Re: Drug Laws Kill - Proof

[Guest guest]

Not pretentious. An assujmption only on your part. In fact, in my original post, i gave the translation, source of quote, and a bit of history. It appears the paragraph was deleted (an occasional problem with Eudora).

Actually, as one with an abiding interest in drug policy I'd be interested in the deleted information. Could you please repost it?

And I didn't say you were pretentious. I explained why I felt it was and thus did not *myself post in French, except on the very rare occasion. I believe thre last time I did so was in response to some egotistical jerk in a political debate forum who posted a paragraph of Nietszche, in German, without translation.

I responded with: "La plume de ma tante est sur le bureau*." And attributed it to Berlitz. He got the point.

*My aunt's pen is on the desk.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

Not pretentious. An assujmption only on your part. In fact, in my original post, i gave the translation, source of quote, and a bit of history. It appears the paragraph was deleted (an occasional problem with Eudora).

Actually, as one with an abiding interest in drug policy I'd be interested in the deleted information. Could you please repost it?

And I didn't say you were pretentious. I explained why I felt it was and thus did not *myself post in French, except on the very rare occasion. I believe thre last time I did so was in response to some egotistical jerk in a political debate forum who posted a paragraph of Nietszche, in German, without translation.

I responded with: "La plume de ma tante est sur le bureau*." And attributed it to Berlitz. He got the point.

*My aunt's pen is on the desk.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

You are confusing the the method of introduction (inhaling) with the substance. The substance, at some dose,is toxic

No, I am not. It would also be virtually impossible to consume enough pot brownies to overdose. One would puke from the sugar, first. But since inhalation is far and away the most common delivery vehicle, I adressed that route of intake.

In my lengthy experience with online discussion and debate, I have learned that, as is true of life in general, to promptly admit it when one is wrong establishes credibility. To my annoyance with myself, my first posting on this elist concerened an area of civil law in which I have more than a nodding acquantance, but not a lot more.

What I originally stated was largely incorrect. Not only did I admit it, I posted an authority demonstrating the extent of my error, thus confirming the validity of the authority relied upon by the party who correctly challenged my statements.

Credibility is not established by offering arbitrary , ad hominem, and poisoning the well attacks on supporting authorities. Further, when someone makes a fact claim, and then supports it with uncontradicted data, it is best to concede their position. It leaves one free to advocate credibly on another day.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

You are confusing the the method of introduction (inhaling) with the substance. The substance, at some dose,is toxic

No, I am not. It would also be virtually impossible to consume enough pot brownies to overdose. One would puke from the sugar, first. But since inhalation is far and away the most common delivery vehicle, I adressed that route of intake.

In my lengthy experience with online discussion and debate, I have learned that, as is true of life in general, to promptly admit it when one is wrong establishes credibility. To my annoyance with myself, my first posting on this elist concerened an area of civil law in which I have more than a nodding acquantance, but not a lot more.

What I originally stated was largely incorrect. Not only did I admit it, I posted an authority demonstrating the extent of my error, thus confirming the validity of the authority relied upon by the party who correctly challenged my statements.

Credibility is not established by offering arbitrary , ad hominem, and poisoning the well attacks on supporting authorities. Further, when someone makes a fact claim, and then supports it with uncontradicted data, it is best to concede their position. It leaves one free to advocate credibly on another day.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

You are confusing the the method of introduction (inhaling) with the substance. The substance, at some dose,is toxic

No, I am not. It would also be virtually impossible to consume enough pot brownies to overdose. One would puke from the sugar, first. But since inhalation is far and away the most common delivery vehicle, I adressed that route of intake.

In my lengthy experience with online discussion and debate, I have learned that, as is true of life in general, to promptly admit it when one is wrong establishes credibility. To my annoyance with myself, my first posting on this elist concerened an area of civil law in which I have more than a nodding acquantance, but not a lot more.

What I originally stated was largely incorrect. Not only did I admit it, I posted an authority demonstrating the extent of my error, thus confirming the validity of the authority relied upon by the party who correctly challenged my statements.

Credibility is not established by offering arbitrary , ad hominem, and poisoning the well attacks on supporting authorities. Further, when someone makes a fact claim, and then supports it with uncontradicted data, it is best to concede their position. It leaves one free to advocate credibly on another day.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

>You seem not to have been reading what Mona is posting. The ALJ found

>that a person would have to ingest about 1,500 lbs. of MJ within a

>fifteen minute period before toxicity could reach a lethal level.

The operative word was toxic, not lethal. Reaching a toxic level. And for every substance there is a toxic level. PERIOD. Anyother implications are beyond the scope of the statement. Morbidity,not necessarily mortality.

All right, that's it. It should now be clear to everyone that not only do you employ bait and switch, shifting sands (and stands) argumentation, you will deny someone said the "sky is blue" if what they literally wrote was "climactic variables result in the usual phenomenon of a blue sky." If that is how you commonly debate/discuss a topic, it simply isn't worth having an exchange with you.

MJ cannot reach lethal levels of toxicity, which is the claim the ALJ's point was supporting. It is also almost impossible to reach ANY level of toxicity to produce morbidity. Are you ever going to concede that I demonstrated my claims about marijuana?

Or are you going to continue to treat the list to increasingly petty and petulant, disingenuous nit-picking?

--Mona--

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

>You seem not to have been reading what Mona is posting. The ALJ found

>that a person would have to ingest about 1,500 lbs. of MJ within a

>fifteen minute period before toxicity could reach a lethal level.

