Confused about medical marijuana

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Recreational marijuana use is not some harmless, victimless pastime. Research has demonstrated that using marijuana at a young age age can result in structural and functional deficits of the brain which can result in weakened verbal and communication skills, lowered learning capabilities and a shortened attention span. Marijuana smoke has atleast as many carcinogens as tobacoo and causes cancer in lab animals. Legalizing MJ will make it more availbale to the young and there is a proven link to earlier use of marijuana, and increased likelihood to become dependent on other types of drugs later in life. There is also a demonstrated association between chronic marijuana use and increased rates of anxiety, depression and schizophrenia. There is no one I know who is basically healthy who uses marijuana on a regular basis that I respect or can take seriously.

Every purported model reporting the windfall of tax revenue expected from taxing MJ ignores offsetting expenses of the criminal behavior and social maladies that would result from increased drug use, not to mention also makes the ridiculous assumption that drug peddlers are going to be forthright about how much business they do and pay their taxes honestly. Anyone in law enforcement will tell you that marijuana drug dealers are equally as violent as anyone who sells other drugs. You think with passing a law these people are going to transform into normal people and open up a little shop in the mall and pay taxes like they opened up a candy store?

And no, since pseudolegalization of medical marijuana communities have appreciated an increase, not decrease in crime. The Aspen area of CO has witnessed a dramatic increase in theft and other crimes near dispensaries. The Los Angeles Police Department has experienced a 200 percent increase in robberies, 52.2 percent increase in burglaries, 57 percent increase in aggravated assaults and 130.8 percent increase in auto burglaries near cannabis clubs. San Francisco police reported increased crime in 2006-2007, related to marijuana dispensaries. In January 2007, the Drug Enforcement Administration executed search warrants on 17 dispensary owners in Los Angeles. Fourteen had prior criminal records, seven had prior weapons charges. Eight had prior drug charges, and two had murder/attempted-murder charges.

Let's see some sources for your claims.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Recreational marijuana use is not some harmless, victimless pastime. Research has demonstrated that using marijuana at a young age age can result in structural and functional deficits of the brain which can result in weakened verbal and communication skills, lowered learning capabilities and a shortened attention span. Marijuana smoke has atleast as many carcinogens as tobacoo and causes cancer in lab animals. Legalizing MJ will make it more availbale to the young and there is a proven link to earlier use of marijuana, and increased likelihood to become dependent on other types of drugs later in life. There is also a demonstrated association between chronic marijuana use and increased rates of anxiety, depression and schizophrenia. There is no one I know who is basically healthy who uses marijuana on a regular basis that I respect or can take seriously.

Every purported model reporting the windfall of tax revenue expected from taxing MJ ignores offsetting expenses of the criminal behavior and social maladies that would result from increased drug use, not to mention also makes the ridiculous assumption that drug peddlers are going to be forthright about how much business they do and pay their taxes honestly. Anyone in law enforcement will tell you that marijuana drug dealers are equally as violent as anyone who sells other drugs. You think with passing a law these people are going to transform into normal people and open up a little shop in the mall and pay taxes like they opened up a candy store?

And no, since pseudolegalization of medical marijuana communities have appreciated an increase, not decrease in crime. The Aspen area of CO has witnessed a dramatic increase in theft and other crimes near dispensaries. The Los Angeles Police Department has experienced a 200 percent increase in robberies, 52.2 percent increase in burglaries, 57 percent increase in aggravated assaults and 130.8 percent increase in auto burglaries near cannabis clubs. San Francisco police reported increased crime in 2006-2007, related to marijuana dispensaries. In January 2007, the Drug Enforcement Administration executed search warrants on 17 dispensary owners in Los Angeles. Fourteen had prior criminal records, seven had prior weapons charges. Eight had prior drug charges, and two had murder/attempted-murder charges.

Oh goodness. The knowledge I would drop on your small little world... if only I didn't have homework. I will will rebuttal (with actual facts) when I have time.
 
Exactly because it still is not legal for 99% of the population. Therefore there is still a street market for it because getting medical approval can difficult. If you could walk into a gas station and buy it who would buy it off the street? Organized crime would lose most of its funding and power.

Look at the entire Mexico-US border, its not dangerous because illegal immigrants, its illegal because criminals are running drugs.

Prohibition pretty clearly supports my statements...just looked what happened alcohol was illegal, did violence decrease or increase?

In the parts of the country where prostitution is legal is there more or less violence associated with prostitution. What about disease transfer rates? What about tax revenue?

I believe the topic of this thread is marijuana not prostitution. Prostitution is immoral and I dont care if the bunny ranch or 1-2 Nevada brothels that have finagled legal approval get away with it.

I just provided you facts about increased availability of marijuana leading to increased not less crime. What about that do you not understand? If you could buy it at taco Bell than you would get robbed there buy someone who didnt want to pay for it. Do you get it?

The comparison with alcohol is invalid. Ethanol has been socially acceptable since ancient times. It was entrenched as a societal norm, it can be made from any number of fermentable crops that are ubiquitous and so enforcement of its removal was/is unrealistic/impossible. Yes it is a double standard (i already said that) and yes it is very destructive. Does having one publicly available toxin dictate that no other dangerous substance should be illegal? That makes no sense. Thats like arguing on the basis that the general public are allowed to own handguns, they therefore should also be permitted to have hand grenades and missle launchers.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I believe the topic of this thread is marijuana not prostitution. Prostitution is immoral and I dont care if the bunny ranch or 1-2 Nevada brothels that have finagled legal approval get away with it.

I just provided you facts about increased availability of marijuana leading to increased not less crime. What about that do you not understand? If you could buy it at taco Bell than you would get robbed there buy someone who didnt want to pay for it. Do you get it?

The comparison with alcohol is invalid. Ethanol has been socially acceptable since ancient times. It was entrenched as a societal norm, it can be made from any number of fermentable crops that are ubiquitous and so enforcement of its removal was/is unrealistic/impossible. Yes it is a double standard (i already said that) and yes it is very destructive. Does having one publicly available toxin dictate that no other dangerous substance should be illegal? That makes no sense. Thats like arguing on the basis that the general public are allowed to own handguns, they therefore should also be permitted to have hand grenades and missle launchers.

As long as you agree that alcohol is a double standard I really don't have much else to disagree with.
 
Let's see some sources for your claims.

<LI class=margin15_bottom>National Institute on Drug Abuse. NIDA InfoFacts Marijuana
(http://www.drugabuse.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html )
Revised November 2010.
<LI class=margin15_bottom>Community Anti-Drug Coalition. Strategizer Marijuana &#8212; Debunking the Myths
(http://www.theantidrug.com/pdfs/resources/marijuana/Marijuana_Strategizer.pdf)
<LI class=margin15_bottom>National Institute on Drug Abuse. Marijuana: An Update on the National Institute on Drug (http://www.drugabuse.gov/tib/marijuana.html)
Published February 2011.
<LI class=margin15_bottom> Drug Enforcement Agency. Fiction: Marijuana is Harmless
(http://www.justthinktwice.com/factsfiction/fiction_marijuana_is_harmless.html. )


Is that good enough for you? Likely not
 
<LI class=margin15_bottom>National Institute on Drug Abuse. NIDA InfoFacts Marijuana
(http://www.drugabuse.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html )
Revised November 2010.
<LI class=margin15_bottom>Community Anti-Drug Coalition. Strategizer Marijuana &mdash; Debunking the Myths
(http://www.theantidrug.com/pdfs/resources/marijuana/Marijuana_Strategizer.pdf)
<LI class=margin15_bottom>National Institute on Drug Abuse. Marijuana: An Update on the National Institute on Drug (http://www.drugabuse.gov/tib/marijuana.html)
Published February 2011.
<LI class=margin15_bottom> Drug Enforcement Agency. Fiction: Marijuana is Harmless
(http://www.justthinktwice.com/factsfiction/fiction_marijuana_is_harmless.html. )


Is that good enough for you? Likely not

You mean am I going to accept "research" performed by institutions that SUPPORTS THE POSITION OF THE ORGANIZATION DOING THE "RESEARCH?" No, no I don't. Surely you can see the blatant conflict of interest. You probably wouldn't accept research proving the efficacy of a drug funded by the company that developed the drug, right? There's no difference between that and the nonsense you provided.
 
Thats like arguing on the basis that the general public are allowed to own handguns, they therefore should also be permitted to have hand grenades and missle launchers.
I absolutely agree with this premise, but you have it backwards. In this case, marijuana is the handgun and alcohol is the missile launcher.
 
