Re: Drug Laws Kill - Proof

[Guest guest]

Are there other countries/situations where they have put some of these ideas into practice? The Netherlands? Where was "Needle Park?" I vaguely remember seeing something that showed it was emptied out now, but don't remember the reasons. Anyone?

I can get some info on that. Ran across some while retrieving stuff on pot, but didn't bookmark it. I'll try to get to it before the weekend. And believe me, I don't mind; on the issue of drug policy all is a labor of love for me.

The Netherlands has de facto legalized pot, meaning the laws remain on the books but are virtually never enforced. Needle Park is an odd episode, in that the Swedes tried to legalize heroin use in a park, but it had the effect of concentrating all the heroin addicts in one small geographical area, which caused problems. I'll get better detail, in good time m'dear.

--Mona--

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

Are there other countries/situations where they have put some of these ideas into practice? The Netherlands? Where was "Needle Park?" I vaguely remember seeing something that showed it was emptied out now, but don't remember the reasons. Anyone?

I can get some info on that. Ran across some while retrieving stuff on pot, but didn't bookmark it. I'll try to get to it before the weekend. And believe me, I don't mind; on the issue of drug policy all is a labor of love for me.

The Netherlands has de facto legalized pot, meaning the laws remain on the books but are virtually never enforced. Needle Park is an odd episode, in that the Swedes tried to legalize heroin use in a park, but it had the effect of concentrating all the heroin addicts in one small geographical area, which caused problems. I'll get better detail, in good time m'dear.

--Mona--

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

Are there other countries/situations where they have put some of these ideas into practice? The Netherlands? Where was "Needle Park?" I vaguely remember seeing something that showed it was emptied out now, but don't remember the reasons. Anyone?

I can get some info on that. Ran across some while retrieving stuff on pot, but didn't bookmark it. I'll try to get to it before the weekend. And believe me, I don't mind; on the issue of drug policy all is a labor of love for me.

The Netherlands has de facto legalized pot, meaning the laws remain on the books but are virtually never enforced. Needle Park is an odd episode, in that the Swedes tried to legalize heroin use in a park, but it had the effect of concentrating all the heroin addicts in one small geographical area, which caused problems. I'll get better detail, in good time m'dear.

--Mona--

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

At 06:35 PM 4/25/01 -0400, you wrote:

And

the evidence for

this?

Is overwhelming.

Marijuana is one of the most benign substances conceivable.

It is virtually impossible to overdose on it, and there is not one

documented case of it causing death or serious bodily harm.

Your original comment was simply restated, rather than elucidated with

any references (in which I am interested). " ...most benign

substance... " is quite questionable, given what is known and,

importantly, what is not known.

All citations are at end of post.

..

Seagrams

doesn't sell wood grain alcohol, which can blind people, because it

isn't interested in paying out whopping jury

awards.

Not quite the whole story. Alcohol regulation is under the purview of

both the FDA and the ATF.

Potency would have to be included on

the

package, just as % of alcohol is

now printed on booze bottles. Drug product

would also be free of impurities, unlike the heroin and cocaine sold on

the

streets. No more bleach, glue or flour in the heroin.

Which brings government laws and regulations to bear; too, an agency to

test for and enforce compliance. Hmm...those government agencies

don't come cheap.

Unless,

of course, the companies marketing the drugs don't care about large

verdicts.

Or breaking the law.

A.

Most Begnign Substance????

Frequencies of hprt mutant lymphocytes in marijuana-smoking mothers

and their newborns. Mutat Res 1998 Jul 17

For pregnant marijuana smokers, there is also concern for the

possibility of genotoxic effects on the fetus, resulting in heightened

risk of birth defects or childhood cancer.

Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol 1999

Marijuana (MJ) smoking produces inflammation, edema, and cell injury

in the tracheobronchial mucosa of smokers and may be a risk factor for

lung cancer. We conclude that MJ smoke containing Delta9-THC is a potent

source of cellular oxidative stress that could contribute significantly

to cell injury and dysfunction in the lungs of smokers.

Cerebellar hypoactivity in frequent marijuana users. Neuroreport 2000

Mar 20

It is uncertain whether frequent marijuana use adversely affects

human brain function. Using PET, regional cerebral blood flow was

compared in frequent marijuana users and comparable, non-using controls

after at least 26 h of monitored abstention by all subjects. Marijuana

users showed substantially lower brain blood flow than controls in a

large region of posterior cerebellum, indicating altered brain function

in frequent marijuana users. A cerebellar locus of some chronic and acute

effects of marijuana is plausible, e.g. the cerebellum has been linked to

an internal timing system, and alterations of time sense are common

following marijuana smoking.

