Let's Talk Marijuana Legalization

[Pozessed]

As the title suggests, I would like to have a discussion about why marijuana should or should not be legal. If you have an opinion on the matter I would care to hear it.

 

My opinion on the matter is that marijuana should be legal if regulated correctly. In America marijuana is considered to be worse than cocaine, meth-amphetamines, Oxycontin, and opiates.
I believe marijuana is less addictive than alcohol, or nicotine. I also think it is safer to be buzzed on marijuana than alcohol. I believe the withdrawal from marijuana is less severe than alcohol or nicotine.
Upon the fact that marijuana is proven to have medicinal purposes as well, I see no reason this drug should be considered worse than the drugs that it was compared to in my first paragraph.

Hemp, which is another form of marijuana, has many desirable applications in industrial use and our ecosystem. It has been found to have invaluable fibers worth manufacturing. As well, hemp is claimed to remove much more co2 than large trees when comparing the rates of growth and the amounts of leaves available to induce carbon

Therefore, hemp should be grown by the acre in America to help reduce the emissions they release each day as well as help the employment rate. With as many chemicals as we Americans release into our atmosphere each year, it should be mandatory for us all to grow plants, and I say at least one of those plants should be marijuana for the rate of which it cleans the air. Not that I think that's a practical idea, but one worth expressing.

 

The economical freedoms marijuana legislation would have seem unmeasurable to me at the moment. I speculate that marijuana being cheaper would take billions of dollars out of untaxed markets and put that money into taxed currencies thus giving the government more money that it otherwise wouldn't have.
Their would be less people being introduced to harder drugs by pushy drug dealers, and this would lead to even more currency leaving the untaxed market and entering the taxed market.
People would have less money to spend on court and lawyer fees, which could then be put back into social capital instead of government capital. Social capital is what provides for private business which is proven to grow the American economy.

 

My last and final thoughts on this rant, people should have a right to ingest whatever they want. Until they harm someone or act in a socially unacceptable manner

due to their intoxicant, they should not be considered to have committed a crime. Drug abuse is the only crime in which a person is the victim and the perpetrator of the crime.

Edited May 2, 2014 by Pozessed

[davidivad]

while i do not care to smoke myself i do feel that if alchohol can be bought then marijuana should be legal too.

however, i do fell that "pinching"should be taxed.

face it. if you taxed that then the government could get taxes several times on one purchase in many cases.

 

i do think that marijuana has great medical uses which should be a viable option to the public.

take schizophrenia and epilepsy for example.

while the drug in its normal variety is a potential psychotropic with only one purpose, some new strains have the good stuff that acts as an anti- epileptic.

this is an excellent alternative to the typical side effects of anti-psychotics and a god-send for controlling seiziures.

think of sleep disorders and the dependancy issues involved with all those medications.

this is not to mention all the other diseases that benefit from marijuana.

 

i would like to bring up the costs of researching and developing new drugs that may not even be effective and often have terrible side effects like irritable bowels and sudden death.

now compare that to the investment of breeding a new strain of pot... and compare the side effects. "well, you may get a bit stoned and that is unacceptable"

think about how many pharmaceuticals are based on the opium plant. marijuana is illegal yet we cannot control synthetic pot... and that stuff is causing psychosis and strokes. heck the bath salts are not regulated and they are turning people into cannibals...

to think it is ok to get drunk but not high is silly. you can litteraly kill yourself through alchohol poisoning. when was the last time you heard a true story about getting stonned to death. you just pass out.

let the people as individuals decide if they want to sit on the couch for the rest of their lives. Darwin will prevail.

alchohol is legal yet i do not drink either. Darwin will have to knock on someone else's door.

AND i luagh heartily about all the politicians that are against it in public debates only to spend the night in a hotel with a few under aged hookers while snorting lines of coke and calling the wife to let her know it will be a late night again.

[EdEarl]

I agree with Pozessed and Davidivad, MJ should be controlled more like alcohol. Moreover, I believe that putting drug addicts in jail and prison is insane, it creates a criminal population of people who need to be treated as alcoholics are, by medical intervention.

 

Moreover, making drugs illegal has created an illegal super business that cannot be controlled, as Al Capone and his generation of illegal businessmen could not be controlled. The only way to disband those businesses is to make them unprofitable; in other words, stop making any drug illegal.