You mean am I going to accept "research" performed by institutions that SUPPORTS THE POSITION OF THE ORGANIZATION DOING THE "RESEARCH?" No, no I don't. Surely you can see the blatant conflict of interest. You probably wouldn't accept research proving the efficacy of a drug funded by the company that developed the drug, right? There's no difference between that and the nonsense you provided.

You're right the NIH is complete biased bushleague quackery. Gracious sakes you are a medical student?
 
Is this currently legal in california? Also like how does a physician decide to recommend it? i know it's for like pain relief but like doesn't it have harmful effects and is an addictive drug? I'm just confused how i should respond to this if asked during an interview
edit: also why do we not have medical cocaine?
thanks

If the patient has dreadlocks and is wearing a grateful dead T-shirt I would wonder if he is seeking the marijuana for a medicinal purpose.

I agree that marijuana is harmless for many people who use it and they shouldn't be punished simply for using it if they aren't hurting anybody.

However, we should not be using medicine for the political purpose of legalizing marijuana.

That being said, it probably does have a medical benefit for some people. But the true motivation of medical marijuana is to get it legalized eventually, and we should not be using medicine for such a political purpose.
 
You're right the NIH is complete biased bushleague quackery. Gracious sakes you are a medical student?

I have this strange feeling that everyone against you just really really likes to get high.
 
I have this strange feeling that everyone against you just really really likes to get high.
I haven't smoked pot in over a decade, have no particular plan to ever do so again, and still I wish to God it would just get legalized already. Is marijuana good for you? Of course not. Is it substantially worse than smoking tobacco, drinking alcohol, being a lineman in the NFL, eating a typical American diet, or any number of other things that we let adult human beings in contemporary Western civilization decide to do? I absolutely don't think so.
 
I haven't smoked pot in over a decade, have no particular plan to ever do so again, and still I wish to God it would just get legalized already. Is marijuana good for you? Of course not. Is it substantially worse than smoking tobacco, drinking alcohol, being a lineman in the NFL, eating a typical American diet, or any number of other things that we let adult human beings in contemporary Western civilization decide to do? I absolutely don't think so.

If it was legal would you use it now?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
If it was legal would you use it now?

I know your reply was to someone else, but to be honest, I support the legalization of marijuana, but I still wouldn't use it if it were legal. Enjoying the sensation of an activity and being against a complete ban are two completely separate things.
 
If it was legal would you use it now?
Hard to say. Maybe. I don't drink alcohol either, not because I have any moral problems with it whatsoever but just because... I don't. And I remember that smoking pot used to give me a killer sore throat.
 
Hard to say. Maybe. I don't drink alcohol either, not because I have any moral problems with it whatsoever but just because... I don't. And I remember that smoking pot used to give me a killer sore throat.

If your attitude towards your own use of it had changed I wonder if you would dissuade your patients from it.
 
If your attitude towards your own use of it had changed I wonder if you would dissuade your patients from it.
I don't try too terribly hard to actively dissuade my patients from anything. I see my role as educating them, in the very unlikely event that they actually have no clue that Activity X is bad for them, and then what they want to do with that information is up to them. I might say things like, "I want you to understand that smoking cigarettes is likely a big contributor to why you had a heart attack. It will make it more likely for you to have more heart attacks. Independent from that, it might make your chest pains worse. It will make it more likely for this new stent to close up. On average you will die sooner if you continue smoking. If you are interested in quitting, I have some resources that might help you." And I pretty much leave it there. Given that I'm comparatively underwhelmed by the negative effects of marijuana as compared to tobacco or alcohol, I usually am more equivocal about it.
 
I believe the topic of this thread is marijuana not prostitution. Prostitution is immoral and I dont care if the bunny ranch or 1-2 Nevada brothels that have finagled legal approval get away with it.

I just provided you facts about increased availability of marijuana leading to increased not less crime. What about that do you not understand? If you could buy it at taco Bell than you would get robbed there buy someone who didnt want to pay for it. Do you get it?

The comparison with alcohol is invalid. Ethanol has been socially acceptable since ancient times. It was entrenched as a societal norm, it can be made from any number of fermentable crops that are ubiquitous and so enforcement of its removal was/is unrealistic/impossible. Yes it is a double standard (i already said that) and yes it is very destructive. Does having one publicly available toxin dictate that no other dangerous substance should be illegal? That makes no sense. Thats like arguing on the basis that the general public are allowed to own handguns, they therefore should also be permitted to have hand grenades and missle launchers.

Ahh...but you negated the fact that this "increased availability" wasnt through legal means but rather means the increased supply to the street. Therefore, this pseudo-legalization really just benefited the criminals access while still making it difficult for the average person to get it. Your average pot user doesnt go through faking an illness to get the medical card. Rather they go to the criminal on the street and buy it there. These criminals are getting part of their supply from the people with these medical cards (be it through robberies or bribing)....hence the increased violence in the distributor areas. Your articles really prove nothing because they don't reflect a case where legalized has happened for the masses.

Furthermore the comparison with alcohol is very valid, because it is the only case where we have gone from full legalization to no legalization. Gangs of the prohibition era where born solely through the money of this.

Finally, the control argument is weak because both fermenting plants and cannabis plants are very easy to grow. How do you think it is even remotely plausible to control a plant which can be grow in somebody's closet?
 
You're right the NIH is complete biased bushleague quackery. Gracious sakes you are a medical student?

I apologize for having and utilizing critical thinking skills. As an example, look at the third source you posted and check out the sources cited there. None of them are peer-reviewed articles, and most of them are simply news articles. How can you take that seriously?

I'm too lazy to read the articles cited in your other sources right now, but I definitely will later and let you know my thoughts though. But you're right, I'm clearly a complete ***** for suggesting that the organizations funding this propaganda JUST MIGHT have an interest in the message being broadcast. I'm going to be a terrible doctor.
 
I apologize for having and utilizing critical thinking skills. As an example, look at the third source you posted and check out the sources cited there. None of them are peer-reviewed articles, and most of them are simply news articles. How can you take that seriously?

I'm too lazy to read the articles cited in your other sources right now, but I definitely will later and let you know my thoughts though. But you're right, I'm clearly a complete ***** for suggesting that the organizations funding this propaganda JUST MIGHT have an interest in the message being broadcast. I'm going to be a terrible doctor.[/QUOTE]

Atleast we agree on one thing.
 
I apologize for having and utilizing critical thinking skills. As an example, look at the third source you posted and check out the sources cited there. None of them are peer-reviewed articles, and most of them are simply news articles. How can you take that seriously?

I'm too lazy to read the articles cited in your other sources right now, but I definitely will later and let you know my thoughts though. But you're right, I'm clearly a complete ***** for suggesting that the organizations funding this propaganda JUST MIGHT have an interest in the message being broadcast. I'm going to be a terrible doctor.[/QUOTE]

Atleast we agree on one thing.

Hahahaha, I'm sorta on the fence about this whole issue but that made me laugh. (No disrespect intended to NickNaylor)
 
I apologize for having and utilizing critical thinking skills. As an example, look at the third source you posted and check out the sources cited there. None of them are peer-reviewed articles, and most of them are simply news articles. How can you take that seriously?

I'm too lazy to read the articles cited in your other sources right now, but I definitely will later and let you know my thoughts though. But you're right, I'm clearly a complete ***** for suggesting that the organizations funding this propaganda JUST MIGHT have an interest in the message being broadcast. I'm going to be a terrible doctor.

I'm really excited to be a terrible doctor alongside you.
 
<LI class=margin15_bottom>National Institute on Drug Abuse. NIDA InfoFacts Marijuana
(http://www.drugabuse.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html )
Revised November 2010.
<LI class=margin15_bottom>Community Anti-Drug Coalition. Strategizer Marijuana &#8212; Debunking the Myths
(http://www.theantidrug.com/pdfs/resources/marijuana/Marijuana_Strategizer.pdf)
<LI class=margin15_bottom>National Institute on Drug Abuse. Marijuana: An Update on the National Institute on Drug (http://www.drugabuse.gov/tib/marijuana.html)
Published February 2011.
<LI class=margin15_bottom> Drug Enforcement Agency. Fiction: Marijuana is Harmless
(http://www.justthinktwice.com/factsfiction/fiction_marijuana_is_harmless.html. )


Is that good enough for you? Likely not

Fyi, link-dropping is not a valid form of argument. At the very least, concisely summarize the sources themselves and how they support your argument. If you can't do that, you don't deserve to use them. You can't just drop a bunch of links and be done with it.
 