The operative word was toxic, not lethal. Reaching a toxic level. And for every substance there is a toxic level. PERIOD. Anyother implications are beyond the scope of the statement. Morbidity,not necessarily mortality.

All right, that's it. It should now be clear to everyone that not only do you employ bait and switch, shifting sands (and stands) argumentation, you will deny someone said the "sky is blue" if what they literally wrote was "climactic variables result in the usual phenomenon of a blue sky." If that is how you commonly debate/discuss a topic, it simply isn't worth having an exchange with you.

MJ cannot reach lethal levels of toxicity, which is the claim the ALJ's point was supporting. It is also almost impossible to reach ANY level of toxicity to produce morbidity. Are you ever going to concede that I demonstrated my claims about marijuana?

Or are you going to continue to treat the list to increasingly petty and petulant, disingenuous nit-picking?

--Mona--

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

>You seem not to have been reading what Mona is posting. The ALJ found

>that a person would have to ingest about 1,500 lbs. of MJ within a

>fifteen minute period before toxicity could reach a lethal level.

The operative word was toxic, not lethal. Reaching a toxic level. And for every substance there is a toxic level. PERIOD. Anyother implications are beyond the scope of the statement. Morbidity,not necessarily mortality.

All right, that's it. It should now be clear to everyone that not only do you employ bait and switch, shifting sands (and stands) argumentation, you will deny someone said the "sky is blue" if what they literally wrote was "climactic variables result in the usual phenomenon of a blue sky." If that is how you commonly debate/discuss a topic, it simply isn't worth having an exchange with you.

MJ cannot reach lethal levels of toxicity, which is the claim the ALJ's point was supporting. It is also almost impossible to reach ANY level of toxicity to produce morbidity. Are you ever going to concede that I demonstrated my claims about marijuana?

Or are you going to continue to treat the list to increasingly petty and petulant, disingenuous nit-picking?

--Mona--

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

I was surprised to see Weil's name there as "expert" witness. And my clarification as to why: he has left EBM, is in the arena of CAM (mostly anecdotal).

Are you also surprised that the World Health Organization cites him as a scientific authority on the effects of cannabis use?

[Guest guest]

I was surprised to see Weil's name there as "expert" witness. And my clarification as to why: he has left EBM, is in the arena of CAM (mostly anecdotal).

Are you also surprised that the World Health Organization cites him as a scientific authority on the effects of cannabis use?

[Guest guest]

I was surprised to see Weil's name there as "expert" witness. And my clarification as to why: he has left EBM, is in the arena of CAM (mostly anecdotal).

Are you also surprised that the World Health Organization cites him as a scientific authority on the effects of cannabis use?

[Guest guest]

You seem not to have been reading what Mona is posting. The ALJ found

that a person would have to ingest about 1,500 lbs. of MJ within a

fifteen minute period before toxicity could reach a lethal level.

That suggests to me that ingesting a lethal dose would be humanly

impossible. Why continue to assert that in principle it can be lethal

when in practice it cannot?

As to the legalization issue being a " straw man " : didn't this whole

thread begin with your asking for evidence that MJ was " the most

benign substance " that humans could ingest, which was coupled with an

assertion that there was no reason it should not be legal?

I have found what Mona posted very interesting, and yet you seem to be

struggling to find reasons not to believe what she's posted.

>

> >Well, no, it is not true that everything is poison, nothing is

poison, and

> >it is all a matter of dose. It is humanly impossible to inhale a

toxic dose

> >of cannabis. Asprin certainly *can be lethal, and kills some 2000

Americans

> >each year.

>

> You are confusing the the method of introduction (inhaling) with the

> substance. The substance, at some dose,is toxic.

>

> " The dose makes the poison " remains a guiding principle of

toxicology today.

>

> That aspirin can be lethal is true, but hardly supports the

precedent

> assertion. At a toxic dose, lethal yes; below a toxic dose, lethal

no.

[Guest guest]

I certainly agree that lethal does not equal toxic nor toxic lethal.

In fact, I was responding to your last statement, " That aspirin can be

lethal is true, but hardly supports the precedent assertion. At a

toxic dose, lethal yes;

below a toxic dose, lethal no. " This suggests that

you were in fact equating the two concepts, and morbidity and

mortality. Hence my response.

It seems to me, though I am certainly not a scientist, that judging

when a " toxic " level of any substance has been reached is virtually

impossible, hence the types of measurements of therapeutic value that

the ALJ described. In effect, the use of any drug for medicinal

purposes is based on a balance between the risk of some toxicity that

will create side effects and the benefit that the patient may receive.

Now don't say again that we're not talking about medical uses, because

it is precisely when drugs are evaluated for medical uses that the

kind of evidence you are asking for is generated. And by those

standards, the toxicity of MJ is so low that it might as well not

exist.

You say that by manufacturing the active ingredient in MJ, a toxic

level might be attainable. We have never been talking about anything

but the plant, so far as I know, and I would be one of the first to

concede that highly concentrating the active ingredient would probably

make highly toxic, perhaps even lethal, doses possible. But we were

not talking about THC.

I am not going to wade through your posts trying to find statements

contradictory to what you now assert, but I will point out that you

should be a little more careful in your own communications, such as

the aspirin comment cited above (a direct cut-and-paste) if you want

a) to be taken seriously; to criticize others for their

carelessness.

I'm trying to be very courteous here, because I am trying to

suppress my visceral response to your posts.

