|
The Marijuana Debate In Canada and The Western World (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Alex |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
My main issue with it is that it's very much a "lifestyle drug" in a way that even exceeds alcohol, and smoking it heavily before the brain has finished developed (IE: in your teens) is a sure-fire way to turn your brain into wet cardboard. Legalising it and increasing its availability will only increase the amount of under-age users, which could spawn a whole generation of paranoid dullards. And the last thing we need is more conspiracy theorists.
If they were to legalise it, there should be a higher age restriction than alcohol (say, 21) and this should be enforced very strictly. |
Haha, don't worry, pkc can handle the conspiracy types.
When Australia rises to power he'll make sure they're all sterilized.
In reference to your point about brain damage on teens who smoke pot, our government ran advertisements along those lines for a while, but has it been confirmed as posing a serious risk to brain development?
I'd like to see some studies, but I'm reluctant to just "Google it" because of all the biased crap on the internet posted by the hippies. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
I don't see how legalizing it would open it up to any younger users. At least in London, it was far easier to get hold of than alcohol at that age. |
As I've said before, this is why you shouldn't assume London is anything like the rest of the UK. You have far easier access to everything in London.
From my experience growing up somewhere very parochial, you might know a couple of people at school who smoke, but it was nowhere on the same level as under-age drinking, which practically every single person I know was doing by the age of 15. We have a strong and pervasive drinking culture, and out in the sticks where "Do whatever your parents did" is the only available option for a lot of young people, that involves going down to the pub as soon as you're able to get served.
If weed was institutionalised by making it legal, the availability to young people across the UK in general would be far, far greater and a sudden culture of tolerance would probably result in much more lenient attitudes towards under-age consumption. As I said previously, weed lends itself much more to "get high all day" lifestyle than drinking. To teenagers who have a lot more time to indulge in the kind of things that weed makes so much better - listening to music, watching movies, playing videogames - the impact is likely to be greater than adults.
Now, I enjoy the occasional smoke (once a week, maybe). I think it's much more stimulating way to chill out than drinking alcohol. I'm not anti-legalisation. But I do think legalisation should come with a proper framework to ensure we don't have a big rise in mental health issues 20 years down the line. Too many of its evangelists act like weed has no negative effects, but it clearly does and they are strongly suggested to be more pronounced if the drug is consumed at a young age.
| quote: | Originally posted by Alex
In reference to your point about brain damage on teens who smoke pot, our government ran advertisements along those lines for a while, but has it been confirmed as posing a serious risk to brain development?
I'd like to see some studies, but I'm reluctant to just "Google it" because of all the biased crap on the internet posted by the hippies. |
I can find a few things from a quick search, but you have to be a subscriber to the journal in question to read the full reports:
"Regular cannabis use in adolescence approximately doubles the risks of early school-leaving and of cognitive impairment and psychoses in adulthood. Regular cannabis use in adolescence is also associated strongly with the use of other illicit drugs. These associations persist after controlling for plausible confounding variables in longitudinal studies."
"there are consistent associations between regular cannabis use and poor psychosocial outcomes and mental health in adulthood."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25287883
I think the evidence is there and while it doesn't mean it will happen to everyone it strongly suggests it will happen to some people, so increasing the sample size through legalisation will increase the number of "some people". |
|
|
| Lira |
I'm all for legalising, regulating, and taxing everything. Why stop at cannabis?
Have "High Rooms" for harder substances if you must, set age limits, give proper support to the addicted, but since time immemorial people have found ways to get high, and if you ban a substance, the most obstinate among us will use it anyway (if not more than they'd otherwise do).