Last edited:
<LI class=margin15_bottom>National Institute on Drug Abuse. NIDA InfoFacts Marijuana
(http://www.drugabuse.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html )
Revised November 2010.
<LI class=margin15_bottom>Community Anti-Drug Coalition. Strategizer Marijuana &#8212; Debunking the Myths
(http://www.theantidrug.com/pdfs/resources/marijuana/Marijuana_Strategizer.pdf)
<LI class=margin15_bottom>National Institute on Drug Abuse. Marijuana: An Update on the National Institute on Drug (http://www.drugabuse.gov/tib/marijuana.html)
Published February 2011.
<LI class=margin15_bottom> Drug Enforcement Agency. Fiction: Marijuana is Harmless
(http://www.justthinktwice.com/factsfiction/fiction_marijuana_is_harmless.html. )


Is that good enough for you? Likely not

I actually read the ones on the NIDA websites you linked (I am not bothering with the ones from the DEA and the Anti-drug coalition.... You can't deny a conflict of interest there.) It seemed to indicate three things:

1. Not any more harmful that ciggerates.
2. Not really that addictive (9% of all users are addicted and 25% of daily users are addicted?)
3. Most of the data, besides that on exacerbating mental illness, is inconclusive.

No one is arguing it's good for you but why is it that we can have alcohol and tobacco and not marijuana? I personally wouldn't smoke it if it were legal and I would advise my patients not to smoke, period, but I see hypocrisy in the laws.
 
Fyi, link-dropping is not a valid form of argument. At the very least, concisely summarize the sources themselves and how they support your argument. If you can't do that, you don't deserve to use them. You can' just drop a bunch of links and be done with it.

Oh, come on now. You're being a tad harsh. You can't expect the dude to sit there and explain it to you as if you were a child.

Arguments are a two way street. If you want to learn more you would look through each of them and then post a response on them.
 
I actually read the ones on the NIDA websites you linked (I am not bothering with the ones from the DEA and the Anti-drug coalition.... You can't deny a conflict of interest there.) It seemed to indicate three things:

1. Not any more harmful that ciggerates.
2. Not really that addictive (9% of all users are addicted and 25% of daily users are addicted?)
3. Most of the data, besides that on exacerbating mental illness, is inconclusive.

No one is arguing it's good for you but why is it that we can have alcohol and tobacco and not marijuana? I personally wouldn't smoke it if it were legal and I would advise my patients not to smoke, period, but I see hypocrisy in the laws.

If you look back at some of his past posts he already explained that he thinks alcohol is a double standard.
 
Fyi, link-dropping is not a valid form of argument. At the very least, concisely summarize the sources themselves and how they support your argument. If you can't do that, you don't deserve to use them. You can't just drop a bunch of links and be done with it.

For the love of God I gave the data prior to citing the literature. Did you read the thread at all? For you and the rest of the those that apparently dont understand how to read yet want to be doctors the summary pages collate the data and the original articles are cited at the end; though that obviously won't satisfy any of you since their sources are not coming from MTV or the inside cover of 'High Times'. thred/
 
Oh, come on now. You're being a tad harsh. You can't expect the dude to sit there and explain it to you as if you were a child.

Arguments are a two way street. If you want to learn more you would look through each of them and then post a response on them.

He should explain them because I dont see anything relevant to the argument at hand. If we are discussing apples and he posts articles talking about oranges how is reading these going to influence the argument? One of the core arguments is reducing crime, I dont see these articles addressing a legalization scenario.

From the looks of thread, it is taking on the nature if you cant defend your position just attack arbitrary aspects of your opponent to make them seem not credible. While this is commonplace in modern politics...it just shows lack of evidence, lack of ability to form an argument, or being blinded by emotion.

The point of the matter nobody on this thread has show full legalization has increased violence. But alas, call me an idiot, a horrible med student....I am sure it will make you feel better and gain traction with non-objective readers.
 
For the love of God I gave the data prior to citing the literature. Did you read the thread at all? For you and the rest of the those that apparently dont understand how to read yet want to be doctors the summary pages collate the data and the original articles are cited at the end; though that obviously won't satisfy any of you since their sources are not coming from MTV or the inside cover of 'High Times'. thred/

Can you sum that up for me? I had Jersey Shore going on in the background... you sounds all smarts and stuff and we are just real dumb. halp us?
 
He should explain them because I dont see anything relevant to the argument at hand. If we are discussing apples and he posts articles talking about oranges how is reading these going to influence the argument? One of the core arguments is reducing crime, I dont see these articles addressing a legalization scenario.

From the looks of thread, it is taking on the nature if you cant defend your position just attack arbitrary aspects of your opponent to make them seem not credible. While this is commonplace in modern politics...it just shows lack of evidence, lack of ability to form an argument, or being blinded by emotion.

The point of the matter nobody on this thread has show full legalization has increased violence. But alas, call me an idiot, a horrible med student....I am sure it will make you feel better and gain traction with non-objective readers.

You looked through all the articles? The reason I'm raising my eyebrow a bit is because I don't think anyone is actually going through them. Hell, I'm not.

Sirenmelia was nice enough to give you some evidence. If someone legitimately went through them I'd be pretty impressed.
 
You looked through all the articles? The reason I'm raising my eyebrow a bit is because I don't think anyone is actually going through them. Hell, I'm not.

Sirenmelia was nice enough to give you some evidence. If someone legitimately went through them I'd be pretty impressed.

The articles are about negative health effects...thats fine, yes it is bad for your health. Worse than cigarettes, I dont see any comparison with that...what about worse than McDonalds, I dont see that comparison. Hell lets ban fast food, thats killing people right? Why dont we ban everything that decline peoples health...I am sure cable TV is correlated with many the problems those articles correlate marijana usage with.

My arguments are being ignored, we have thousands of people dying in the drug war, hundreds of thousand jailed and we are spending billions of dollars we dont have trying fighting it (which is a joke bc you can grow it anywhere). My point is....are all these negatives worth it to prevent health effects which are on not even on par with smoking?
 
The articles are about negative health effects...thats fine, yes it is bad for your health. Worse than cigarettes, I dont see any comparison with that...what about worse than McDonalds, I dont see that comparison. Hell lets ban fast food, thats killing people right? Why dont we ban everything that decline peoples health...I am sure cable TV is correlated with many the problems those articles correlate marijana usage with.

My arguments are being ignored, we have thousands of people dying in the drug war, hundreds of thousand jailed and we are spending billions of dollars we dont have trying fighting it (which is a joke bc you can grow it anywhere). My point is....are all these negatives worth it to prevent health effects which are on not even on par with smoking?

If none of the articles talked about crime rates then I do see your point.

My biggest problem has been that keeping marijuana illegal isn't worth the tax payer trade off. Guess I should look through the articles myself.
 
If none of the articles talked about crime rates then I do see your point.

My biggest problem has been that keeping marijuana illegal isn't worth the tax payer trade off. Guess I should look through the articles myself.

The crime rate is mentioned, but it is correlate in nature and it is obvious to me that a causative relationship doesn't exist or is even explored in those articles.

It seems much more likely to me those willing to break one law are much more likely to break multiple laws.

Considering marijuana is illegal, it is perfect logic to me that people who are committing the other crimes aren't going to have problems breaking drug laws too.

The anti-drug people love to cite criminals have a higher marijuana usage rate than non-user, I have yet to hear an argument of where marijuana was the cause of their criminal activities.
 
Oh, come on now. You're being a tad harsh. You can't expect the dude to sit there and explain it to you as if you were a child.

Arguments are a two way street. If you want to learn more you would look through each of them and then post a response on them.

For the love of God I gave the data prior to citing the literature. Did you read the thread at all? For you and the rest of the those that apparently dont understand how to read yet want to be doctors the summary pages collate the data and the original articles are cited at the end; though that obviously won't satisfy any of you since their sources are not coming from MTV or the inside cover of 'High Times'. thred/

I'm not a child; this is a debate. You can not simply drop several wordy links and expect your opponents to comb through them to dig up support for your side - that's what you provide. If you can't summarize them concisely and pinpoint where exactly they support your argument, then you don't understand them well enough yourself. Nobody in hell is gonna read through a bunch of random crap and support your arguments for you.
 
Atleast we agree on one thing.

