.

 

This is why I think marijuana should be street-legal, but morphine should not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh give me a break. If certain people were going to become addicted to marijuana, they would become so regardless of whether or not it is legal or not. The same applies for alcohol. If you banned it now, do you actually think that you'll see a decrease in the number of alcoholics? Please. Let's be realists here.

 

 

I'm not saying smoking marijuana is healthy for you. I am saying, however, that people are going to do it regardless of what you say and that its risk are along the lines of things already accepted in our society as acceptable. Accordingly, there is no reason to keep it illegal - except for the ignorant line of thinking that if it is illegal, somehow, people will stop using it.

 

 

If you make it legal, then all the drug dealers who are illicitly profiting off of it would lose this opportunity. As with smoking, it could be regulated so that it is harder for minors to get access to it. The government would receive tens of billions of dollars in tax revenue from its sales, and manufacturers could be regulated to watch what chemicals are placed in it.

 

I think keeping it illegal is a really archaic line of thinking. Polls have shown, anyway, that the majority of Canadians are in favour of its legalization.

 

this wont neccesarily happen. If weed is made legal, there will almost certainly be a significant sin tax slapped on it. This will increase the cost of weed. Illegally smuggled weed (by the same gangs/venues that currently bring us weed) will still have its significant niche (as with illegally smuggled cigs) because the opportunity to make money is still there. The only choice for government would be to slash prices (as the government did during a smuggling crisis), but this promoted widespread smoking due to more affordable drugs. If the drug is legalized, the government really has no way out, same as it is now, except that police will have to do more work in tracing weed shipments to differentiate illegal, smuggled weed from legal weed, which the police dont have to do right now because if someone has a lot of weed on them, chances are its illegal).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this wont neccesarily happen. If weed is made legal, there will almost certainly be a significant sin tax slapped on it. This will increase the cost of weed. Illegally smuggled weed (by the same gangs/venues that currently bring us weed) will still have its significant niche (as with illegally smuggled cigs) because the opportunity to make money is still there. The only choice for government would be to slash prices (as the government did during a smuggling crisis), but this promoted widespread smoking due to more affordable drugs. If the drug is legalized, the government really has no way out, same as it is now, except that police will have to do more work in tracing weed shipments to differentiate illegal, smuggled weed from legal weed, which the police dont have to do right now because if someone has a lot of weed on them, chances are its illegal).

 

If I have a choice to pay 20 bucks for a gram of government grown, high caliber marketed marijuana from the cornerstore or meet Martinez and his boys down at the harbour to buy some cheaper laced goods out of the trunk of his car, I'd go to the cornerstore.

 

People don't LIKE drug dealers. They just currently don't have any other alternative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this wont neccesarily happen. If weed is made legal, there will almost certainly be a significant sin tax slapped on it. This will increase the cost of weed. Illegally smuggled weed (by the same gangs/venues that currently bring us weed) will still have its significant niche (as with illegally smuggled cigs) because the opportunity to make money is still there. The only choice for government would be to slash prices (as the government did during a smuggling crisis), but this promoted widespread smoking due to more affordable drugs. If the drug is legalized, the government really has no way out, same as it is now, except that police will have to do more work in tracing weed shipments to differentiate illegal, smuggled weed from legal weed, which the police dont have to do right now because if someone has a lot of weed on them, chances are its illegal).

 

 

Legalizing marijuana would almost certainly slash drug costs, driving drug-gangs out of business. As for an increase in use due to cost, this is unlikely because pot is already quite cheap, but I'll bite. Let's say use increases by a significant amount, say 20%. What is the harm in this? There have been no studies that show that weed is any more harmful than alcohol! In fact, go to the ER on a friday night. Ask ANY ER doc what their bigger concern is, alcohol or weed, and they will laugh in your face. Weed is acutely harmless.

 

What about lung cancer? Perhaps weed will increase lung cancer rates, which will be bad for our health care system. Problem is, we don't really have any good research to show this! In fact, check out this article:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm

Marijuana smoke might actually prevent lung cancer! Now take this with a grain of salt, because this really hasn't been shown in the population as far as I know, but there doesn't seem to be any hard evidence that marijuana is any worse for you in the long term than tobacco.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we're going to argue with anecdotes I can just as easily say that my brother smokes cigarettes that he buys from native reserves, and he coughs and has sputum all the time. Lung cancer rates on native reserves are high, it is dangerous to imply that these cigarettes are any healthier than what you buy in stores.