Cannabis and brain function. J Paediatr Child Health 1998 There is sound evidence that cannabis intoxication has an adverse

effect on cognitive function and behaviour, and may, in vulnerable

individuals, lead to a psychotic reaction. Regular use may have an

adverse effect on learning, with possible mid- to long-term psychological

and cognitive impairment

placebo-controlled double-blind study J Clin Psychiatry 1999 RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that perceptual motor

speed and accuracy, 2 very important parameters of driving ability, seem

to be impaired immediately after cannabis consumption.

Lancet 1998 Nov 14

Cannabis is the most widely used illicit drug in many developed

societies. Its health and psychological effects are not well understood

and remain the subject of much debate, with opinions on its risks

polarised along the lines of proponents' views on what its legal status

should be.

[Guest guest]

At 06:35 PM 4/25/01 -0400, you wrote:

And

the evidence for

this?

Is overwhelming.

Marijuana is one of the most benign substances conceivable.

It is virtually impossible to overdose on it, and there is not one

documented case of it causing death or serious bodily harm.

Your original comment was simply restated, rather than elucidated with

any references (in which I am interested). " ...most benign

substance... " is quite questionable, given what is known and,

importantly, what is not known.

All citations are at end of post.

..

Seagrams

doesn't sell wood grain alcohol, which can blind people, because it

isn't interested in paying out whopping jury

awards.

Not quite the whole story. Alcohol regulation is under the purview of

both the FDA and the ATF.

Potency would have to be included on

the

package, just as % of alcohol is

now printed on booze bottles. Drug product

would also be free of impurities, unlike the heroin and cocaine sold on

the

streets. No more bleach, glue or flour in the heroin.

Which brings government laws and regulations to bear; too, an agency to

test for and enforce compliance. Hmm...those government agencies

don't come cheap.

Unless,

of course, the companies marketing the drugs don't care about large

verdicts.

Or breaking the law.

A.

Most Begnign Substance????

Frequencies of hprt mutant lymphocytes in marijuana-smoking mothers

and their newborns. Mutat Res 1998 Jul 17

For pregnant marijuana smokers, there is also concern for the

possibility of genotoxic effects on the fetus, resulting in heightened

risk of birth defects or childhood cancer.

Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol 1999

Marijuana (MJ) smoking produces inflammation, edema, and cell injury

in the tracheobronchial mucosa of smokers and may be a risk factor for

lung cancer. We conclude that MJ smoke containing Delta9-THC is a potent

source of cellular oxidative stress that could contribute significantly

to cell injury and dysfunction in the lungs of smokers.

Cerebellar hypoactivity in frequent marijuana users. Neuroreport 2000

Mar 20

It is uncertain whether frequent marijuana use adversely affects

human brain function. Using PET, regional cerebral blood flow was

compared in frequent marijuana users and comparable, non-using controls

after at least 26 h of monitored abstention by all subjects. Marijuana

users showed substantially lower brain blood flow than controls in a

large region of posterior cerebellum, indicating altered brain function

in frequent marijuana users. A cerebellar locus of some chronic and acute

effects of marijuana is plausible, e.g. the cerebellum has been linked to

an internal timing system, and alterations of time sense are common

following marijuana smoking.

Cannabis and brain function. J Paediatr Child Health 1998 There is sound evidence that cannabis intoxication has an adverse

effect on cognitive function and behaviour, and may, in vulnerable

individuals, lead to a psychotic reaction. Regular use may have an

adverse effect on learning, with possible mid- to long-term psychological

and cognitive impairment

placebo-controlled double-blind study J Clin Psychiatry 1999 RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that perceptual motor

speed and accuracy, 2 very important parameters of driving ability, seem

to be impaired immediately after cannabis consumption.

Lancet 1998 Nov 14

Cannabis is the most widely used illicit drug in many developed

societies. Its health and psychological effects are not well understood

and remain the subject of much debate, with opinions on its risks

polarised along the lines of proponents' views on what its legal status

should be.

[Guest guest]

At 06:35 PM 4/25/01 -0400, you wrote:

And

the evidence for

this?

Is overwhelming.

Marijuana is one of the most benign substances conceivable.

It is virtually impossible to overdose on it, and there is not one

documented case of it causing death or serious bodily harm.

Your original comment was simply restated, rather than elucidated with

any references (in which I am interested). " ...most benign

substance... " is quite questionable, given what is known and,

importantly, what is not known.

All citations are at end of post.

..

Seagrams

doesn't sell wood grain alcohol, which can blind people, because it

isn't interested in paying out whopping jury

awards.

Not quite the whole story. Alcohol regulation is under the purview of

both the FDA and the ATF.