 

I have suffered from chronic pain for years, and had a prescription for a narcotic, but it didn't help my pain and I didn't take the med. They made me sick to my stomach. On the other hand, some people crave narcotics as if they were candy; their bodies are made differently than mine.

 

As far as I can tell, a person who craves a drug will get it, illegally if necessary. A person who does not, may experiment with a drug, but will not will not take it on a continuing basis, even if the drug is free. Thus, making drugs illegal has little effect on consumption.

 

The idea that a person becomes addicted and cannot stop taking a drug is a fallacy. Taking my prescription narcotic, as prescribed, did make me addicted. However, I stopped taking it and let the addiction wear off, because I did not like the drug, and it didn't help my pain. I suffered for many years, and tried time and time again to get relief by taking the narcotic, and each time quit taking it because it did not help the pain and I didn't like the effect of the drug. Eventually I quit trying to get pain relief from the prescription med. Ultimately, I found an alternative to meds that alleviated the pain.

[Phi for All]

In America marijuana is considered to be worse than cocaine, meth-amphetamines, Oxycontin, and opiates.

 

I have to correct this. Marijuana is not considered worse, it's on the same schedules for enforcement as cocaine and meth. Oxy is legal with a prescription.

[Pozessed]

 

I have to correct this. Marijuana is not considered worse, it's on the same schedules for enforcement as cocaine and meth. Oxy is legal with a prescription.

Schedule 1 - heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), marijuana (cannabis), 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy), methaqualone, and peyote

 

Schedule 2 - cocaine, methamphetamine, methadone, hydromorphone (Dilaudid), meperidine (Demerol), oxycodone (OxyContin), fentanyl, Dexedrine, Adderall, and Ritalin

 

Sourced from the DEA website.

http://www.justice.gov/dea/druginfo/ds.shtml

 

In my opinion, some of the schedule 4 drugs are worse to abuse than marijuana.

Edited May 2, 2014 by Pozessed

[Phi for All]

I believe marijuana is less addictive than alcohol, or nicotine. I also think it is safer to be buzzed on marijuana than alcohol. I believe the withdrawal from marijuana is less severe than alcohol or nicotine.

 

I don't know if this is supported or not. It seems more like a subjective assessment, since everyone's body handles poisons a bit differently. I know MJ was used as a substitute in alcoholism treatment before it was made illegal. Withdrawal symptoms may also be too unique to the individual to be a good gauge.

 

Safety? That's my big issue. MJ is legal here in Colorado. It's been difficult to get accurate driving data (and that's the only area where alcohol/MJ safety data is being collected) because the tests for MJ aren't as sophisticated as those for alcohol (in the past, having any MJ in your system was illegal when driving), so there's no recent data for people pulled over with only MJ in their system. All the arrests for driving under the influence recorded illegal levels of alcohol as well. So the people who abuse substances the most are skewing all the most recent data.

 

We need to be able to define a level of intoxication the way we have with alcohol. In Colorado, the law we passed treats MJ just like alcohol, but it doesn't seem like the effects are as easily judged. Someone who doesn't use MJ very often can get extremely altered by very little of the potent MJ available today, while someone who smokes every day can have a huge amount in their system and function just like anyone on prescription meds. This makes it very difficult to judge.

 

As a personal anecdote, I've dealt with people who maintain a high level of THC in their systems, and while I've never driven with any of them, I have to say it's less noticeable in normal social and business settings than with someone who is a serious alcohol drinker. I can always spot the guy who's sloshed and has found his happy place, but it's a lot more difficult with a veteran MJ user. I've always believed the MJ user was safer behind the wheel because they're more apt to go slower than the drunk, but we all know that slower vehicles can pose danger as well. We really need a way to determine how much MJ is too much.

Hemp, which is another form of marijuana, has many desirable applications in industrial use and our ecosystem. It has been found to have invaluable fibers worth manufacturing. As well, hemp is claimed to remove much more co2 than large trees when comparing the rates of growth and the amounts of leaves available to induce carbon

Therefore, hemp should be grown by the acre in America to help reduce the emissions they release each day as well as help the employment rate. With as many chemicals as we Americans release into our atmosphere each year, it should be mandatory for us all to grow plants, and I say at least one of those plants should be marijuana for the rate of which it cleans the air. Not that I think that's a practical idea, but one worth expressing.