> >You seem not to have been reading what Mona is posting. The ALJ

found

> >that a person would have to ingest about 1,500 lbs. of MJ within a

> >fifteen minute period before toxicity could reach a lethal level.

>

> The operative word was toxic, not lethal. Reaching a toxic level.

And for

> every substance there is a toxic level. PERIOD. Anyother

implications are

> beyond the scope of the statement. Morbidity,not necessarily

mortality.

>

> >

> >That suggests to me that ingesting a lethal dose would be humanly

> >impossible. Why continue to assert that in principle it can be

lethal

> >when in practice it cannot?

>

> I never asserted that. You have changed the words. Toxic does not

equal lethal.

>

> With the manufacturing of the active ingredient, toxic levels may be

possible.

>

>

> >As to the legalization issue being a " straw man " : didn't this

whole

> >thread begin with your asking for evidence that MJ was " the most

> >benign substance " that humans could ingest, which was coupled with

an

> >assertion that there was no reason it should not be legal?

>

> Not at all. It began with her comment that marijuana was safer than

> alcohol. i asked for the evidence (which I clarified as the

studies). That

> is all I asked for..and all I was interested in. I never made any

statement

> about reasons for legalities; nor about marijuana being less safe

than

> alcohol.

>

> The " most benign " statement came later..is a different issue from

the

> above. Most benign is quite an assertion..I was skeptical (of MOST

benign,

> not marijuana being benign, quite a different meaning.)

>

> >I have found what Mona posted very interesting, and yet you seem to

be

> >struggling to find reasons not to believe what she's posted.

>

> Oh it was interesting. But I asked (and clarified in a pvt post)

exactly

> what I was looking for (studies..epidemiological, cohort; or

double-blind

> placebo). If she wa snot privy to any,fine. But that has never been

stated.

> What she posted did not fit what i was asking for. And most of the

article

> concerned medicinal use. Interesting, yes. I have no problem

believing it.

> It was of little use to me.

>

> I was surprised to see Weil's name there as " expert " witness. And my

> clarification as to why: he has left EBM, is in the arena of CAM

(mostly

> anecdotal).

[Guest guest]

I certainly agree that lethal does not equal toxic nor toxic lethal.

In fact, I was responding to your last statement, " That aspirin can be

lethal is true, but hardly supports the precedent assertion. At a

toxic dose, lethal yes;

below a toxic dose, lethal no. " This suggests that

you were in fact equating the two concepts, and morbidity and

mortality. Hence my response.

It seems to me, though I am certainly not a scientist, that judging

when a " toxic " level of any substance has been reached is virtually

impossible, hence the types of measurements of therapeutic value that

the ALJ described. In effect, the use of any drug for medicinal

purposes is based on a balance between the risk of some toxicity that

will create side effects and the benefit that the patient may receive.

Now don't say again that we're not talking about medical uses, because

it is precisely when drugs are evaluated for medical uses that the

kind of evidence you are asking for is generated. And by those

standards, the toxicity of MJ is so low that it might as well not

exist.

You say that by manufacturing the active ingredient in MJ, a toxic

level might be attainable. We have never been talking about anything

but the plant, so far as I know, and I would be one of the first to

concede that highly concentrating the active ingredient would probably

make highly toxic, perhaps even lethal, doses possible. But we were

not talking about THC.

I am not going to wade through your posts trying to find statements

contradictory to what you now assert, but I will point out that you

should be a little more careful in your own communications, such as

the aspirin comment cited above (a direct cut-and-paste) if you want

a) to be taken seriously; to criticize others for their

carelessness.

I'm trying to be very courteous here, because I am trying to

suppress my visceral response to your posts.

> >You seem not to have been reading what Mona is posting. The ALJ

found

> >that a person would have to ingest about 1,500 lbs. of MJ within a

> >fifteen minute period before toxicity could reach a lethal level.

>

> The operative word was toxic, not lethal. Reaching a toxic level.

And for

> every substance there is a toxic level. PERIOD. Anyother

implications are

> beyond the scope of the statement. Morbidity,not necessarily

mortality.

>

> >

> >That suggests to me that ingesting a lethal dose would be humanly

> >impossible. Why continue to assert that in principle it can be

lethal

> >when in practice it cannot?

>

> I never asserted that. You have changed the words. Toxic does not

equal lethal.

>

> With the manufacturing of the active ingredient, toxic levels may be

possible.

>

>

> >As to the legalization issue being a " straw man " : didn't this

whole

> >thread begin with your asking for evidence that MJ was " the most

> >benign substance " that humans could ingest, which was coupled with

an

> >assertion that there was no reason it should not be legal?

>

> Not at all. It began with her comment that marijuana was safer than

> alcohol. i asked for the evidence (which I clarified as the

studies). That

> is all I asked for..and all I was interested in. I never made any

statement

> about reasons for legalities; nor about marijuana being less safe

than

> alcohol.

>

> The " most benign " statement came later..is a different issue from

the

> above. Most benign is quite an assertion..I was skeptical (of MOST

benign,

> not marijuana being benign, quite a different meaning.)

>

> >I have found what Mona posted very interesting, and yet you seem to

be

> >struggling to find reasons not to believe what she's posted.

>

> Oh it was interesting. But I asked (and clarified in a pvt post)

exactly

> what I was looking for (studies..epidemiological, cohort; or

double-blind

> placebo). If she wa snot privy to any,fine. But that has never been

stated.