Potency would have to be included on

the

package, just as % of alcohol is

now printed on booze bottles. Drug product

would also be free of impurities, unlike the heroin and cocaine sold on

the

streets. No more bleach, glue or flour in the heroin.

Which brings government laws and regulations to bear; too, an agency to

test for and enforce compliance. Hmm...those government agencies

don't come cheap.

Unless,

of course, the companies marketing the drugs don't care about large

verdicts.

Or breaking the law.

A.

Most Begnign Substance????

Frequencies of hprt mutant lymphocytes in marijuana-smoking mothers

and their newborns. Mutat Res 1998 Jul 17

For pregnant marijuana smokers, there is also concern for the

possibility of genotoxic effects on the fetus, resulting in heightened

risk of birth defects or childhood cancer.

Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol 1999

Marijuana (MJ) smoking produces inflammation, edema, and cell injury

in the tracheobronchial mucosa of smokers and may be a risk factor for

lung cancer. We conclude that MJ smoke containing Delta9-THC is a potent

source of cellular oxidative stress that could contribute significantly

to cell injury and dysfunction in the lungs of smokers.

Cerebellar hypoactivity in frequent marijuana users. Neuroreport 2000

Mar 20

It is uncertain whether frequent marijuana use adversely affects

human brain function. Using PET, regional cerebral blood flow was

compared in frequent marijuana users and comparable, non-using controls

after at least 26 h of monitored abstention by all subjects. Marijuana

users showed substantially lower brain blood flow than controls in a

large region of posterior cerebellum, indicating altered brain function

in frequent marijuana users. A cerebellar locus of some chronic and acute

effects of marijuana is plausible, e.g. the cerebellum has been linked to

an internal timing system, and alterations of time sense are common

following marijuana smoking.

Cannabis and brain function. J Paediatr Child Health 1998 There is sound evidence that cannabis intoxication has an adverse

effect on cognitive function and behaviour, and may, in vulnerable

individuals, lead to a psychotic reaction. Regular use may have an

adverse effect on learning, with possible mid- to long-term psychological

and cognitive impairment

placebo-controlled double-blind study J Clin Psychiatry 1999 RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that perceptual motor

speed and accuracy, 2 very important parameters of driving ability, seem

to be impaired immediately after cannabis consumption.

Lancet 1998 Nov 14

Cannabis is the most widely used illicit drug in many developed

societies. Its health and psychological effects are not well understood

and remain the subject of much debate, with opinions on its risks

polarised along the lines of proponents' views on what its legal status

should be.

[Guest guest]

>

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

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

>

> And the evidence for this?

*WARNING* Personal experience, rather than bonafide studies...which

IMO Mona supplied plenty of.

I will just add that as a person who *has* inhaled, as well as doing

most of the other " hard " drugs from time to time, marijuana just does

not have the same effects and *is* benign in comparison.

Addictive properties - ok, there may be a few people out there who

feel that they are addicted and that it has a negative effect on their

lives. I have been addicted to other substances, including alcohol,

including nicotine, including cocaine, including opiates and if MJ

were addictive I would have been addicted to it. I had FAR greater

negative consequences from my use of the other drugs as opposed to MJ.

For some reason, it satiates rather than calling for more and more.

To me, nicotine was the very worst for this. Truly, one cigarette

calls to another. Cognitive abilities generally aren't impared much

on cigs, perhaps the opposite...however the health and long term

effects can't be denied here.

Even in treatment, they couldn't manufacture much enthusiasm for

condemning MJ. They showed us graphs of brain cells lost to alcohol

vs MJ. The MJ cells didn't die, but got covered with a film that did

eventually disappear. (Like Mona, I don't say that are NO adverse

effects. I just say they are less harmful that our most revered

*legal* drug, alcohol).

Driving. It does effect driving. It tends to make people drive

slower and make mistakes of hesitency. Those can be dangerous, but do

not approach the level of danger of a driver under the influence of

alcohol. With alcohol the mistakes are of overconfidence and

excessive speed. Or, swerving, weaving. The judgement is also

impaired so that the driver thinks it won't be much of a problem

driving home. The more she drinks, the less of a problem it will be.

The opposite is true with MJ. The more you smoke, the less you feel

like taking on the road.

>

> > Other things such as

> >heroin or cocaine are a bit stickier...although I must say I agree

> >with Mona on the costs of prohibition regarding them.

> >

> > but I also think it would harm others.

>

> And this cost..medical,lost work, etc does not seem factored into

the

> discussions. Probihition costs vs legal drug costs probably does

weigh in

> favor of legal drugs, but avoiding the truly complex and far

extending

> economic issues.