 

We have some folks applying for hemp-growing operations, yay! This is where the no-brainer part of legalizing cannabis comes in. There are SO MANY applications for hemp, and virtually all of them are better than their mainstream alternative (Trees for paper? Cotton for cloth? Petroleum for lubrication?), or at least more sustainable.

Schedule 1 - heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), marijuana (cannabis), 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy), methaqualone, and peyote

 

Schedule 2 - cocaine, methamphetamine, methadone, hydromorphone (Dilaudid), meperidine (Demerol), oxycodone (OxyContin), fentanyl, Dexedrine, Adderall, and Ritalin

 

Sourced from the DEA website.

http://www.justice.gov/dea/druginfo/ds.shtml

 

In my opinion, some of the schedule 4 drugs are worse to abuse than marijuana.

 

Sorry, I mistook your statement in the OP as an enforcement issue, not one of abuse. AFAIK, in most states they treat Schedule I and II offenses both as Class 5 felonies. You'll most likely get the same sentence for pot that you would for meth. Craziness.

The economical freedoms marijuana legislation would have seem unmeasurable to me at the moment. I speculate that marijuana being cheaper would take billions of dollars out of untaxed markets and put that money into taxed currencies thus giving the government more money that it otherwise wouldn't have.

 

Colorado is projected to take in over $70M in tax revenue this year from legal MJ sales. The majority of that is earmarked for schools.

 

I don't know about cheaper. I'm sure eventually competition will drive prices down, but for now I don't think MJ is substantially cheaper than before. It's taxed around 25% and they don't sell in large quantities, so it's not cheap. I think the dispensaries are probably doing a bit of collusion to keep profits as high as their customers.

[Greg H.]

I don't know about cheaper. I'm sure eventually competition will drive prices down, but for now I don't think MJ is substantially cheaper than before. It's taxed around 25% and they don't sell in large quantities, so it's not cheap. I think the dispensaries are probably doing a bit of collusion to keep profits as high as their customers.

Honeslty, I don't know if they need to - it is already "cheaper" in terms of non-monetary costs, such as getting busted for having it. Given the choice between an illegal product and an equivalent legal one, even at the same price, which are you more likely to choose?

[Phi for All]

Honeslty, I don't know if they need to - it is already "cheaper" in terms of non-monetary costs, such as getting busted for having it. Given the choice between an illegal product and an equivalent legal one, even at the same price, which are you more likely to choose?

 

This brings up another interesting point. How many people have avoided MJ because it was illegal but would use it if wasn't? And do those people offset the people who use MJ now because it's illegal and forbidden and exciting and would probably not be as interested if it became legal and mainstream?

 

 

 

 

 

From the law enforcement side, it's difficult to gauge the effects of legalization because the police see mostly the worst abusers. For some reason, there are a lot of folks who like to drink alcohol and smoke pot together, along with their prescription and non-prescription pills. And these abusers are also the ones who make the headlines with their inanity, so the public has difficulty isolating MJ-only data from the best sources.

[Greg H.]

 

This brings up another interesting point. How many people have avoided MJ because it was illegal but would use it if wasn't? And do those people offset the people who use MJ now because it's illegal and forbidden and exciting and would probably not be as interested if it became legal and mainstream?

This is one of the aspects of the human psyche I have never understood. Maybe I'm just boring, but the chasing of the forbidden fruit has always seemed like a lot of wasted effort to me. I mean, once you've had it - then what?

[Phi for All]

This is one of the aspects of the human psyche I have never understood. Maybe I'm just boring, but the chasing of the forbidden fruit has always seemed like a lot of wasted effort to me. I mean, once you've had it - then what?

 

I can relate. Some things, like with MJ, you just know the law is wrong, so you can justify pushing against it in order to bring the absurdity of it to people's attention. But I've never wanted to try heroin just because it's forbidden. That seems like a poor use of rational thought.

 

On the other hand, it may be the allure of new horizons, the pioneer fever. These could be the same folks who start trends and then drop them once they see everyone else copying them. If so, we probably need them, otherwise we'd all be beige eventually.