I'll summarize the links you posted since you refuse to do so yourself:

First source: talks about how MJ is "abused" (aka used), talks about how MJ "affects the brain" (aka biochemical mechanism of action), talks about how "addictive" MJ is (and cites a 9% overall addiction rate - oh, the horror!), talks about "associations" between MJ and mental health issues (though doesn't go into how these things are linked or the methodology of the studies cited), and then talks about MJ's impact on heart rate ("a 20-100% increase in HR," something you could get from walking up stairs - are we going to call that a health risk too?), lung function (...smoking anything causes lung damage, yet completely ignores vaporization as an intake method), and daily life (including a dubious negative impact on "several important measures of life achievement.") This source actually cites peer-reviewed papers, but I'm not going to take the time to look through all of them. Regardless, the source really doesn't mention anything substantive that really supports MJ criminalization from my perspective.

Second source: an education pamphlet produced by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (an organization that is mandated by law to oppose ANY attempts of legalization of schedule I drugs, which includes MJ; in fact, the ONDCP actually has the legal authority to disseminate misleading/"controversial" information as part of this mandate - http://www.gao.gov/products/A09471) that essentially repeats the same points made in the first source.

Third source: as mentioned previously, this source cites a total of 12 sources, 7 of which are news articles, 3 of which are surveys about drug use (i.e., say nothing about MJ's health effects), 1 of which is a peer-reviewed article that talks about MJ use while driving, and 1 of which is a peer-reviewed article that actually studies the health effects of MJ use (specifically, the impact of smoking on lung function).

So, would you like to try again?
 
The crime rate is mentioned, but it is correlate in nature and it is obvious to me that a causative relationship doesn't exist or is even explored in those articles.

It seems much more likely to me those willing to break one law are much more likely to break multiple laws.

Considering marijuana is illegal, it is perfect logic to me that people who are committing the other crimes aren't going to have problems breaking drug laws too.

The anti-drug people love to cite criminals have a higher marijuana usage rate than non-user, I have yet to hear an argument of where marijuana was the cause of their criminal activities.

Indeed - the very fact that MJ is illegal to own, produce, and sell naturally means that people that don't mind being criminals will be the primary ones that use and sell it.
 
By the way, just so we're clear, there are respectable reasons for wanting MJ use banned. Up until this year I was one of those people until I met many people that are high-functioning, incredibly intelligent, not anti-social losers that sit around the house all day, and, best of all, are medical students.. But if you're going to advocate for banning MJ use on the basis of health, then you better be just as fervent about banning alcohol, tobacco, fast food, and a myriad of other things that have a significantly worse direct impact on your health.
 
By the way, just so we're clear, there are respectable reasons for wanting MJ use banned. Up until this year I was one of those people until I met many people that are high-functioning, incredibly intelligent, not anti-social losers that sit around the house all day, and, best of all, are medical students.. But if you're going to advocate for banning MJ use on the basis of health, then you better be just as fervent about banning alcohol, tobacco, fast food, and a myriad of other things that have a significantly worse direct impact on your health.

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:
 
Recreational marijuana use is not some harmless, victimless pastime. Research has demonstrated that using marijuana at a young age age can result in structural and functional deficits of the brain which can result in weakened verbal and communication skills, lowered learning capabilities and a shortened attention span.

....

There is also a demonstrated association between chronic marijuana use and increased rates of anxiety, depression and schizophrenia

Yes but the same side effects as well as others can also be observed from caffeine, adderall, SSRI's, benzos, and about a million other drugs and substances that are not only commonly consumed by children but also prescribed by physicians. Hell stress from kindergarten can cause those effects. Furthermore, no one is suggesting the legalization for children. This discussion is about adults.

(I can post sources if you wish, I figured this is pretty well known.)


Marijuana smoke has atleast as many carcinogens as tobacoo and causes cancer in lab animals.

Yes and no. The science is still undecided on the matter. You are correct in that it has more carcinogens, but significant epidemiological evidence has not shown marijuana to be a major risk factor. If only it was easier to do research, perhaps we would know better the reasons for these various properties of marijuana and whether or not they pose a health risk or whether there may be health benefits. Like all substances, it's probably somewhere in between and physicians and individuals should have the right to decide if the risk is worth the supposed benefits. Regardless, there is still significant study on the matter and most health officials do not see a major risk with marijuana use, of course anyone can create study to prove a point.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1277837/
More people are using the cannabis plant as modern basic and clinical science reaffirms and extends its medicinal uses. Concomitantly, concern and opposition to smoked medicine has occurred, in part due to the known carcinogenic consequences of smoking tobacco. Are these reactions justified? While chemically very similar, there are fundamental differences in the pharmacological properties between cannabis and tobacco smoke. Cannabis smoke contains cannabinoids whereas tobacco smoke contains nicotine. Available scientific data, that examines the carcinogenic properties of inhaling smoke and its biological consequences, suggests reasons why tobacco smoke, but not cannabis smoke, may result in lung cancer.

On the carcinogenicity of marijuana smoke. (copy and pasted from a weed forum :cool:)
A hypothetical link between marijuana smoking and cancer has been established based on the following observations: 1. Marijuana smoke contains carcinogenic hydrocarbons; 2. Cannabinoid administration promotes cancer under certain laboratory conditions; 3. Lesions similar to those caused by tobacco smoke are found in the bronchial epithelium of marijuana smokers; 4. Marijuana tar produces tumors when painted on the skin of animals. The best evidence to date on the link between marijuana and cancer, however, derives from large case-control studies -- especially population-based studies. Such studies tend to suggest, if anything, an inverse association between marijuana use and cancers.

I. Marijuana smoke contains higher levels of carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) than those found in tobacco smoke.
As a rule, the level of carcinogenic PAHs within a chemical mixture is less important than the overarching influence of the mixture on carcinogenic PAH activation (Mahadevan et al. 2007). Indeed, marijuana smoke is presumed carcinogenic not only because it contains carcinogenic PAHs, but also because cannabinoids, in their own right, influence the cytochrome enzymes (CYP1) that determine carcinogenic PAH activation (Roth et al. 2001). Perhaps due to their phenolic hydrocarbon structure, cannabinoids share the anti-carcinogenic disposition of polyphenols to increase levels of CYP1A1 messenger RNA while competitively reducing CYP1A1 enzyme ativity through aryl hydrocarbon receptor ligation (Ciolino et al. 1998). Not surprisingly, spiking tobacco tar with delta-9 THC markedly reduced carcinogenic activity (Roth et al. 2001).

II. Cannabinoid administration promotes cancer in mice.
Intraperitoneal administration of immunosuppressive cannabinoids promotes cannabinoid-resistant lines of cancer in immune-competent strains of mice (Gardner et al. 2003, McKallip et al. 2005, Zhu et al. 2000); however, the preponderance of in vivo studies, have shown that cannabinoid administration -- either locally or systemically -- inhis the growth of cancer (Aguado et al. 2007, Bifulco et al. 2001, Bifulco et al. 2004, Blazquez et al. 2003, Blazquez et al. 2004, Blazquez et al. 2006, Caffarel et al. 2006, Carracedo et al. 2006, Casanova et al. 2003, Chan et al. 1996, Duntsch et al. 2006, Grimaldi et al. 2006, Ligresti et al. 2006, Massi et al. 2004, McKallip et al. 2002, McKallip et al. 2006, Munson et al. 1975, Pisanti et al. 2007, Preet et al. 2008, Recht et al. 2001, Sanchez et al. 2001). The neoplastic effects of cannabinoids may vary according to the degree of malignancy, which, in turn, may depend on the presence of cannabinoid receptors (Ellert-Miklaszewska et al. 2007, Xu et al. 2006). Cannabinoids may control the growth of human cancers, in part, through the cannabinoid receptor 2 gene (CNR2), which emerged as the best-connected 'super hub' in an inferred large-scale association network for breast cancer data (Schäfer et al. 2005).

The posological question remains as to whether smoking marijuana produces antineoplastic concentrations of cannabinoids in the exposed tissues of recreational or medicinal users. Perhaps the biggest obstacle to developing chemotherapy for lung cancer is the fact that optimal tissue concentrations cannot asily be reached in the bronchial epithelium, where anti-neoplastic cannabinoids from smoked marijuana naturally concentrate. Inhalation of marijuana smoke was shown to produce 800-1000% higher concentrations of THC in the lungs compared with those found in blood (75 +/- 38 ng/g wet wt tissue vs. 9.2 +/- 2.0 ng/ml: Sarafian et al. 2006). If the bronchial epithelium does, in fact, harbor malignant neovasculature prior to clinical detection, then smoking marijuana may treat lung cancer at its roots early on, while treatment still matters.