Well, I think we were factoring it in. This statement seems to assume

that people will just freak out and go crazy and be stoned/high all

the time and won't be able to work, etc. I don't think this would be

the case any more than it is the case now. Remember, I am comparing

this to alcohol, not to complete abstinence from all drugs. People

have access to alcohol now, as much as they want, when they want, what

flavor they want. It does cause problems for some people. However,

the majority can handle it pretty well. They use responsibly. I

mean, they need that job, or that grade or that whatever you will.

And therefore they can temper their use. They are adults and they are

responsible.

Part of the disease thinking that really comes in here is the idea

that once you have the disease of addiction to *whatever*, that is

*it* for you. You will never be able to use responsibly and you will

always go to excess. This simply does not hold up. Many many people

moderate their use of alcohol, or other drugs and learn how to balance

it in their lives in a responsible way. Hey, I put myself in here!

I must say that this discussion has been very interesting to me. I

was having a bit of a utopian daydream where the MJ producers were

legal and they were coming out with their own brands similar to the

microbrews here in Portland.

How 'bout, Lila's Homegrown

's Jamacian Red

Thai Dream

The artwork you could do to complement...

Sorry, if I've gotten silly here...it's just that I can visualize it

and I think it would be a real positive. At the very least it should

be just as confusing and market centered as trying to get some cold

medicine for your kid!

>

> > Legalizing drugs

> >would be like saying " The State Perceives that you are all Adults

and

> >are Responsible for Your Own Actions. " Somehow that doesn't seem

> >likely to me!

>

> And the issue presented that one has the right to ingest anything

they

> choose ignores many facets of other existing problems. Herbal

remedies are

> unregulated. As such, most herbal concoctions to not provide what

the

> manufacturer claims. Fortunately with most, the effects are

negligible

> (there is little proven efficacy); with potent drugs, and no

information

> about adulteration, quality, content, etc; one can be in harms way

despite

> the drug purveyor's claim. How does this work within an " informed

> consent " tort system? And does not one have the right to informed

consent?

> Or can we unleash unscrupulously labeled 'hard' drugs,much like the

herbal

> industry does today? No drug laws have the potential to kill as

well.

I feel you have just given me the ultimate reason for legalization.

The content has a much greater possibility of being unadulterated if

there are some controls on it. I mean, who labels them now? Geeze,

you have a dealer saying " this is good shit, man. " And it it screws

you up, well, too bad, you were just a f**ked up junkie.

Hicks

(I know you guys all know me, but just want to avoid any confusion).

[Guest guest]

>

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

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

>

> And the evidence for this?

*WARNING* Personal experience, rather than bonafide studies...which

IMO Mona supplied plenty of.

I will just add that as a person who *has* inhaled, as well as doing

most of the other " hard " drugs from time to time, marijuana just does

not have the same effects and *is* benign in comparison.

Addictive properties - ok, there may be a few people out there who

feel that they are addicted and that it has a negative effect on their

lives. I have been addicted to other substances, including alcohol,

including nicotine, including cocaine, including opiates and if MJ

were addictive I would have been addicted to it. I had FAR greater

negative consequences from my use of the other drugs as opposed to MJ.

For some reason, it satiates rather than calling for more and more.

To me, nicotine was the very worst for this. Truly, one cigarette

calls to another. Cognitive abilities generally aren't impared much

on cigs, perhaps the opposite...however the health and long term

effects can't be denied here.

Even in treatment, they couldn't manufacture much enthusiasm for

condemning MJ. They showed us graphs of brain cells lost to alcohol

vs MJ. The MJ cells didn't die, but got covered with a film that did

eventually disappear. (Like Mona, I don't say that are NO adverse

effects. I just say they are less harmful that our most revered

*legal* drug, alcohol).

Driving. It does effect driving. It tends to make people drive

slower and make mistakes of hesitency. Those can be dangerous, but do

not approach the level of danger of a driver under the influence of

alcohol. With alcohol the mistakes are of overconfidence and

excessive speed. Or, swerving, weaving. The judgement is also

impaired so that the driver thinks it won't be much of a problem

driving home. The more she drinks, the less of a problem it will be.

The opposite is true with MJ. The more you smoke, the less you feel

like taking on the road.

>

> > Other things such as

> >heroin or cocaine are a bit stickier...although I must say I agree

> >with Mona on the costs of prohibition regarding them.

> >

> > but I also think it would harm others.

>

> And this cost..medical,lost work, etc does not seem factored into

the

> discussions. Probihition costs vs legal drug costs probably does

weigh in

> favor of legal drugs, but avoiding the truly complex and far

extending

> economic issues.

Well, I think we were factoring it in. This statement seems to assume

that people will just freak out and go crazy and be stoned/high all

the time and won't be able to work, etc. I don't think this would be

the case any more than it is the case now. Remember, I am comparing

this to alcohol, not to complete abstinence from all drugs. People

have access to alcohol now, as much as they want, when they want, what

flavor they want. It does cause problems for some people. However,

the majority can handle it pretty well. They use responsibly. I

mean, they need that job, or that grade or that whatever you will.