> What she posted did not fit what i was asking for. And most of the

article

> concerned medicinal use. Interesting, yes. I have no problem

believing it.

> It was of little use to me.

>

> I was surprised to see Weil's name there as " expert " witness. And my

> clarification as to why: he has left EBM, is in the arena of CAM

(mostly

> anecdotal).

[Guest guest]

At 11:56 AM 4/26/01 -0400, you wrote:

Credibility

is not established by offering arbitrary , ad hominem, and

poisoning the well attacks on supporting authorities.

I never asked for authorities. I never asked you, nor ever cared to

have you defend (prove was your word..I never asked for proof)

anything. i asked for evidence..then spelled out that

request..citations to (may have used reference) studies (and then defined

studies). THAT WAS IT.

I never said marijuana should be legalized, or not. I never said it was

more dangerous than alcohol, or not. Neither was ever my issue. My issue

was a request for evidence (later qualified to specific kinds of studies,

not reports of studies).

You initiated the advocacy position by offering " proof " of

your position on safety but not references to studies.

[Guest guest]

At 11:56 AM 4/26/01 -0400, you wrote:

Credibility

is not established by offering arbitrary , ad hominem, and

poisoning the well attacks on supporting authorities.

I never asked for authorities. I never asked you, nor ever cared to

have you defend (prove was your word..I never asked for proof)

anything. i asked for evidence..then spelled out that

request..citations to (may have used reference) studies (and then defined

studies). THAT WAS IT.

I never said marijuana should be legalized, or not. I never said it was

more dangerous than alcohol, or not. Neither was ever my issue. My issue

was a request for evidence (later qualified to specific kinds of studies,

not reports of studies).

You initiated the advocacy position by offering " proof " of

your position on safety but not references to studies.

[Guest guest]

At 11:56 AM 4/26/01 -0400, you wrote:

Credibility

is not established by offering arbitrary , ad hominem, and

poisoning the well attacks on supporting authorities.

I never asked for authorities. I never asked you, nor ever cared to

have you defend (prove was your word..I never asked for proof)

anything. i asked for evidence..then spelled out that

request..citations to (may have used reference) studies (and then defined

studies). THAT WAS IT.

I never said marijuana should be legalized, or not. I never said it was

more dangerous than alcohol, or not. Neither was ever my issue. My issue

was a request for evidence (later qualified to specific kinds of studies,

not reports of studies).

You initiated the advocacy position by offering " proof " of

your position on safety but not references to studies.

[Guest guest]

At 05:01 PM 4/26/01 +0000, you wrote:

>You seem not to have been reading what Mona is posting. The ALJ found

>that a person would have to ingest about 1,500 lbs. of MJ within a

>fifteen minute period before toxicity could reach a lethal level.

The operative word was toxic, not lethal. Reaching a toxic level. And for

every substance there is a toxic level. PERIOD. Anyother implications are

beyond the scope of the statement. Morbidity,not necessarily mortality.

>

>That suggests to me that ingesting a lethal dose would be humanly

>impossible. Why continue to assert that in principle it can be lethal

>when in practice it cannot?

I never asserted that. You have changed the words. Toxic does not equal lethal.

With the manufacturing of the active ingredient, toxic levels may be possible.

>As to the legalization issue being a " straw man " : didn't this whole

>thread begin with your asking for evidence that MJ was " the most

>benign substance " that humans could ingest, which was coupled with an

>assertion that there was no reason it should not be legal?

Not at all. It began with her comment that marijuana was safer than

alcohol. i asked for the evidence (which I clarified as the studies). That

is all I asked for..and all I was interested in. I never made any statement

about reasons for legalities; nor about marijuana being less safe than

alcohol.

The " most benign " statement came later..is a different issue from the

above. Most benign is quite an assertion..I was skeptical (of MOST benign,

not marijuana being benign, quite a different meaning.)

>I have found what Mona posted very interesting, and yet you seem to be

>struggling to find reasons not to believe what she's posted.

Oh it was interesting. But I asked (and clarified in a pvt post) exactly

what I was looking for (studies..epidemiological, cohort; or double-blind

placebo). If she wa snot privy to any,fine. But that has never been stated.

What she posted did not fit what i was asking for. And most of the article

concerned medicinal use. Interesting, yes. I have no problem believing it.

It was of little use to me.

I was surprised to see Weil's name there as " expert " witness. And my

clarification as to why: he has left EBM, is in the arena of CAM (mostly

anecdotal).

[Guest guest]

At 11:46 AM 4/26/01 -0400, you wrote:

Actually,

as one with an abiding interest in drug policy I'd be interested in

the deleted information. Could you please repost it?

At your request:

Here is a more descriptive definition of

toxicology : " the

study of the adverse effects of chemicals or physical agents on living

organisms " . {fr. NIH]

.. Noteworthy in this regard were the studies of Paracelsus

(~1500AD) :

Paracelsus determined that specific chemicals were actually

responsible for the toxicity of a plant or animal poison. He also

documented that the body's response to those chemicals depended on the

dose received. His studies revealed that small doses of a substance might

be harmless or beneficial whereas larger doses could be toxic. This is

now known as the dose-response relationship, a major concept of

toxicology. Paracelsus is often quoted for his statement: " All

substances are poisons; there is none which is not a poison. The right

dose differentiates a poison and a remedy. "

http://sis.nlm.nih.gov/toxtutor1/a11.htm

" The dose makes the poison " remains a guiding principle of

toxicology today. The French scientist of today, Claude Bernard

(everything is poisonous, nothing is poisonous,

it is all a matter of dose): " Tout est poison, rien

n'est poison, tout est une question de dose " .