[Acme]

...

Safety? That's my big issue. MJ is legal here in Colorado. It's been difficult to get accurate driving data (and that's the only area where alcohol/MJ safety data is being collected) because the tests for MJ aren't as sophisticated as those for alcohol (in the past, having any MJ in your system was illegal when driving), so there's no recent data for people pulled over with only MJ in their system. All the arrests for driving under the influence recorded illegal levels of alcohol as well. So the people who abuse substances the most are skewing all the most recent data.

 

We need to be able to define a level of intoxication the way we have with alcohol. In Colorado, the law we passed treats MJ just like alcohol, but it doesn't seem like the effects are as easily judged. Someone who doesn't use MJ very often can get extremely altered by very little of the potent MJ available today, while someone who smokes every day can have a huge amount in their system and function just like anyone on prescription meds. This makes it very difficult to judge.

 

As a personal anecdote, I've dealt with people who maintain a high level of THC in their systems, and while I've never driven with any of them, I have to say it's less noticeable in normal social and business settings than with someone who is a serious alcohol drinker. I can always spot the guy who's sloshed and has found his happy place, but it's a lot more difficult with a veteran MJ user. I've always believed the MJ user was safer behind the wheel because they're more apt to go slower than the drunk, but we all know that slower vehicles can pose danger as well. We really need a way to determine how much MJ is too much.

...

Certainly one problem with pot being illegal is that it is hard if not impossible to legally study it. Nonetheless, there is at least one study on driving under the influence of the evil weed.

 

source: >> http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/MISC/driving/driving.htm

Marijuana And Actual Driving Performance

 

ABSTRACT

 

Marijuana's effects on actual driving performance were assessed in a series of three studies wherein dose-effect relationships were measured in actual driving situations that progressively approached reality. The first was conducted on a highway closed to other traffic. Subjects (24) were treated on separate occasions with THC 100, 200 and 300 g/kg, and placebo. They performed a 22-km road tracking test beginning 30 and 90 minutes after smoking. Their lateral position variability increased significantly after each THC dose relative to placebo in a dose-dependent manner for two hours after smoking. The second study was conducted on a highway in the presence of other traffic. Subjects (16) were treated with the same THC doses as before. They performed a 64-km road tracking test preceded and followed by 16-km car following tests. Results confirmed those of the previous study. Car following performance was only slightly impaired. The third study was conducted in high-density urban traffic. Separate groups of 16 subjects were treated with 100 g/kg THC and placebo; and, ethanol (mean BAC .034 g%) and placebo. Alcohol impaired performance relative to placebo but subjects did not perceive it. THC did not impair driving performance yet the subjects thought it had. These studies show that THC in single inhaled doses up to 300 g/kg has significant, yet not dramatic, dose-related impairing effects on driving performance.

...

Discussion

 

THC's effects on road-tracking after doses up to 300 g/kg never exceeded alcohol's at bacs of 0.08 g%; and, were in no way unusual compared to many medicinal drugs' (Robbe, 1994; Robbe and O'Hanlon, 1995; O'Hanlon et al., 1995). Yet, THC's effects differ qualitatively from many other drugs, especially alcohol. Evidence from the present and previous studies strongly suggests that alcohol encourages risky driving whereas THC encourages greater caution, at least in experiments. Another way THC seems to differ qualitatively from many other drugs is that the former's users seem better able to compensate for its adverse effects while driving under the influence.

Puff puff, no pass no pass?

Edited May 2, 2014 by Acme

[John Cuthber]

"Subjects (24) were treated on separate occasions with THC 100, 200 and 300 g/kg, and placebo."

No, they were not.

For me ( about 70kg) 300g/kg would be 21 kilos or 46 pounds weight of THC and, since cannabis contains something like 10% THC, that would require about a quarter of a tonne of dope.

 

I strongly suspect that carrying 3 times my bodyweight of MJ would adversely affect my driving.

[Acme]

"Subjects (24) were treated on separate occasions with THC 100, 200 and 300 g/kg, and placebo."

No, they were not.

For me ( about 70kg) 300g/kg would be 21 kilos or 46 pounds weight of THC and, since cannabis contains something like 10% THC, that would require about a quarter of a tonne of dope.