And therefore they can temper their use. They are adults and they are

responsible.

Part of the disease thinking that really comes in here is the idea

that once you have the disease of addiction to *whatever*, that is

*it* for you. You will never be able to use responsibly and you will

always go to excess. This simply does not hold up. Many many people

moderate their use of alcohol, or other drugs and learn how to balance

it in their lives in a responsible way. Hey, I put myself in here!

I must say that this discussion has been very interesting to me. I

was having a bit of a utopian daydream where the MJ producers were

legal and they were coming out with their own brands similar to the

microbrews here in Portland.

How 'bout, Lila's Homegrown

's Jamacian Red

Thai Dream

The artwork you could do to complement...

Sorry, if I've gotten silly here...it's just that I can visualize it

and I think it would be a real positive. At the very least it should

be just as confusing and market centered as trying to get some cold

medicine for your kid!

>

> > Legalizing drugs

> >would be like saying " The State Perceives that you are all Adults

and

> >are Responsible for Your Own Actions. " Somehow that doesn't seem

> >likely to me!

>

> And the issue presented that one has the right to ingest anything

they

> choose ignores many facets of other existing problems. Herbal

remedies are

> unregulated. As such, most herbal concoctions to not provide what

the

> manufacturer claims. Fortunately with most, the effects are

negligible

> (there is little proven efficacy); with potent drugs, and no

information

> about adulteration, quality, content, etc; one can be in harms way

despite

> the drug purveyor's claim. How does this work within an " informed

> consent " tort system? And does not one have the right to informed

consent?

> Or can we unleash unscrupulously labeled 'hard' drugs,much like the

herbal

> industry does today? No drug laws have the potential to kill as

well.

I feel you have just given me the ultimate reason for legalization.

The content has a much greater possibility of being unadulterated if

there are some controls on it. I mean, who labels them now? Geeze,

you have a dealer saying " this is good shit, man. " And it it screws

you up, well, too bad, you were just a f**ked up junkie.

Hicks

(I know you guys all know me, but just want to avoid any confusion).

[Guest guest]

>

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

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

>

> And the evidence for this?

*WARNING* Personal experience, rather than bonafide studies...which

IMO Mona supplied plenty of.

I will just add that as a person who *has* inhaled, as well as doing

most of the other " hard " drugs from time to time, marijuana just does

not have the same effects and *is* benign in comparison.

Addictive properties - ok, there may be a few people out there who

feel that they are addicted and that it has a negative effect on their

lives. I have been addicted to other substances, including alcohol,

including nicotine, including cocaine, including opiates and if MJ

were addictive I would have been addicted to it. I had FAR greater

negative consequences from my use of the other drugs as opposed to MJ.

For some reason, it satiates rather than calling for more and more.

To me, nicotine was the very worst for this. Truly, one cigarette

calls to another. Cognitive abilities generally aren't impared much

on cigs, perhaps the opposite...however the health and long term

effects can't be denied here.

Even in treatment, they couldn't manufacture much enthusiasm for

condemning MJ. They showed us graphs of brain cells lost to alcohol

vs MJ. The MJ cells didn't die, but got covered with a film that did

eventually disappear. (Like Mona, I don't say that are NO adverse

effects. I just say they are less harmful that our most revered

*legal* drug, alcohol).

Driving. It does effect driving. It tends to make people drive

slower and make mistakes of hesitency. Those can be dangerous, but do

not approach the level of danger of a driver under the influence of

alcohol. With alcohol the mistakes are of overconfidence and

excessive speed. Or, swerving, weaving. The judgement is also

impaired so that the driver thinks it won't be much of a problem

driving home. The more she drinks, the less of a problem it will be.

The opposite is true with MJ. The more you smoke, the less you feel

like taking on the road.

>

> > Other things such as

> >heroin or cocaine are a bit stickier...although I must say I agree

> >with Mona on the costs of prohibition regarding them.

> >

> > but I also think it would harm others.

>

> And this cost..medical,lost work, etc does not seem factored into

the

> discussions. Probihition costs vs legal drug costs probably does

weigh in

> favor of legal drugs, but avoiding the truly complex and far

extending

> economic issues.

Well, I think we were factoring it in. This statement seems to assume

that people will just freak out and go crazy and be stoned/high all

the time and won't be able to work, etc. I don't think this would be

the case any more than it is the case now. Remember, I am comparing

this to alcohol, not to complete abstinence from all drugs. People

have access to alcohol now, as much as they want, when they want, what

flavor they want. It does cause problems for some people. However,

the majority can handle it pretty well. They use responsibly. I

mean, they need that job, or that grade or that whatever you will.