 

I'm not saying they're healthier. I am saying that they have less **** in them than do those cigarettes made in factories. Cigarettes and tobacco in general is bad for your health, but if you really "need" to smoke and cannot quit then might as well try to find a "healthier" alternative.

 

If we're going to go that way there is NO scientifically proven causality between active smoking and lung cancer. In fact, you can't really prove it, unless you start investigating with a group of children: half of them smoke, the other half don't and then you compare the incidence of lung cancer between the two. However, this would be unethical. And most journal articles you read will say "may" not "cause".

 

So, while I think smoking is bad for you, I believe there are many factors that may come into play, aside from tobacco, in terms of development of cancer. It's not just "smoking causes cancer". It's more like "smoking + a lot of different factors may cause cancer".

 

Then again, everything in today's society MAY cause cancer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this wont neccesarily happen. If weed is made legal, there will almost certainly be a significant sin tax slapped on it. This will increase the cost of weed. Illegally smuggled weed (by the same gangs/venues that currently bring us weed) will still have its significant niche (as with illegally smuggled cigs) because the opportunity to make money is still there. The only choice for government would be to slash prices (as the government did during a smuggling crisis), but this promoted widespread smoking due to more affordable drugs. If the drug is legalized, the government really has no way out, same as it is now, except that police will have to do more work in tracing weed shipments to differentiate illegal, smuggled weed from legal weed, which the police dont have to do right now because if someone has a lot of weed on them, chances are its illegal).

 

 

also three other reasons why that statement is just dumb

 

1) economies of scale, even with a sin tax there is no way organized crime would be able to compete with ACTUAL FARMERS, weed is exactly that, a weed, it's not hard to grow in most parts of this country. Trust me it would be cheap

 

2) unlike tobacco you can't really chain smoke joints, meaning anyone with a reasonably sized garden could grow enough for themselves with only a few well cared for plants

 

3) when was the last time someone was beat with a lead pipe over Indian cigarettes? sure some smuggling happens but it's no where near as widespread or violent as other drug trafficking

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I have a choice to pay 20 bucks for a gram of government grown, high caliber marketed marijuana from the cornerstore or meet Martinez and his boys down at the harbour to buy some cheaper laced goods out of the trunk of his car, I'd go to the cornerstore.

 

People don't LIKE drug dealers. They just currently don't have any other alternative.

 

This is true, but you wont be the one dealing with the drug dealers. Convenience store owners will be. Just as with illegally smuggled cigarettes, the major venue is not through "out of a trunk of a car", but rather through normal stores. Do you remember the SMOKING brand cigarettes littering streets a few years back? every single one of them is illegally smuggled, and sold for about half the price of duty-paid cigs in convenience stores. People do go for it because it is cheaper, and this unfair competition hurts honest stores by stealing business. Its not an economy of scale, adam, its the government tax (which makes up about 40% of current cigarette prices)

 

 

Legalizing marijuana would almost certainly slash drug costs, driving drug-gangs out of business. As for an increase in use due to cost, this is unlikely because pot is already quite cheap, but I'll bite. Let's say use increases by a significant amount, say 20%. What is the harm in this? There have been no studies that show that weed is any more harmful than alcohol! In fact, go to the ER on a friday night. Ask ANY ER doc what their bigger concern is, alcohol or weed, and they will laugh in your face. Weed is acutely harmless.

 

What about lung cancer? Perhaps weed will increase lung cancer rates, which will be bad for our health care system. Problem is, we don't really have any good research to show this! In fact, check out this article:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm

Marijuana smoke might actually prevent lung cancer! Now take this with a grain of salt, because this really hasn't been shown in the population as far as I know, but there doesn't seem to be any hard evidence that marijuana is any worse for you in the long term than tobacco.

 

I have nothing much to say to this, because your reasoning is acceptable. The only thing is that 1) we do not yet know longterm/psychological effects of weed use in humans and 2) In matters regarding health and consumption of drugs, the burden of proof has a higher threshold in order to acertain the absence of harm..

 

 

Also, if weed is made legal, I doubt that people will be inclined to grow it in their own gardens. How many people do you know who grow their own tobacco?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...