III. Marijuana smokers develop 'precancerous' lesions similar to those caused by tobacco smoke.
Marijuana smoking causes 'precancerous' epithelial lesions (PEL) such as squamous metaplasia (SM) and other changes associated with respiratory exposure to smoke in general (Barsky et al. 1998). On the one hand, SM not only follows exposure to potent carcinogens in laboratory strains of mice, but it also precedes the development of squamous cell carcinoma of lungs (SCCL) in humans. On the other hand, the multiplicity of SM was higher among SCCL-resistant mice (e. g., C57BL/6J = 5.0 - 6.0: Wang et al. 2004) than it was among SCCL-susceptible mice (e. g., NIH Swiss = 2.1 - 4.9: Wang et al. 2004); in humans, PEL such as SM are generally reversible and often regress spontaneously (Winterhalder et al. 2004).

As it turns out, PEL may have little, if any, predictive value. In fact, according to recent findings, "Distribution and outcome of preneoplastic lesions have been found to be unrelated to various risk factors such as smoking. . . The 54% regression rate of all preneoplastic lesions, 26% to 39% progression rate to CIS/SCC of individuals with lower-grade dysplasia or severe dysplasia with no significant difference in progression rate and time to progression combined with nostepwise histologic changes unrelated to the initial histologic grading.... The initial WHO classification of any preneoplastic lesion cannot be reliably used for accurate risk assessment of field carciogenesis" (Breuer et al. 2005).

IV. Marijuana tar produces tumors when painted on the skin of animals.
Tar from marijuana smoke, like that from tobacco smoke, was shown to produce benign tumors (i.e., squamous-cell papilloma) when painted on the skin of animals (Hoffman et al. 1975); however, tar from tobacco smoke caused frank malignancies (i.e., squamous-cell carcinoma), whereas tar from marijuana smoke did not. In subsequent research on monkeys, prolonged exposure to marijuana smoke failed to produce any carcinogenic effects (Talaska et al. 1992). Interestingly enough, exposure to marijuana smoke was shown to ****** the growth of sarcoma in rats (Watson 1989). This inhiion was unrelated to the cannabinoid content of the smoke.

The appearance of papillomas on the skin indicates that tar from marijuana smoke, like that from tobacco smoke, is an effective initiator of benign tumors; however, the absence of squamous-cell carcinoma is consistent with the observation that cannabinoid administration induces the regression of squamous-cell carcinoma of skin by transforming the vascular hyperplasia of engorged tumors into pallid networks of small, differentiated capillaries (Casanova et al. 2003). Such transformation reflects the tendency of cannabinoids to thwart the neoplastic expression of angiogenic factors (Casanova et al. 2003, Portella et al. 2003).

To date, no animal study has demonstrated the carcinogenicity of marijuana smoke. Future studies would, ideally, be conducted with animal models that reflect the stages of both initiation and progression observed in human cancer, but no such model currently exists (Khanna et al. 2005). In vivo studies on the neoplastic properties of cannabinoids have typically been conducted with BALB/c, B6C3F1, and C57BL/6 murine strains, which are not susceptible to chemically-induced SCCL. Even the most susceptible strains do not develop SCCL as the result of exposure to tobacco smoke (Wang et al. 2004), the definitive benchmark for human carcinogens.

Murine SCCL results from exposure to a single carcinogen, whereas human SCCL typically results from exposure to complex mixtures of carcinogens such as those found in smoke. Unlike murine SCCL, adenocarcinoma of the lungs (ACL) in mice results from tobacco smoke exposure (Hutt et al. 2005). Lifetime inhalation of tobacco smoke was recently shown to induce ACL in B6C3F1 mice, which have a low baseline incidence of pulmonary neoplasia.

The above study is recognized for being the first to adequately demonstrate the cancer-initiating effects of tobacco smoke exposure in the lungs of animals (Hecht 2005), yet it unexpectedly showed an increase in lifespan associated with lifetime tobacco smoke exposure, an observation attributed to reduced caloric intake or bodyweight (Hutt et al. 2005). Reduced caloric intake or bodyweight caused by tobacco smoke exposure may have increased survival in B6C3F1 mice despite the increased burden of tumors. In an earlier study on B6C3F1 mice, a decrease in bodyweight and tumors followed the administration of THC (Chan et al. 1996). Researchers from both of these studies acknowledge the importance of controlling for caloric intake/bodyweight the future studies (Huff et al. 2005, Hutt et al. 2005).

In contrast to the mice that develop adenocarcinoma from carcinogen exposure, mice implanted with human adenocarcinoma exhi the metastasis and reduced survival typically observed in humans with adenocacinoma (Meuwissen et al. 2005). While such xenograft models do not fully capture the natural behavior of human cancer (Gutmann et al. 2006), compared with chemically-induced models, they are more practical for evaluating malignant progression.

In evaluating the carcinogenicity of any type of smoke, it might help to remember that it was epidemiology, rather than animal research, that first incriminated tobacco smoke as a carcinogen (Doll 1988, Proctor 2004). While there have been lurid case-reports of tobacco-related cancers among young and middle-aged marijuana smokers (Sridhar et al. 1994), a large cohort study found no evidence of precocious tobacco-related cancers among middle-aged marijuana smokers (Sidney et al. 1997).

As tobacco-related cancers develop increasingly with age and exposure, the cohort study did not follow its participants for long enough to ascertain the relationship between marijuana smoking and tobacco-related cancers. Small case-control studies -- especially studies failing to control for the effects of tobacco smoking -- have inconsistently shown an association (Berthiller et al. 2008, Chacko et al. 2006, D'Souza et al. 2007, Hsairi et al. 1993, Llewellyn et al. 2004a, Llewellyn et al. 2004b, Sasco et al. 2002, Voirin et al. 2006, Zhang et al. 1999), whereas large case-control studies -- especially population-based studies -- have, if anything, shown an inverse association (Berthiller et al. 2009, Ford et al. 2001, Hashibe et al. 2006, Liang et al. 2009, Rosenblatt et al. 2004, Zhu et al. 2002).

Despite their best efforts to prove an association, some authors (viz., Berthiller et al. 2009) apologize for not including sufficient numbers of never tobacco & alcohol users -- which is, of course, absurd -- unless alcohol/tobacco consumption exerts anticarcinogenic effects that mitigate the carcinogenic effects of marijuana consumption. The only way to prove that smoking marijuana does not cause cancer would be if marijuana actually protects against it (Liang et al. 2009).