And therefore they can temper their use. They are adults and they are

responsible.

Part of the disease thinking that really comes in here is the idea

that once you have the disease of addiction to *whatever*, that is

*it* for you. You will never be able to use responsibly and you will

always go to excess. This simply does not hold up. Many many people

moderate their use of alcohol, or other drugs and learn how to balance

it in their lives in a responsible way. Hey, I put myself in here!

I must say that this discussion has been very interesting to me. I

was having a bit of a utopian daydream where the MJ producers were

legal and they were coming out with their own brands similar to the

microbrews here in Portland.

How 'bout, Lila's Homegrown

's Jamacian Red

Thai Dream

The artwork you could do to complement...

Sorry, if I've gotten silly here...it's just that I can visualize it

and I think it would be a real positive. At the very least it should

be just as confusing and market centered as trying to get some cold

medicine for your kid!

>

> > Legalizing drugs

> >would be like saying " The State Perceives that you are all Adults

and

> >are Responsible for Your Own Actions. " Somehow that doesn't seem

> >likely to me!

>

> And the issue presented that one has the right to ingest anything

they

> choose ignores many facets of other existing problems. Herbal

remedies are

> unregulated. As such, most herbal concoctions to not provide what

the

> manufacturer claims. Fortunately with most, the effects are

negligible

> (there is little proven efficacy); with potent drugs, and no

information

> about adulteration, quality, content, etc; one can be in harms way

despite

> the drug purveyor's claim. How does this work within an " informed

> consent " tort system? And does not one have the right to informed

consent?

> Or can we unleash unscrupulously labeled 'hard' drugs,much like the

herbal

> industry does today? No drug laws have the potential to kill as

well.

I feel you have just given me the ultimate reason for legalization.

The content has a much greater possibility of being unadulterated if

there are some controls on it. I mean, who labels them now? Geeze,

you have a dealer saying " this is good shit, man. " And it it screws

you up, well, too bad, you were just a f**ked up junkie.

Hicks

(I know you guys all know me, but just want to avoid any confusion).

[Guest guest]

>

>

>

> >Pot can cause bronchitis, usuall in only heavy users. Not

something anyone

> >would wish for, but also nothing as severe as cirrhosis or

alcoholic

> >dementia. Do you think that sufficient reason to send people to

prison for

> >smoking it? If so, what is your aspirin policy, in light of its

lethality?

> i

> Herein is the ludicrous strawman. I have said nothing whatsoever

about

> legalization, jail, or aspirin.

>

> Nor do I care about subjective ratings of consequential diseases

(potential

> lung cancer equates to potential cirrhosis for me). All I was ever

> interested in was citations (rather than anecdotes) to studies

showing

> marijuana safer than alcohol. i cited what studies I knew that

either

> concluded little is known, or there could be potential serious

morbidities

> long term.

>

> btw, aspirine is not lethal: " Tout est poison, rien n'est poison,

tout est

> une question de dose "

>

> I am finished with this topic,as it is being turned into

legalization,

> medicinal use (which I applaud even for heroin) and other strawmen

to the

> original request.

Hi Anne,

I am confused. Mona did cite studies...as opposed to just personal

antedotes, which is all I am up for at the moment. What is with all

the " strawmen " stuff. I mean, you asked me what I based my opinion on

that MJ should be legalized. (Mine was the original post you

quoted, not Mona's) And I felt like I told you. True, I don't

understand Latin. Are you a medical doctor?

Hicks

[Guest guest]

At 11:11 PM 4/25/01 -0400, you wrote:

Yes.

The Merck Manual says there is virtually no serious harm from smoking

marijuan, and that most objections to it are driven by a

" political " not a

toxicological reason.

Which is why I included the Lancet article, stating that objections and

support are both driven by political agendas; in fact, little is known of

long term effects.

Did you

notice how often the words " may " " could, "

plausible " and

" possibility " were employed in the authorities you

cited?

Yes, though not always (We conclude that MJ smoke containing Delta9-THC

is a potent source of cellular oxidative stress ...) for example. Even

smoking tobacco *may* lead to lung cancer in susceptible individuals, not

will lead. In much of medicine, there are probable outcomes, or possible

outcomes.

The fact remains,

that no long-term severe health consequences have been proven to attend

marijuana use.

So yes, MJ is among the most benign substances man may take into his

body.

" Marijuana (MJ) smoking produces inflammation, edema, and

cell injury in the tracheobronchial mucosa of smokers " sounds like

a health consequence (and stated with no equivocation).

I did not include the the use of medicinal (synthetic) marijuana, a

different topic.