 

I strongly suspect that carrying 3 times my bodyweight of MJ would adversely affect my driving.

I suspect you are misreading that line and that you didn't read the study. Those amounts you quote reflect the ratio of THC to the gross weed weight. What were you carrying when you posted?

 

From the study:

...Marijuana and placebo marijuana cigarettes were supplied by the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse. The lowest and highest THC concentrations in the marijuana cigarettes used in the studies were 1.75% and 3.57%, respectively. Subjects smoked the administered cigarettes through a plastic holder in their customary fashion. ...

[John Cuthber]

What I read was this

"Subjects (24) were treated on separate occasions with THC 100, 200 and 300 g/kg, and placebo."

It was wrong when I read it after getting back from the pub last night,and it's still wrong now.

 

If they think the only psychoactive material in cannabis is THC then they are not well enough informed to be doing experiments like that.

 

If their weed is about 2% then to get 21 kilos of THC needs a little over a tonne.

That's quite a joint.

 

I rather suspect that the "µ" symbol for micro has failed to copy somewhere along the line.

A gram or so of weed per subject seems rather more likely than a tonne.

[Acme]

What I read was this

"Subjects (24) were treated on separate occasions with THC 100, 200 and 300 g/kg, and placebo."

It was wrong when I read it after getting back from the pub last night,and it's still wrong now.

 

If they think the only psychoactive material in cannabis is THC then they are not well enough informed to be doing experiments like that.

 

If their weed is about 2% then to get 21 kilos of THC needs a little over a tonne.

That's quite a joint.

 

I rather suspect that the "µ" symbol for micro has failed to copy somewhere along the line.

A gram or so of weed per subject seems rather more likely than a tonne.

Yeah; I'll go with the pub crawler rather than the folks who did the study.

[davidivad]

here is an honest attempt at deciding whether achohol or marijuana is worse.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJJRVleE3_Q

 

to note is that the guy comes to a reasonable conclusion that niether are good in excess but that you should consider the consequences when having fun.

i still say that the stoned guy showed better handling of complex tasks. whether or not that equates to a safe diver is silly. neither are safe for driving as you can see a definite slower response time in both tests.

[Acme]

here is an honest attempt at deciding whether achohol or marijuana is worse.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJJRVleE3_Q

 

to note is that the guy comes to a reasonable conclusion that niether are good in excess but that you should consider the consequences when having fun.

i still say that the stoned guy showed better handling of complex tasks. whether or not that equates to a safe diver is silly. neither are safe for driving as you can see a definite slower response time in both tests.

Hardly a scientific study.

On that note, I misspoke when I said the g/kg measures in the study I cited were the potency; it is the dose. Heaven forbid, I re-read the actual study rather than making a Youtube video or heading for the pub.

 

...

Results

 

Six subjects consumed one cigarette, thirteen smoked two and four smoked three (data from one male subject were excluded from the results because no drug was found in his plasma after smoking). The average amount of THC consumed was 20.8 mg, after adjustment for body weight, 308 g/kg. It should be noted that these amounts of THC represent both the inhaled dose and the portion that was lost through pyrolysis and side- stream smoke during the smoking process. There were no significant differences between males and females, nor between frequent and infrequent users, with respect to the weight adjusted preferred dose. It was decided that the maximum dose for subsequent driving studies would be 300 g/kg. ..

source: >> http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/MISC/driving/driving.htm

 

*This post has been constructed under the influence of caffeine and nicotine, notwithstanding that coffee & cigarettes have other chemicals in them which may or may not have an effect on the conttttewnt. My kingdom for a spliff.

Edited May 3, 2014 by Acme

[imatfaal]

"Subjects (24) were treated on separate occasions with THC 100, 200 and 300 g/kg, and placebo."

No, they were not.

For me ( about 70kg) 300g/kg would be 21 kilos or 46 pounds weight of THC and, since cannabis contains something like 10% THC, that would require about a quarter of a tonne of dope.

 

I strongly suspect that carrying 3 times my bodyweight of MJ would adversely affect my driving.

 

 

I suspect you are misreading that line and that you didn't read the study. Those amounts you quote reflect the ratio of THC to the gross weed weight. What were you carrying when you posted? ...

 

 

....