References:
Aguado T, Carracedo A, Julien B, Velasco G, Milman G, Mechoulam R, Alvarez L, Guzman M, Galve-Roperh I. Cannabinoids induce glioma stem-like cell differentiation and inhi gliomagenesis.J Biol Chem. 2007 Mar 2;282(9):6854-62.
Barsky SH, Roth MD, Kleerup EC, Simmons M, Tashkin DP. Histopathologic and molecular alterations in bronchial epithelium in haual smokers of Marijuana, cocaine, and/or tobacco. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998 ; 90 (16): 1198-205.
Bifulco M, Laezza C, Portella G, et al. Control by the endogenous cannabinoid system of ras oncogene-dependent tumor growth. FASEB J. 2001; 15 (14): 2745-7.
Bifulco M, Laezza C, Valenti M, Ligresti A, Portella G, DI Marzo V. A new strategy to block tumor growth by inhiing endocannabinoid inactivation. FASEB J. 2004;18 (13): 1606-8.
Bifulco M, Laezza C, Gazzerro P, Pentimalli F. Endocannabinoids as emerging suppressors of angiogenesis and tumor invasion (review). Oncol Rep. 2007 Apr;17(4):813-6.
Blazquez C, Carracedo A, Barrado L, Real PJ, Luis Fernandez-Luna J, Velasco G, Malumbres M, Guzman M. Cannabinoid receptors as novel targets for the treatment of melanoma. FASEB J. 2006 Dec;20(14):2633-5.
Blazquez C, Casanova ML, Planas A, et al. Inhiion of tumor angiogenesis by cannabinoids. FASEB J. 2003; 17 (3): 529-31.
Blazquez C, Gonzalez-Feria L, Alvarez L, Haro A, Casanova ML, Guzman M. Cannabinoids inhi the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway in gliomas. Cancer Res. 2004; 64 (16): 5617-23.
Breuer RH, Pasic A, Smit EF, et al. The natural course of preneoplastic lesions in bronchial epithelium. Clin Cancer Res. 2005; 11 (2 Pt 1): 537-43.
Caffarel MM, Sarrio D, Palacios J, Guzman M, Sanchez C. Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol inhis cell cycle progression in human breast cancer cells through Cdc2 regulation. Cancer Res. 2006 Jul 1;66(13):6615-21.
Carracedo A, Gironella M, Lorente M, Garcia S, Guzman M, Velasco G, Iovanna JL. Cannabinoids induce apoptosis of pancreatic tumor cells via endoplasmic reticulum stress-related genes. Cancer Res. 2006 Jul 1;66(13):6748-55.
Casanova ML, Blazquez C, Martinez-Palacio J, et al. Inhiion of skin tumor growth and angiogenesis in vivo by activation of cannabinoid receptors. J Clin Invest. 2003 Jan; 111 (1): 43-50.
Chacko JA, Heiner JG, Siu W, Macy M, Terris MK. Association between marijuana use and transitional cell carcinoma. Urology. 2006 Jan;67(1):100-4.
Chan PC, Sills RC, Braun AG, Haseman JK, Bucher JR. Toxicity and Carcinogenicity of D9-Tetrahydrocannabinol in Fischer Rats and B6C3F1 Mice. Fundamental & Applied Toxicology 1996; 30: 109-117
Ciolino HP, Wang TT, Yeh GC. Diosmin and diosmetin are agonists of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor that differentially affect cytochrome P450 1A1 activity. Cancer Res. 1998; 58 (13): 2754-60.
Cottrell JC, Sohn SS, Vogel WH. Toxic effects of marihuana tar on mouse skin. Arch Environ Health. 1973 ; 26 (5): 277-8.
Doll R. Uncovering the effects of smoking: historical perspective. Stat Methods Med Res. 1998 Jun;7(2):87-117.
Duntsch C, Divi MK, Jones T, et al. Safety and efficacy of a novel cannabinoid chemotherapeutic, KM-233, for the treatment of high-grade glioma. J Neurooncol. 2006 Apr;77(2):143-52.
D'Souza G, Kreimer AR, Viscidi R, Pawlita M, Fakhry C, Koch WM, Westra WH, Gillison ML. Case-Control Study of Human Papillomavirus and Oropharyngeal Cancer. NEJM 2007 May; 356(19): 1944-1956
Ellert-Miklaszewska A, Grajkowska W, Gabrusiewicz K, Kaminska B, Konarska L. Distinctive pattern of cannabinoid receptor type II (CB2) expression in adult and pediatric brain tumors.Brain Res. 2007 Mar 16;1137(1):161-9.
Ford D, Vu H, Hauer C, Helzlsouer K, Anthony J. Marijuana Use is not Associated With Head, Neck or Lung Cancer in Adults Younger Than 55 Years: Results of a Case Cohort Study. In: National Institute on Drug Abuse Workshop on Clinical Consequences of Marijuana; August 13, 2001; Rockville, Md.
Gardner B, Zhu LX, Sharma S, Tashkin DP, Dubinett SM. Methanandamide increases COX-2 _expression and tumor growth in murine lung cancer. FASEB J. 2003; 17 (14): 2157-9.
Grimaldi C, Pisanti S, Laezza C, et al. Anandamide inhis adhesion and migration of breast cancer cells. Exp Cell Res. 2006 ; 312 (4): 363-73.
Gutmann DH, Hunter-Schaedle K, Shannon KM. Harnessing preclinical mouse models to inform human clinical cancer trials. J. Clin. Invest. 2006; 116:847-852.
Hashibe M, Morgenstern H, Cui Y, Tashkin DP, Zhang ZF, Cozen W, Mack TM, Greenland S. Marijuana use and the risk of lung and upper aerodigestive tract cancers: results of a population-based case-control study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006 Oct;15(10):1829-34.
Hecht SS. Carcinogenicity studies of inhaled cigarette smoke in laboratory animals: old and new. Carcinogenesis 2005; 26 (9): 1488-1492.
Hoffman D, Brunnemann KD, Gori GB, Wynder EL On the carcinogenicity of marijuana smoke. In: V.C. Runeckles, ed., Recent Advances in Phytochemistry. New York: Plenum, 1975.
Hsairi M, Achour N, Zouari B, et al. Etiologic factors in primary bronchial carcinoma in Tunisia. Tunis Med. 1993 May; 71(5):265-8.
Huff J, Chan P. Is marihuana [THC] anti-carcinogenic? Toxicon. 2005 Sep 1;46(3):357-9.
Hutt JA, Vuillemenot BR, Barr EB, et al. Life-span inhalation exposure to mainstream cigarette smoke induces lung cancer in B6C3F1 mice through genetic and epigenetic pathwas. Carcinogenesis 2005; 26 (11): 1999-2009
Khanna C, Hunter K. Modeling metastasis in vivo. Carcinogenesis 2005; 26 (11): 513-523.
Liang C, et al. A Case-Control Study of Marijuana Use and Head And Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Amer J Epidem 2009 169 (S11): S131-S137
Ligresti A, Schiano MA, Starowicz K, et al. Anti-tumor activity of plant cannabinoids with emphasis on the effect of cannabidiol on human breast carcinoma. Antitumor activity of plant cannabinoids with emphasis on the effect of cannabidiol on human breast carcinoma. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2006 Sep;318(3):1375-87.
Llewellyn CD, Johnson NW, Warnakulasuriya KA. Risk factors for oral cancer in newly diagnosed patients aged 45 years and younger: a case-control study in Southern England. J Oral Pathol Med. 2004a Oct;33(9):525-32.
Llewellyn CD, Linklater K, Bell J, Johnson NW, Warnakulasuriya S. An analysis of risk factors for oral cancer in young people: a case-control study. Oral Oncol. 2004b Mar;40(3):304-13.
Mahadevan B, Marston CP, Luch A, Dashwood W, Brooks E, Pereira C, Doehmer J, Baird WM Competitive inhiion of carcinogen-activating CYP1A1 and CYP1B1 enzymes by a standardized complex mixture of PAH extracted from coal tar. Int. J. Cancer: 2007; 120: 1161-1168.
Massi P, Vaccani A, Ceruti S, Colombo A, Abbracchio MP, Parolaro D. Antitumor effects of cannabidiol, a nonpsychoactive cannabinoid, on human glioma cell lines. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2004 ; 308 (3): 838-45.
McKallip RJ, Jia W, Schlomer J, Warren JW, Nagarkatti PS, Nagarkatti M. Cannabidiol-induced apoptosis in human leukemia cells: A novel role of cannabidiol in the regulation of p22phox and Nox4 expression. Mol Pharmacol. 2006 Sep;70(3):897-908.
McKallip RJ, Lombard C, Fisher M, et al. Targeting CB2 cannabinoid receptors as a novel therapy to treat malignant lymphoblastic disease. Blood. 2002; 100 (2): 627-34.
McKallip RJ, Nagarkatti M, Nagarkatti PS. Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol enhances breast cancer growth and metastasis by suppression of the antitumor immune response. J Immunol. 2005; 174 (6): 3281-9.
Meuwissen R, Berns A. Mouse models for human lung cancer. Genes & Development 2005; 19:643-664
Munson AE, Harris LS, Friedman MA, Dewey WL, Carchman RA. Antineoplastic activity of cannabinoids. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1975 ; 55 (3): 597-602.
Pisanti S, Borselli C, Oliviero O, Laezza C, Gazzerro P, Bifulco M. Antiangiogenic activity of the endocannabinoid anandamide: Correlation to its tumor-suppressor efficacy.J Cell Physiol. 2007 May;211(2):495-503.
Portella G, Laezza C, Laccetti P, De Petrocellis L, Di Marzo V, Bifulco M. Inhiory effects of cannabinoid CB1 receptor stimulation on tumor growth and metastatic spreading: actions on signals involved in angiogenesis and metastasis. FASEB J. 2003; 17 (12): 1771-3.
Proctor RN. The Global Smoking Epidemic: A History and Status Report. Clinical Lung Cancer 2004 ; 5 (06): 371 - 376.
Recht LD, Salmonsen R, Rosetti R, et al. Antitumor effects of ajulemic acid (CT3), a synthetic non-psychoactive cannabinoid. Biochem Pharmacol. 2001; 62 (6): 755-63.
Rosenblatt KA, Daling JR, Chen C, Sherman KJ, Schwartz SM. Marijuana use and risk of oral squamous cell carcinoma. Cancer Res. 2004; 64 (11): 4049-54.
Roth MD, Marques-Magallanes JA, Yuan M, Sun W, Tashkin DP, Hankinson O. Induction and regulation of the carcinogen-metabolizing enzyme CYP1A1 by Marijuana smoke and delta (9)-tetrahydrocannabinol. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol. 2001 ; 24 (3): 339-44.
Sanchez C, de Ceballos ML, del Pulgar TG, et al. Inhiion of glioma growth in vivo by selective activation of the CB (2) cannabinoid receptor. Cancer Res. 2001; 61 (15): 5784-9.
Sarafian TA, Habib N, Oldham M, et al. Inhaled marijuana smoke disrupts mitochondrial energetics in pulmonary epithelial cells in vivo. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol. 2006 Jun;290(6):L1202-9.
Sasco AJ, Merrill RM, Dari I, et al. A case-control study of lung cancer in Casablanca, Morocco. Cancer Causes Control. 2002 Sep;13(7):609-16.
Schäfer J, Strimmer K. An empirical Bayes approach to inferring large-scale gene association networks. Bioinformatics. 2005 Mar; 21(6):754-64.
Sidney S, Quesenberry CP Jr, Friedman GD, Tekawa IS. Marijuana use and cancer incidence (California, United States). Cancer Causes Control. 1997 Sep;8(5):722-8.
Sridhar KS, Raub WA Jr, Weatherby NL, et al. Possible role of marijuana smoking as a carcinogen in the development of lung cancer at a young age. J Psychoactive Drugs. 1994;26:285-288.
Talaska G, Schamer M, Bailey JR, et al. No increase in carcinogen-DNA adducts in the lungs of monkeys exposed chronically to Marijuana smoke. Toxicol Lett. 1992 ; 63 (3): 321
Voirin N, Berthiller J, Benhaim-Luzon V, Boniol M, Straif K, Ayoub WB, Ayed FB, Sasco AJ Risk of Lung Cancer and Past Use of Cannabis in Tunisia. Journal of Thoracic Oncology 2006; 1 (6): 577-579
Wang Y, Zhang Z, Yan Y, et al. A chemically induced model for squamous cell carcinoma of the lung in mice: histopathology and strain susceptibility. Cancer Res. 2004; 64 (5): 1647-54.
Watson ES. The effect of Marijuana smoke exposure on murine sarcoma 180 survival in Fisher rats. Immunopharmacol Immunotoxicol. 1989; 11 (2-3): 211-22.
Winterhalder RC, Hirsch FR, Kotantoulas GK, Franklin WA, Bunn PA Jr. Chemoprevention of lung cancer: From biology to clinical reality. Ann Oncol. 2004; 15 (2): 185-96.
Xu X, Liu Y, Huang S, Liu G, Xie C, Zhou J, Fan W, Li Q, Wang Q, Zhong D, Miao X. Overexpression of cannabinoid receptors CB1 and CB2 correlates with improved prognosis of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.Cancer Genet Cytogenet. 2006 Nov;171(1):31-8.
Zhang ZF, Morgenstern H, Spitz MR, et al. Marijuana use and increased risk of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1999 Dec;8(12):1071-8.
Zhu K, Levine RS, Brann EA, Hall HI, Caplan LS, Gnepp DR. Case-control study evaluating the homogeneity and heterogeneity of risk factors between sinonasal and nasopharyngeal cancers. Int J Cancer. 2002 May 1; 99 (1): 119-23.
Zhu LX, Sharma S, Stolina M, et al. Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol inhis antitumor immunity by a CB2 receptor-mediated, cytokinedependent pathway. J Immunol. 2000 ; 165 (1): 373-80.
 