Some Merck Manual excerpts:

....although its toxicologic importance is unclear

.. However, high-dose smokers of marijuana develop pulmonary symptoms

(episodes of acute bronchitis, wheezing, coughing, and increased phlegm),

and pulmonary function may be altered.

Tachycardia, conjunctival injection, and dry mouth occur

regularly

Communicative and motor abilities are decreased, depth perception and

tracking are impaired, and the sense of timing is altered--all hazardous

in certain situations (eg, driving, operating heavy equipment).

To each his choice.

[Guest guest]

At 11:11 PM 4/25/01 -0400, you wrote:

Yes.

The Merck Manual says there is virtually no serious harm from smoking

marijuan, and that most objections to it are driven by a

" political " not a

toxicological reason.

Which is why I included the Lancet article, stating that objections and

support are both driven by political agendas; in fact, little is known of

long term effects.

Did you

notice how often the words " may " " could, "

plausible " and

" possibility " were employed in the authorities you

cited?

Yes, though not always (We conclude that MJ smoke containing Delta9-THC

is a potent source of cellular oxidative stress ...) for example. Even

smoking tobacco *may* lead to lung cancer in susceptible individuals, not

will lead. In much of medicine, there are probable outcomes, or possible

outcomes.

The fact remains,

that no long-term severe health consequences have been proven to attend

marijuana use.

So yes, MJ is among the most benign substances man may take into his

body.

" Marijuana (MJ) smoking produces inflammation, edema, and

cell injury in the tracheobronchial mucosa of smokers " sounds like

a health consequence (and stated with no equivocation).

I did not include the the use of medicinal (synthetic) marijuana, a

different topic.

Some Merck Manual excerpts:

....although its toxicologic importance is unclear

.. However, high-dose smokers of marijuana develop pulmonary symptoms

(episodes of acute bronchitis, wheezing, coughing, and increased phlegm),

and pulmonary function may be altered.

Tachycardia, conjunctival injection, and dry mouth occur

regularly

Communicative and motor abilities are decreased, depth perception and

tracking are impaired, and the sense of timing is altered--all hazardous

in certain situations (eg, driving, operating heavy equipment).

To each his choice.

[Guest guest]

At 11:11 PM 4/25/01 -0400, you wrote:

Yes.

The Merck Manual says there is virtually no serious harm from smoking

marijuan, and that most objections to it are driven by a

" political " not a

toxicological reason.

Which is why I included the Lancet article, stating that objections and

support are both driven by political agendas; in fact, little is known of

long term effects.

Did you

notice how often the words " may " " could, "

plausible " and

" possibility " were employed in the authorities you

cited?

Yes, though not always (We conclude that MJ smoke containing Delta9-THC

is a potent source of cellular oxidative stress ...) for example. Even

smoking tobacco *may* lead to lung cancer in susceptible individuals, not

will lead. In much of medicine, there are probable outcomes, or possible

outcomes.

The fact remains,

that no long-term severe health consequences have been proven to attend

marijuana use.

So yes, MJ is among the most benign substances man may take into his

body.

" Marijuana (MJ) smoking produces inflammation, edema, and

cell injury in the tracheobronchial mucosa of smokers " sounds like

a health consequence (and stated with no equivocation).

I did not include the the use of medicinal (synthetic) marijuana, a

different topic.

Some Merck Manual excerpts:

....although its toxicologic importance is unclear

.. However, high-dose smokers of marijuana develop pulmonary symptoms

(episodes of acute bronchitis, wheezing, coughing, and increased phlegm),

and pulmonary function may be altered.

Tachycardia, conjunctival injection, and dry mouth occur

regularly

Communicative and motor abilities are decreased, depth perception and

tracking are impaired, and the sense of timing is altered--all hazardous

in certain situations (eg, driving, operating heavy equipment).

To each his choice.

[Guest guest]

At 01:20 AM 4/26/01 -0400, you wrote:

Annie

asked me for proof that marijuana is, by any measure, safer than

alcohol.

No, I did not ask for proof that marijuana is safer than alcohol. I asked

for evidence (not proof) showing marijuana is safer than alcohol

(assuming you were referring to a comparative study..I did not debate

this, just asked for the evidence). The response, " MJ is among the

most benign substances man may take into his body " did engender

skepticism.

This report confirms the fact that much is not known.

There is reasonably consistent

evidence that THC can produce cellular changes

such as alterations in cell

metabolism, and DNA synthesis, in vitro (Bloch,

1983). There is even stronger evidence that cannabis smoke is mutagenic

in

vitro, and in vitro, and hence, that it is potentially

carcinogenic for the

same reasons as tobacco smoke (Leuchtenberger, 1983).