(He wrote in French.)

These adverse effects may occur in many forms, ranging from immediate

death to subtle changes not realized until months or years later. They

may occur at various levels within the body, such as an organ, a type of

cell, or a specific biochemical. Knowledge of how toxic agents damage the

body has progressed along with medical knowledge. It is now known that

various observable changes in anatomy or body functions actually result

from previously unrecognized changes in specific biochemicals in the

body.

http://sis.nlm.nih.gov/toxtutor1/a11.htm

No, I am not. It would also be virtually impossible to consume

enough pot

brownies to overdose. One would puke from the sugar, first. But since

inhalation is far and away the most common delivery vehicle, I adressed

that

route of intake.

Here you are limiting toxic to overdose. Before it was lethal. Under

those circumstances, and delivered by smoking, it is not lethal or

is sufficient for overdose. Those are but two examples. Toxic embraces

far more:

Adverse effect, to include subtle changes not realized for years. Your

list of what it not toxic does not in any way prove there is no toxicity.

One study claims, " Marijuana (MJ) smoking produces inflammation,

edema, and cell injury in the tracheobronchial mucosa .. " .

(fr. a peer reviewed medical journal ) Cell injury is an adverse effect.

This speaks to an adverse effect, or injury cause by chemicals, that is

toxic.What the implications are (mainly for lung cancer) is unknown (from

anything I have read).

.. Thus at some attainable level as above, marijuana (or chemicals derived

from the plant) may evidence toxicity. People are unlikely to die from

subtle changes, but nevertheless evidence exists of the injury.

The real unknown seems to be the long term implication of the toxic

effects known to exist. There may not be any. The injury (but injury

nonetheless) might be minor, might lead to unknown serious

conditions. I do not know, and take no position on the issue. I am

simply interested in reading what is in the literature (peer reviewed

studies).

[Guest guest]

At 11:46 AM 4/26/01 -0400, you wrote:

Actually,

as one with an abiding interest in drug policy I'd be interested in

the deleted information. Could you please repost it?

At your request:

Here is a more descriptive definition of

toxicology : " the

study of the adverse effects of chemicals or physical agents on living

organisms " . {fr. NIH]

.. Noteworthy in this regard were the studies of Paracelsus

(~1500AD) :

Paracelsus determined that specific chemicals were actually

responsible for the toxicity of a plant or animal poison. He also

documented that the body's response to those chemicals depended on the

dose received. His studies revealed that small doses of a substance might

be harmless or beneficial whereas larger doses could be toxic. This is

now known as the dose-response relationship, a major concept of

toxicology. Paracelsus is often quoted for his statement: " All

substances are poisons; there is none which is not a poison. The right

dose differentiates a poison and a remedy. "

http://sis.nlm.nih.gov/toxtutor1/a11.htm

" The dose makes the poison " remains a guiding principle of

toxicology today. The French scientist of today, Claude Bernard

(everything is poisonous, nothing is poisonous,

it is all a matter of dose): " Tout est poison, rien

n'est poison, tout est une question de dose " .

(He wrote in French.)

These adverse effects may occur in many forms, ranging from immediate

death to subtle changes not realized until months or years later. They

may occur at various levels within the body, such as an organ, a type of

cell, or a specific biochemical. Knowledge of how toxic agents damage the

body has progressed along with medical knowledge. It is now known that

various observable changes in anatomy or body functions actually result

from previously unrecognized changes in specific biochemicals in the

body.

http://sis.nlm.nih.gov/toxtutor1/a11.htm

No, I am not. It would also be virtually impossible to consume

enough pot

brownies to overdose. One would puke from the sugar, first. But since

inhalation is far and away the most common delivery vehicle, I adressed

that

route of intake.

Here you are limiting toxic to overdose. Before it was lethal. Under

those circumstances, and delivered by smoking, it is not lethal or

is sufficient for overdose. Those are but two examples. Toxic embraces

far more:

Adverse effect, to include subtle changes not realized for years. Your

list of what it not toxic does not in any way prove there is no toxicity.

One study claims, " Marijuana (MJ) smoking produces inflammation,

edema, and cell injury in the tracheobronchial mucosa .. " .

(fr. a peer reviewed medical journal ) Cell injury is an adverse effect.

This speaks to an adverse effect, or injury cause by chemicals, that is

toxic.What the implications are (mainly for lung cancer) is unknown (from

anything I have read).

.. Thus at some attainable level as above, marijuana (or chemicals derived

from the plant) may evidence toxicity. People are unlikely to die from

subtle changes, but nevertheless evidence exists of the injury.

The real unknown seems to be the long term implication of the toxic

effects known to exist. There may not be any. The injury (but injury

nonetheless) might be minor, might lead to unknown serious

conditions. I do not know, and take no position on the issue. I am

simply interested in reading what is in the literature (peer reviewed

studies).

[Guest guest]

At 11:46 AM 4/26/01 -0400, you wrote:

Actually,

as one with an abiding interest in drug policy I'd be interested in

the deleted information. Could you please repost it?