Legalizing MJ will make it more availbale to the young and there is a proven link to earlier use of marijuana, and increased likelihood to become dependent on other types of drugs later in life.

Due to a lack of enforceability and the high availability of marijuana, it already is widely available to children, even more so than alcohol. Unfortunately for you the gateway theory is not proven. Even if it was true (which there is no reason to believe so) it cannot fairly be applied to a prohibition state. Marijuana is usually sold along side many other drugs, unregulated and without regard to age. People who are already will to break the law to consume marijuana are obviously going to be more likely to consume another illegal drugs or perform other antisocial activities. If the gateway theory is true, it is a result of being a part of the illegal drug culture.

National Survey of American Attitudes on Substance Abuse XIV: Teens and Parents
http://www.casacolumbia.org/articlefiles/380-2009 Teen Survey Report.pdf
"...26% of teens between the ages of 12 and 17 say marijuana is easier to get than alcohol or cigarettes, compared to 14% that say alcohol is easier to get than marijuana or cigarettes."

Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=6376#toc
"Present data on drug use progression neither support nor refute the suggestion that medical availability would increase drug abuse. However, this question is beyond the issues normally considered for medical uses of drugs and should not be a factor in evaluating the therapeutic potential of marijuana or cannabinoids."

Reassessing the Marijuana Gateway Effect
http://www.rand.org/pubs/external_publications/EP20021208.html
CONCLUSIONS: Marijuana gateway effects may exist. However, the authors results demonstrate that the phenomena used to motivate belief in such an effect are consistent with an alternative simple, plausible common-factor model. No gateway effect is required to explain them. The common-factor model has implications for evaluating marijuana control policies that differ significantly from those supported by the gateway model."\

There are many more... I'm just to lazy to post all of them. The fact is that, there is NO conclusive evidence or physiological mechanism for the belief that marijuana inherently leads to the use of harder drugs. Correlation does not equal causation. This is bad science. Although I am willing to believe that incorporating young marijuana users into the illegal drug very likely introduces them to hard drugs.

There is no one I know who is basically healthy who uses marijuana on a regular basis that I respect or can take seriously.

Well that's all fine and dandy, but all it proves is that you're a self-righteous, pompous authoritarian with a superiority complex that makes it impossible to sympathize with the views of others, in spite of a lack of evidence or concern for public health and safety.

Every purported model reporting the windfall of tax revenue expected from taxing MJ ignores offsetting expenses of the criminal behavior and social maladies that would result from increased drug use, not to mention also makes the ridiculous assumption that drug peddlers are going to be forthright about how much business they do and pay their taxes honestly. Anyone in law enforcement will tell you that marijuana drug dealers are equally as violent as anyone who sells other drugs. You think with passing a law these people are going to transform into normal people and open up a little shop in the mall and pay taxes like they opened up a candy store?

This is the single most absurd conclusion I've ever witnessed for the support of prohibition of marijuana. You misunderstand the concept of legalization. Yes, they'll pay their taxes, if they want to open up a public business and create a successful business model, then yes they will pay their taxes, or else fear the feds. Are you suggesting Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. does not pay their taxes? Marijuana drug dealers are violent, because they're drug dealers. Post-prohibition of alcohol, the sale of alcohol was legitimized and it drastically reduced criminal influence and crime. Following prohibition violent crime rose dramatically as well. So, no, passing laws will not turn violent people into peaceful people, but it will "rob" these violent criminal organizations of much of their funding, in place of a taxable legitimate business practice. To suggest otherwise is slap in face of all reasoning and I'm embarrassed for you, that I must rebuttal such ignorance.


Charles Hanson Towne, The Rise and Fall of Prohibition: The Human Side of What the Eighteenth Amendment Has Done to the United States (New York: Macmillan, 1923), pp. 156-61.
The Volstead Act, passed to enforce the Eighteenth Amendment, had an immediate impact on crime. According to a study of 30 major U.S. cities, the number of crimes increased 24 percent between 1920 and 1921. The study revealed that during that period more money was spent on po- lice (11.4+ percent) and more people were arrested for violating Prohibition laws (102+ percent). But increased law enforcement efforts did not appear to reduce drinking: arrests for drunkenness and disorderly conduct increased 41 percent, and arrests of drunken drivers increased 81 percent. Among crimes with victims, thefts and burglaries increased 9 percent, while homicides and incidents of assault and battery
increased 13 percent.More crimes were committed because prohibition destroys legal jobs, creates black-market violence, diverts resources from enforcement of other laws, and greatly increases the prices people have to pay for the prohibited goods.


And no, since pseudolegalization of medical marijuana communities have appreciated an increase, not decrease in crime. The Aspen area of CO has witnessed a dramatic increase in theft and other crimes near dispensaries. The Los Angeles Police Department has experienced a 200 percent increase in robberies, 52.2 percent increase in burglaries, 57 percent increase in aggravated assaults and 130.8 percent increase in auto burglaries near cannabis clubs.