I rather suspect that the "µ" symbol for micro has failed to copy somewhere along the line.

A gram or so of weed per subject seems rather more likely than a tonne.

 

 

Yeah; I'll go with the pub crawler rather than the folks who did the study.

 

 

Hardly a scientific study.

On that note, I misspoke when I said the g/kg measures in the study I cited were the potency; it is the dose. Heaven forbid, I re-read the actual study rather than making a Youtube video or heading for the pub.

 

source: >> http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/MISC/driving/driving.htm

 

*This post has been constructed under the influence of caffeine and nicotine, notwithstanding that coffee & cigarettes have other chemicals in them which may or may not have an effect on the conttttewnt. My kingdom for a spliff.

 

 

I will go with the pub-crawler with the eye for detail. The study as you have quoted it has this as the dose - which is ludicrous. I looked up the actual original - non-html - paper and John was correct that a [latex]\mu[/latex] got dropped.

 

[Acme]

I will go with the pub-crawler with the eye for detail. The study as you have quoted it has this as the dose - which is ludicrous. I looked up the actual original - non-html - paper and John was correct that a [latex]\mu[/latex] got dropped.

 

enough dope to get really wasted.jpg

I concede the technicality. However, it was clear from the context of the study I cited that the participants were smoking at most 3 joints so John's hyperbolic statements amounted to sidetracking. I am bemused that the focus has been diverted to minutiae and that the study results on the safety of driving under the influence of marijuana being "relatively small" have been left by the wayside.

[John Cuthber]

I concede the technicality.

If you had done that rather than saying

"I suspect you are misreading that line and that you didn't read the study. Those amounts you quote reflect the ratio of THC to the gross weed weight. What were you carrying when you posted"

the thread would have been a lot less sidetracked.

 

And, if you had got the quote correctly from the original document in the first place there wouldn't have been an issue to discuss.

 

Don't blame me for pointing out your factual errors on a science web site.

BTW, you might want to look up the meaning of "hyperbole".

[Acme]

Another sidetracking comment by John that I take issue with:

 

...

If they think the only psychoactive material in cannabis is THC then they are not well enough informed to be doing experiments like that.

...

First I see no supportive evidence on other psychoactive material in cannabis and while it is true that the study only measured THC levels in the marijuana, the drivers were not given just THC. The drivers smoked marijuana and drove, so whatever else the weed contained it was part-and-parcel of the driving tests.

...

 

Don't blame me for pointing out your factual errors on a science web site.

BTW, you might want to look up the meaning of "hyperbole".

Gee; guess you told me.

[Arete]

First I see no supportive evidence on other psychoactive material in cannabis

 

 

There's a whole class of other psychoactive molecules in cannabis - i.e. cannabinoids:

 

"The major differences between the cannabinoids are determined by the extent to which they are psychologically active. Three classes of cannabinoids, the CBG, CBC and CBD are not known to have such an effect. THC, CBN, CBDL and some other cannabinoids on the other hand are known to be psychologically active to varying degrees."

 

http://adai.uw.edu/marijuana/factsheets/cannabinoids.htm

http://www.news-medical.net/health/Cannabinoids-What-are-Cannabinoids.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabinoid

Edited May 6, 2014 by Arete

[John Cuthber]

Another sidetracking comment by John that I take issue with:

 

 

First I see no supportive evidence on other psychoactive material in cannabis and while it is true that the study only measured THC levels in the marijuana, the drivers were not given just THC. The drivers smoked marijuana and drove, so whatever else the weed contained it was part-and-parcel of the driving tests.

 

Gee; guess you told me.

OK, they said "Subjects (24) were treated on separate occasions with THC 100, 200 and 300 g/kg, and placebo.".

In fact, the subjects were treated with cannabis rather than THC.

They measured THC in the dope, but they didn't control for other psychoactive materials present.

 

There's also the question of how much of that THC was degraded by pyrolysis.

 

"First I see no supportive evidence on other psychoactive material in cannabis"

Did you look?

Arete has pointed out a few for you.

"while it is true that the study only measured THC levels in the marijuana, the drivers were not given just THC."

Exactly my point. They were given other (unspecified) materials.

 

 

So, it's not a great study- there are uncontrolled variables.