At your request:

Here is a more descriptive definition of

toxicology : " the

study of the adverse effects of chemicals or physical agents on living

organisms " . {fr. NIH]

.. Noteworthy in this regard were the studies of Paracelsus

(~1500AD) :

Paracelsus determined that specific chemicals were actually

responsible for the toxicity of a plant or animal poison. He also

documented that the body's response to those chemicals depended on the

dose received. His studies revealed that small doses of a substance might

be harmless or beneficial whereas larger doses could be toxic. This is

now known as the dose-response relationship, a major concept of

toxicology. Paracelsus is often quoted for his statement: " All

substances are poisons; there is none which is not a poison. The right

dose differentiates a poison and a remedy. "

http://sis.nlm.nih.gov/toxtutor1/a11.htm

" The dose makes the poison " remains a guiding principle of

toxicology today. The French scientist of today, Claude Bernard

(everything is poisonous, nothing is poisonous,

it is all a matter of dose): " Tout est poison, rien

n'est poison, tout est une question de dose " .

(He wrote in French.)

These adverse effects may occur in many forms, ranging from immediate

death to subtle changes not realized until months or years later. They

may occur at various levels within the body, such as an organ, a type of

cell, or a specific biochemical. Knowledge of how toxic agents damage the

body has progressed along with medical knowledge. It is now known that

various observable changes in anatomy or body functions actually result

from previously unrecognized changes in specific biochemicals in the

body.

http://sis.nlm.nih.gov/toxtutor1/a11.htm

No, I am not. It would also be virtually impossible to consume

enough pot

brownies to overdose. One would puke from the sugar, first. But since

inhalation is far and away the most common delivery vehicle, I adressed

that

route of intake.

Here you are limiting toxic to overdose. Before it was lethal. Under

those circumstances, and delivered by smoking, it is not lethal or

is sufficient for overdose. Those are but two examples. Toxic embraces

far more:

Adverse effect, to include subtle changes not realized for years. Your

list of what it not toxic does not in any way prove there is no toxicity.

One study claims, " Marijuana (MJ) smoking produces inflammation,

edema, and cell injury in the tracheobronchial mucosa .. " .

(fr. a peer reviewed medical journal ) Cell injury is an adverse effect.

This speaks to an adverse effect, or injury cause by chemicals, that is

toxic.What the implications are (mainly for lung cancer) is unknown (from

anything I have read).

.. Thus at some attainable level as above, marijuana (or chemicals derived

from the plant) may evidence toxicity. People are unlikely to die from

subtle changes, but nevertheless evidence exists of the injury.

The real unknown seems to be the long term implication of the toxic

effects known to exist. There may not be any. The injury (but injury

nonetheless) might be minor, might lead to unknown serious

conditions. I do not know, and take no position on the issue. I am

simply interested in reading what is in the literature (peer reviewed

studies).

[Guest guest]

I feel that my original assertion, that marijuana should be legalized and that it is less harmful than our legal drugs alcohol and tobacco, is validated, on even more grounds than I originally claimed. Truly, I do not have the time now, but the analysis of alcohol in this same text shows that it has much more harmful effects and does have correlations with voilent crimes such as murder and rape.

Thank you, ! Your sociology text is spot on. In addition to the racist propaganda that lead to the criminalization of cannabis, cocaine was criminalized in the wake of headlines such as "Cocaine-Crazed Niggers Raping White Women." Law enforcement in the 1920s and '30s took this seriously, and suspected black males of becoming homicidal maniacs and rapists due to cocaine.

Somewhat amusingly, Henry Anslinger, the head of the Bureau of Narcotics in the 1930s, claimed the sorts of things you posted from your textbook, i.e., pot makes people deranged and sends them into homicidal frenzies. Well, this SAME Henry Anslinger testified to congress in the 1950s that cannabis was being promoted in the U.S. as part of a communist plot to turn the U.S. into a nation of pacifists. In two decades cannabis apparently mutated from an agent that sends people into uncontrollable, insane rages, to a drug that so mellows people that it is intended to make us passive in the face of the Red Menace.

Drug warriors lie. Always have, and still do.

Finally -- and this really burns my butt -- the DEA has published a manual and conducts workshops on how to debate against anti-prohibitionists, aka "legalizers." Think about that: your tax dollars are being spent by a federal agency to advocate a particular political point of view in the public square. How would people feel if HHS funded publications and seminars on how to make abortion illegal? Or if the Dept of Education published tracts against charter schools or school vouchers?

What the DEA is doing is absolutely outrageous. They are spending our money to advise people as to how to defeat and argue against our political views.

There oughta be a law....Actually, there is.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

I feel that my original assertion, that marijuana should be legalized and that it is less harmful than our legal drugs alcohol and tobacco, is validated, on even more grounds than I originally claimed. Truly, I do not have the time now, but the analysis of alcohol in this same text shows that it has much more harmful effects and does have correlations with voilent crimes such as murder and rape.

Thank you, ! Your sociology text is spot on. In addition to the racist propaganda that lead to the criminalization of cannabis, cocaine was criminalized in the wake of headlines such as "Cocaine-Crazed Niggers Raping White Women." Law enforcement in the 1920s and '30s took this seriously, and suspected black males of becoming homicidal maniacs and rapists due to cocaine.

Somewhat amusingly, Henry Anslinger, the head of the Bureau of Narcotics in the 1930s, claimed the sorts of things you posted from your textbook, i.e., pot makes people deranged and sends them into homicidal frenzies. Well, this SAME Henry Anslinger testified to congress in the 1950s that cannabis was being promoted in the U.S. as part of a communist plot to turn the U.S. into a nation of pacifists. In two decades cannabis apparently mutated from an agent that sends people into uncontrollable, insane rages, to a drug that so mellows people that it is intended to make us passive in the face of the Red Menace.