San Francisco police reported increased crime in 2006-2007, related to marijuana dispensaries. In January 2007, the Drug Enforcement Administration executed search warrants on 17 dispensary owners in Los Angeles. Fourteen had prior criminal records, seven had prior weapons charges. Eight had prior drug charges, and two had murder/attempted-murder charges.

You're making false conclusions. This has nothing to do with the drug use itself. There are no reputable studies that suggest that marijuana causes aggression or criminal behavior. If this is what you are implying it is simply false. It is not necessarily certain whether the dispensaries do truly increase crime, but if it did it may have had to do with the "pseudolegalization" environment that creates an incentive to rob the dispensaries and attracts otherwise anti-social individuals, the zoning requirement, and the high black market value, and federal illegality. It's important to note that this effect has not been observed everywhere.

CRIME AND MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES
http://papers.ccpr.ucla.edu/papers/PWP-CCPR-2011-010/PWP-CCPR-2011-010.pdf
"Consistent with previous work, variables measuring routine activities at the ecological level were related to crime. There were no observed associations between the density of MMDs and either violent or property crime rates in this study. These results suggest that the density of MMDs may not be associated with increased crime rates or that measures dispensaries take to reduce crime (i.e., doormen, video cameras) may increase guardianship, such that it deters possible motivated offenders."

I believe the topic of this thread is marijuana not prostitution. Prostitution is immoral and I dont care if the bunny ranch or 1-2 Nevada brothels that have finagled legal approval get away with it.

Morality does not dictate public policy. Especially when the public health and safety is made worse by attempting to enforce archaic drug laws.

I just provided you facts about increased availability of marijuana leading to increased not less crime. What about that do you not understand? If you could buy it at taco Bell than you would get robbed there buy someone who didnt want to pay for it. Do you get it?

No, it doesn't work that way. Your study is the only one of its kind, and isn't even all that conclusive. In portugal crime decreased following decriminalization, if it was legalized crime would decrease even more dramatically. There are many other studies available that show either no change in crime or in cases of greater liberalization a decrease in crime and this is without even legalization. I can post those studies as well if u wish. I think in the next decade Latin American countries will be forced to legalize drugs in response to cartel violence. Then we will be able to close the books on the matter.

What Can We Learn From The Portuguese Decriminalization of Illicit Drugs?
http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/content/50/6/999.full
The issue of decriminalizing illicit drugs is hotly debated, but is rarely subject to evidence-based analysis. This paper examines the case of Portugal, a nation that decriminalized the use and possession of all illicit drugs on 1 July 2001. Drawing upon independent evaluations and interviews conducted with 13 key stakeholders in 2007 and 2009, it critically analyses the criminal justice and health impacts against trends from neighbouring Spain and Italy. It concludes that contrary to predictions, the Portuguese decriminalization did not lead to major increases in drug use. Indeed, evidence indicates reductions in problematic use, drug-related harms and criminal justice overcrowding. The article discusses these developments in the context of drug law debates and criminological discussions on late modern governance.

The comparison with alcohol is invalid. Ethanol has been socially acceptable since ancient times. It was entrenched as a societal norm, it can be made from any number of fermentable crops that are ubiquitous and so enforcement of its removal was/is unrealistic/impossible. Yes it is a double standard (i already said that) and yes it is very destructive. Does having one publicly available toxin dictate that no other dangerous substance should be illegal? That makes no sense. Thats like arguing on the basis that the general public are allowed to own handguns, they therefore should also be permitted to have hand grenades and missle launchers.

You analogy of comparing marijuana to a missile launcher is pretty sad. Way to research though buddy.

<LI class=margin15_bottom>National Institute on Drug Abuse. NIDA InfoFacts Marijuana
(http://www.drugabuse.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html )
Revised November 2010.
<LI class=margin15_bottom>Community Anti-Drug Coalition. Strategizer Marijuana &#8212; Debunking the Myths
(http://www.theantidrug.com/pdfs/resources/marijuana/Marijuana_Strategizer.pdf)
<LI class=margin15_bottom>National Institute on Drug Abuse. Marijuana: An Update on the National Institute on Drug (http://www.drugabuse.gov/tib/marijuana.html)
Published February 2011.
<LI class=margin15_bottom> Drug Enforcement Agency. Fiction: Marijuana is Harmless
(http://www.justthinktwice.com/factsfiction/fiction_marijuana_is_harmless.html. )


Is that good enough for you? Likely not

Not really. Your sources are terrible. Mostly unreliable biased sources. The DEA? cmon. They don't even really support your conclusions. We all know that anything and everything has side effects. Anything can be bad for you. The fact is that people should have the choice to see if benefits outweigh the negatives. Researchers should have the right to easily study such substances. Double standards should not be supported. War on drugs creates crime, floods our jails and prisons, produces dangerous qualities of drugs, funds other illegal activity, treats those suffering from addiction as worthless criminals, etc... If you wish not to consume marijuana, don't consume it and don't associate yourself with it, but don't put your own self-righteous sense of morality on a pedestal above others at the consequence to personal freedoms and public health and safety.

Further resources on the subject are abundant, they are rather limited on support for the war on drugs other than on the principle of morality. I wish I could have spent more time posting the libraries full of information of the negative effects of prohibition but I'm tired and want to goto bed... :sleep:
 
Last edited:
I'll summarize the links you posted since you refuse to do so yourself:

First source: talks about how MJ is "abused" (aka used), talks about how MJ "affects the brain" (aka biochemical mechanism of action), talks about how "addictive" MJ is (and cites a 9% overall addiction rate - oh, the horror!), talks about "associations" between MJ and mental health issues (though doesn't go into how these things are linked or the methodology of the studies cited), and then talks about MJ's impact on heart rate ("a 20-100% increase in HR," something you could get from walking up stairs - are we going to call that a health risk too?), lung function (...smoking anything causes lung damage, yet completely ignores vaporization as an intake method), and daily life (including a dubious negative impact on "several important measures of life achievement.") This source actually cites peer-reviewed papers, but I'm not going to take the time to look through all of them. Regardless, the source really doesn't mention anything substantive that really supports MJ criminalization from my perspective.

Second source: an education pamphlet produced by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (an organization that is mandated by law to oppose ANY attempts of legalization of schedule I drugs, which includes MJ; in fact, the ONDCP actually has the legal authority to disseminate misleading/"controversial" information as part of this mandate - http://www.gao.gov/products/A09471) that essentially repeats the same points made in the first source.

Third source: as mentioned previously, this source cites a total of 12 sources, 7 of which are news articles, 3 of which are surveys about drug use (i.e., say nothing about MJ's health effects), 1 of which is a peer-reviewed article that talks about MJ use while driving, and 1 of which is a peer-reviewed article that actually studies the health effects of MJ use (specifically, the impact of smoking on lung function).

So, would you like to try again?

:laugh:

What a boss.

Or not sure if it's just the avatar.
 
@bdrensch

That was fun to read! Not quoting for obvious reasons, but thanks for doing backing up our claims with [even more] research!

Agreed, thanks for the read & info!
 
From what I understand, marijuana is not an addictive drug, at least not physically, meaning that you can't establish a chemical dependency. However, addiction doesn't necessarily require that, as has been established by the existence of gambling addictions.

And for the record, we do have medical cocaine for some purposes. Optometrists, I believe, use it to numb your eyes during procedures where they need to touch the surface of the eye. Any optometrists or opthalmologists wanna weigh in on this one? :p

Eye doctors put derivatives of cocaine in people's eyes everyday as an anaesthetic to take the eye pressure for example. Some examples are tetracaine and proparacaine.
 
@bdrensch

That was fun to read! Not quoting for obvious reasons, but thanks for doing backing up our claims with [even more] research!

I appreciate the informative post as well! Just one thing to add to the limited amount of studies - JAMA published an interesting article a few weeks ago titled - Association Between Marijuana Exposure and Pulmonary Function Over 20 Years. I thought the conclusion "With very heavy marijuana use, the net association with FEV1 was not significantly different from baseline, and the net association with FVC remained significantly greater than baseline" was pretty interesting.
 
41783_2217499156_205_n.jpg
 
I agree, as a nutrition major I can honestly say people have no idea how disastrous simple food choices and lack of exercise are to their health. To me, lack of good food is a real crime
 
Last edited:
Top