Edited May 6, 2014 by John Cuthber

[Acme]

OK, they said "Subjects (24) were treated on separate occasions with THC 100, 200 and 300 g/kg, and placebo.".

In fact, the subjects were treated with cannabis rather than THC.

They measured THC in the dope, but they didn't control for other psychoactive materials present.

 

There's also the question of how much of that THC was degraded by pyrolysis.

 

"First I see no supportive evidence on other psychoactive material in cannabis"

Did you look?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabinol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrahydrocannabivarin

"while it is true that the study only measured THC levels in the marijuana, the drivers were not given just THC."

Exactly my point. They were given other (unspecified) materials.

 

 

So, it's not a great study- there are uncontrolled variables.

If you would use the quote function we all could better follow what you're quoting.

 

My point on the evidence was that you didn't give it and you made the claim. The onus is on you at a science site to support your assertions.

 

As to the study it was on the effects of smoking marijuana and driving and I put it up when Phi brought up the safety issue on that.

There's a whole class of other psychoactive molecules in cannabis - i.e. cannabinoids:

 

"The major differences between the cannabinoids are determined by the extent to which they are psychologically active. Three classes of cannabinoids, the CBG, CBC and CBD are not known to have such an effect. THC, CBN, CBDL and some other cannabinoids on the other hand are known to be psychologically active to varying degrees."

 

http://adai.uw.edu/marijuana/factsheets/cannabinoids.htm

http://www.news-medical.net/health/Cannabinoids-What-are-Cannabinoids.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabinoid

Thanks Arete. I was not questioning the truth of John's assertion, only his lack of reference. Nonetheless, I point out again the study was on the effects of smoking pot and driving. Do you have comments on that as it relates to legalization?

[John Cuthber]

 

 

My point on the evidence was that you didn't give it and you made the claim. The onus is on you at a science site to support your assertions.

 

There seems to be a difference of opinions about what we can take as read here.

So, for example, you have not cited evidence for the claim that "The onus is on you at a science site to support your assertions.".

I guess you think that's self-evident.

Science wouldn't get very far if we had to cite evidence for absolutely every statement we made.

So, there's a matter of judgement about what we accept as already well known and understood rather than stuff we need to explain.

 

In particular, there's a difference between information that is well known and documented and other assertions that are in some way "in doubt".

If I say that the moon is about a light second away you can believe me, or, if you like, you can check.

I don't need to cite evidence for that.

 

However, if I say "the moon is made of cheese" then I'd have to justify that assertion since it's intrinsically unlikely and not common knowledge.

 

We seem to differ on whether or not I need to cite evidence for the assertion that there are other psychoactive materials in cannabis.

Well, perhaps it's because I'm a pharmaceutical chemist, but, to me, that seems obvious.

I'd also expect that, in a thread about dope, people would either know enough about the subject to know that it's true or, if they don't know, I'd expect them to check for themselves.

 

In the same way, you have talked of THC, without citing evidence that it is psychoactive. Nobody called you on that, because it's well known to be true but if what you are doing is "not questioning the truth of John's assertion, only his lack of reference."then you might want to get a mirror.

 

Incidentally, in the context of the thread the point about driving while stoned is irrelevant.

Drinking beer is legal (in the jurisdictions of most of the people posting here).

Drinking and driving is not legal (with the same proviso)

So, no matter how badly smoking dope screws up your driving (and I accept that the extent is probably "not as much as people think") that has no direct relevance to whether or not it should be banned.

We can ban toking and driving in the same way we ban drinking and driving.

So the paper you have cited doesn't actually add much to the question of whether or not to legalise MJ use per se.

 

Now, what was that you said about sidetracking?

 

BTW, would anyone like to interrupt this pointless exchange by actually discussing the topic?

 

Have I, as a legally responsible adult, got the right to make my own decisions about whether or not I use cannabis?

Is there a valid comparison with alcohol?

 

Is it reasonable to distinguish between the UK and the US on the basis that (very broadly) in the UK if I get ill from MJ the government picks up the bill for treatment, while in the US (again, in very broad terms) the smoker's insurance pays for it?

 

Is the cost (political and cash) of policing a policy that is widely discredited worth the benfit from the avoidance of cannabis related problems?

and so on.

Edited May 6, 2014 by John Cuthber