Drug warriors lie. Always have, and still do.

Finally -- and this really burns my butt -- the DEA has published a manual and conducts workshops on how to debate against anti-prohibitionists, aka "legalizers." Think about that: your tax dollars are being spent by a federal agency to advocate a particular political point of view in the public square. How would people feel if HHS funded publications and seminars on how to make abortion illegal? Or if the Dept of Education published tracts against charter schools or school vouchers?

What the DEA is doing is absolutely outrageous. They are spending our money to advise people as to how to defeat and argue against our political views.

There oughta be a law....Actually, there is.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

I feel that my original assertion, that marijuana should be legalized and that it is less harmful than our legal drugs alcohol and tobacco, is validated, on even more grounds than I originally claimed. Truly, I do not have the time now, but the analysis of alcohol in this same text shows that it has much more harmful effects and does have correlations with voilent crimes such as murder and rape.

Thank you, ! Your sociology text is spot on. In addition to the racist propaganda that lead to the criminalization of cannabis, cocaine was criminalized in the wake of headlines such as "Cocaine-Crazed Niggers Raping White Women." Law enforcement in the 1920s and '30s took this seriously, and suspected black males of becoming homicidal maniacs and rapists due to cocaine.

Somewhat amusingly, Henry Anslinger, the head of the Bureau of Narcotics in the 1930s, claimed the sorts of things you posted from your textbook, i.e., pot makes people deranged and sends them into homicidal frenzies. Well, this SAME Henry Anslinger testified to congress in the 1950s that cannabis was being promoted in the U.S. as part of a communist plot to turn the U.S. into a nation of pacifists. In two decades cannabis apparently mutated from an agent that sends people into uncontrollable, insane rages, to a drug that so mellows people that it is intended to make us passive in the face of the Red Menace.

Drug warriors lie. Always have, and still do.

Finally -- and this really burns my butt -- the DEA has published a manual and conducts workshops on how to debate against anti-prohibitionists, aka "legalizers." Think about that: your tax dollars are being spent by a federal agency to advocate a particular political point of view in the public square. How would people feel if HHS funded publications and seminars on how to make abortion illegal? Or if the Dept of Education published tracts against charter schools or school vouchers?

What the DEA is doing is absolutely outrageous. They are spending our money to advise people as to how to defeat and argue against our political views.

There oughta be a law....Actually, there is.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

> >

H. said,

> > >In my mind marijuana certainly should be legal. It is much less

> > >harmful any way you look at it than alcohol.

> >

Anne said,

> > And the evidence for this?

The following evidence is not in the form of a study, but the

conclusions reached in my Sociology text, " Deviant Behavior: Crime,

Conflict and Interest Groups, " by H. McCaghy, A.

Capron and J.D. son. This is a source I trust and if anyone is

interested in the footnoted information I will provide it.

p. 317.

" The long-term impact of marijuana use on the human system is yet

unknown. The Institute of Medicine assembled a committee to analyze

the existing evidence about its health hazards. Although committee

members concluded that the drug's use " justifies serious national

concern, " they also pointed out great areas of ignorance about its

effects. In any case, most negative effects were linked to long-term,

heavy use. Among the committee's findings were the following:

1. There is no conclusive evidence that prolonged marijuana use

causes permanent changes in the nervous system or in brain functions.

2. While there is evidence that heavy usage is linked with mental

disorders, it is unknown whether the usage is a cause or a result of

the disorders.

3. While there is evidence that smoking marijuana causes acute

changes in the heart and in circulation, there is no evidence of

long-term effects on the system.

4. There is evidence that heavy smoking of marijuana, like heavy

tobacco smoking, may be linked with cancer of the lungs and

respiratory tract.

5. There is no conclusive evidence that a mother's use of marijuana

can harm the human fetus.

6. There is no conclusive evidence that using the drug impairs the

body's immunity system.

7. The body does build tolerance for marijuana and mild withdrawal

symptoms do occur: restlessness, irritability, mild agitation, and

insomnia. But there is no evidence of " compulsive behavior to acquire

the drug " or of other indicators of " addictions. "

Thus, despite the committee's concern, one must conclude from its

report that marijuana is less dangerous to the user than are the legal

drugs of alcohol and tobacco.

<snip to next secion>

Marijuana Use and Deviance

From what we have said about marijuana, it appears that, at worst, its

known physiological hazards rank lower than do those of alcohol and

tobacco. Of course, there are hazards from the drug: driving an

automobile under its influence is dangerous because it impairs

coordination and reaction time. We also know that regular users--20

or more times in 30 days--tend to do poorly in school because they are

absent more frequently than are irregular users or nonusers.120 The

cause-effect relationship is not clear, however. Perhaps those who

skip class are more likely to be frequent users rather than vice

versa. Do these kinds of problems warrant making the drug illegal?

Or are we missing something? For example, is marijuana linked to

other crimes: homicide, rape, and so on? According to the National

Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse, * " The only crimes which can be

directly attributed to marihuana-using behavior are those resulting

from the use, possession or transfer of an illegal substance " *

[emphasis in the text]121 In short, the crimes stemming from

marijuana are the same crimes that would stem from butter it if were

made illegal.