[Guest guest]

At 01:20 AM 4/26/01 -0400, you wrote:

Annie

asked me for proof that marijuana is, by any measure, safer than

alcohol.

No, I did not ask for proof that marijuana is safer than alcohol. I asked

for evidence (not proof) showing marijuana is safer than alcohol

(assuming you were referring to a comparative study..I did not debate

this, just asked for the evidence). The response, " MJ is among the

most benign substances man may take into his body " did engender

skepticism.

This report confirms the fact that much is not known.

There is reasonably consistent

evidence that THC can produce cellular changes

such as alterations in cell

metabolism, and DNA synthesis, in vitro (Bloch,

1983). There is even stronger evidence that cannabis smoke is mutagenic

in

vitro, and in vitro, and hence, that it is potentially

carcinogenic for the

same reasons as tobacco smoke (Leuchtenberger, 1983).

[Guest guest]

At 01:20 AM 4/26/01 -0400, you wrote:

Annie

asked me for proof that marijuana is, by any measure, safer than

alcohol.

No, I did not ask for proof that marijuana is safer than alcohol. I asked

for evidence (not proof) showing marijuana is safer than alcohol

(assuming you were referring to a comparative study..I did not debate

this, just asked for the evidence). The response, " MJ is among the

most benign substances man may take into his body " did engender

skepticism.

This report confirms the fact that much is not known.

There is reasonably consistent

evidence that THC can produce cellular changes

such as alterations in cell

metabolism, and DNA synthesis, in vitro (Bloch,

1983). There is even stronger evidence that cannabis smoke is mutagenic

in

vitro, and in vitro, and hence, that it is potentially

carcinogenic for the

same reasons as tobacco smoke (Leuchtenberger, 1983).

[Guest guest]

At 01:33 AM 4/26/01 -0400, you wrote:

Pot can

cause bronchitis, usuall in only heavy users. Not something anyone

would wish for, but also nothing as severe as cirrhosis or alcoholic

dementia. Do you think that sufficient reason to send people to

prison for

smoking it? If so, what is your aspirin policy, in light of its

lethality?

i

Herein is the ludicrous strawman. I have said nothing whatsoever about

legalization, jail, or aspirin.

Nor do I care about subjective ratings of consequential diseases

(potential lung cancer equates to potential cirrhosis for me). All

I was ever interested in was citations (rather than

anecdotes) to studies showing marijuana safer than alcohol. i cited

what studies I knew that either concluded little is known, or there could

be potential serious morbidities long term.

btw, aspirine is not lethal: " Tout est poison, rien n'est

poison, tout est une question de dose "

I am finished with this topic,as it is being turned into legalization,

medicinal use (which I applaud even for heroin) and other strawmen to the

original request.

[Guest guest]

At 01:33 AM 4/26/01 -0400, you wrote:

Pot can

cause bronchitis, usuall in only heavy users. Not something anyone

would wish for, but also nothing as severe as cirrhosis or alcoholic

dementia. Do you think that sufficient reason to send people to

prison for

smoking it? If so, what is your aspirin policy, in light of its

lethality?

i

Herein is the ludicrous strawman. I have said nothing whatsoever about

legalization, jail, or aspirin.

Nor do I care about subjective ratings of consequential diseases

(potential lung cancer equates to potential cirrhosis for me). All

I was ever interested in was citations (rather than

anecdotes) to studies showing marijuana safer than alcohol. i cited

what studies I knew that either concluded little is known, or there could

be potential serious morbidities long term.

btw, aspirine is not lethal: " Tout est poison, rien n'est

poison, tout est une question de dose "

I am finished with this topic,as it is being turned into legalization,

medicinal use (which I applaud even for heroin) and other strawmen to the

original request.

[Guest guest]

At 03:28 AM 4/26/01 -0400, you wrote:

She was

writing in French, not Latin. I'm relatively fluent in French, but

very, very seldom use it in posts because doing so strikes me as

pretentious.

Chaque son gout. (To each his own.)

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).

[Guest guest]

At 03:28 AM 4/26/01 -0400, you wrote:

She was

writing in French, not Latin. I'm relatively fluent in French, but

very, very seldom use it in posts because doing so strikes me as

pretentious.

Chaque son gout. (To each his own.)

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).

[Guest guest]

At 03:28 AM 4/26/01 -0400, you wrote:

She was

writing in French, not Latin. I'm relatively fluent in French, but

very, very seldom use it in posts because doing so strikes me as

pretentious.

Chaque son gout. (To each his own.)

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).

[Guest guest]

At 03:23 AM 4/26/01 -0400, you wrote:

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]

At 03:23 AM 4/26/01 -0400, you wrote:

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]

At 03:23 AM 4/26/01 -0400, you wrote:

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]

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--