But marijuana leads to the use of heroin and other dangerous

drugs, doesn't it? The Bureau of Narcotics certainly thought so. In

its 1965 publication, subtly entitled 'Living Death: The Truth About

Drug Addiction,' it claimed that

'it cannot be too strongly emphasized that the smoking of the

marijuana cigarette is a dangerous first step on the road which

usually leads to enslavement by heroin...*Most* teenaged addicts

started smoking marijuana cigarettes. *Never let anyone persuade you

to smoke even one marijuana cigarette. It is pure poison.* " 122'

There is no question that studies comparing marijuana users with

nonusers find that users are more likely to use heroin. But it is one

thing to say that persons who use marijuana are more likely to try

heroin; it is quite another thing to say that marijuana use leads to

heroin use. It must be recognized that coffee drinkers, aspirin

takers, tobacco smokers, and alcohol drinkers are all more likely to

use illegal drugs than are noncoffee drinkers, nonaspirin takers, and

so on. In fact, any user of any drug, legal or illegal, is more

likely than a nonuser to use any other drug.123 As h Goode puts

it,

'individuals who use drugs tend to be selectively recruited from

segments of the population tha tare already oriented toward the use of

drugs. In this sense, there is a kind of drug-taking " disposition. "

Thus, even before we examine whether the effects of marijuana per se

have anything to do with " causing " the use of more dangerous drugs, it

is necessary to start with the question of whether the population

characteristics of those who use marijuana might be correlated with

those of individuals who use other drugs, to see whether dangerous

drug users might not be selectively recruited out of the larger

marijuana-using group.'124

Goode also points out that the criminal status of marijuana also

isolates users to some degree from conventional society and

incorporates them into a drug-taking subculture with its own

particular norms and verbalized motives supporting all kinds of

drug-taking. It is possible, he suggests, that removing the illegal

status of marijuana might decrease the number of persons turning to

heroin because it would neutralize the influence of the criminal

drug-taking subculture. "

==========

There is another section called " Marijuana and Conflict " but I will

summarize, rather than typing verbatim. Marijuana was not included in

the on Act of 1914 which put opiates and cocaine under strict

control. The pharmaceutical industry objected because it was used in

animal medicines and corn plasters. However, fears about it did

build, especially because of Mexican migrant laborers that were coming

to California. " The problem of marijuana and the problem of Mexican

immigration became one. "

[ok, typing verbatim again...this is really interesting!]

" Political pressure for the federal prohibition of marijuana grew as

its presumed link with race and crime was increasingly publicized.

The racial element is illustrated by this excerpt from a 1936 letter

from a Colorado newspaper editor to the Bureau of Narcotics:

'Is there any assistance your Bureau can give us in handling this

drug?...I wish I could show you what a small marijuana cigarette can

do to one of our degenerate Spanish-speaking residents. That's why

our problem is so great: The greatest percentage of our population is

composed of Spanish-speaking persons, most of whom are low mentally,

because of social and racial conditions.

While marijuana has figured in the greatest number of crimes in

the past few years, officials fear it, not for what it has done, but

for what it is capable of doing. They want to check it before an

outbreak occurs.'127

In addition to marijuana's association with a powerless minority

group, myths about the drug causing violent and perverted crimes were

considerably elaborated. By 1936, for example, 68 percent of all

crimes committed in New Orleans were attributed to marijuana users. A

propaganda campaign was launched with the support of the Bureau of

Narcotics to warn the public about the 'Marijuana Menace' and its role

as a 'Killer Drug.' An illustrated poster was prepared for trains,

buses, and streetcars:

'BEWARE! Young and old people in all walks of life! This marihuana

cigarette may be handed to YOU by the *friendly stranger.* It

contains the Killer Drug Marihuana in which lurks MURDER! INSANITY!

DEATH!--WARNING! Dope Peddlers are shrewd! They may put some of this

drug in the teapot or in the cocktail or in the tobacco cigarette.'

The stream of misinformation about the drug is exemplified by this

excerpt froma pamphlet issued by the International Narcotic Education

Association:

'Prolonged use of marihuana frequently develops a delirious rage which

sometimes leads to high crimes, such as assult and murder. Hence

marihuana has been called the 'killer drug.' The habitual use of this

narcotic poison always causes a very marked mental deterioration and

sometimes produces insanity...While the marihuana habit leads to

physical wreckage and mental decay, its effects upon character and

morality are even more devastation. The victim frequently undergoes

such degeneracy that he will lie and steal without scruple; he becomes

utterly untrustworthy...Marihuana sometimes gives man the lust to kill

unreasonably and without motive. Many cases of assualt, rape, robbey

and murder are traced to the use of marihuana.'128

The evil dimensions of this drug were becoming clear: once used only

by Mexicans, it was now spreading to black and lower-class whites and

turning them into drug-crazed criminals. In 1937 another revenue

bill, the Marihuana Tax Act, became law. This placed an extremely

high tax on the drug, and responsibility for the law's enforcement was

assigned to the Bureau of Narcotics. Another class of criminal was

created. "

============

Woah, I thought this was very interesting...the process by which

marijuana and those who use it became demonized and criminalized.

Note the racial overtones. This seems to be a theme with other drugs

as well, but that will have to be another post.

I feel that my original assertion, that marijuana should be legalized

and that it is less harmful than our legal drugs alcohol and tobacco,

is validated, on even more grounds than I originally claimed. Truly,

I do not have the time now, but the analysis of alcohol in this same

text shows that it has much more harmful effects and does have

correlations with voilent crimes such as murder and rape.

Later,

Hicks