This would do wonders here in Brazil, where the effects of drug trafficking are well-known. The higher tax revenue and lower incarceration rates would probably help us fight crime, poverty, and progressive trance. |
|
|
| planetaryplayer |
| i only find enjoyment in doing banned substances |
|
|
| ViceroySF |
From the [very little] research I've done: Marijuana is entirely safe if you're a responsible Adult, but it can be incredibly damaging to your intellect if consumed before the age of 18. One would imagine, with THC levels [mind you, not all strains have high THC %, some smokers prefer CBDs for physical pain, etc and there are a plethora of flowers which are extremely popular and with a low THC to CBD ratio] a single joint could cause great damage - for days. If the Flower has lower THC, the damage could be kept at bay, but you must not smoke everyday. If you are taking a stimulant and you are in College or High School, Marijuana could help with sleep and hunger. I'm uncertain if Stimulants wipe out some of Marijuana's harmful effects on short-term memory.
I agree with Lira, the war on drugs is immoral, and as far as I know - at least here in the U.S, it's pretty much unconstitutional and against foundational protection against warrantless searches. In addition, with legalization there would be a shift of attitudes in countries where the drug-trade has become a great source of revenue [i.e: Mexico, Colombia, etc]. What is exciting is knowing that many of the disadvantaged will have access to drugs which they did not know could be 'cleaner' and also approved on by a certified board. Some individuals need Heroin to kill some deep persistent Chronic Pain; ADHD patients might benefit from Methamphetamine and Dextroamphetamines -Marijuana was the first step.
Alcohol is neurotoxic and its effect on GABA receptors is quite complex, it seems that when one is intoxicated with Ethanol, the mind sort of warps and the individual enters a state of sommambulance, sort of of sleep walking. Alcohol is now being pushed at Starbucks across the country and it kind of upsets me since Starbucks has banned smoking, but all of a sudden, promotes and encourages the use of a drug that has caused more damage than peyote or marijuana.
| quote: | | Kentucky v. King concerned the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. After witnessing a drug deal on the street, police in Lexington, Kentucky, followed a suspect into an apartment complex. When they entered the building, they smelled marijuana and knocked on the door from where it seemed to be coming. The police had no idea if the person inside was the suspect they had tracked into the building, but after they knocked, they heard a nervous scramble inside. Without possessing a warrant, they broke down the door and arrested the man in the apartment, who, it turns out, was trying to flush his pot stash down the toilet. He was later convicted. |
|
|
|
| Zharen |
| Alberto Falk said it would happen. I believe in Alberto Falk. |
|
|
| DJRYAN™ |
3.5 grams / 17%THC = 20mg of THC PER SACK (16/53= 42.5% Average Intake of THC per Puff) equates to approx 11.5 mg of actually consumed THC per sack.
11.5mg of THC = 11,500,000ng of THC
After Hours of Consumption usually 3-5 hours, most of THC had diminished.
11,500,000x85% = 9,775,000 of undetectable THC. leaving = 1725000ng of detectable THC.
65% would be detected in Feces / 20% Urine = 325000 ng of THC.. of detectable THC per Sack
So.... if I took 4 puffs off my bowl yesterday, that would be 80ng of THC. If 80/90% dissapates within hours = 12ng of THC left in my System... If I did that 2 days in a row = 24ng of THC.... if 20% of that is eliminated via urine than 5ng would be detectable in urine
immediate following smoking. which is <50ng cutoff for national laboratories.
1 PUFF = 15-20ng of THC
4 PUFFS = 80 - 100 ng/ml of THC
.
80/90% of THC Cooh Consumed is excreted within 5 days.
65% Feces / 20% Urine
AVERAGE DRUG TEST <50ng/ML
100ng / Joint
- 80/90% within hours
leaves residual of 10ng
of that 10ng of detectable THC-Cooh 65% will be eliminated via feces and 20% urine.
Assumption: 10ng / 20% urine means urine will contain 2ng of THC Cooh |
|
|
| Marcus Summers |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zharen
Alberto Falk said it would happen. I believe in Alberto Falk. |
Where is that thread, anyway? Some of that was eerily correct. |
|
|
| Jon_Snow |
| I found pot that I forgot I had stashed away it's got to be 2 yrs old. Can you get sick from it? |
|
|
| Marcus Summers |
I found the thread.
http://tranceaddict.com/forums/show...threadid=460193
Alberto Falk predicted:
-Russian and China expansion. I'm assuming he was referring to Crimea for Russia (Maybe Syria?) and the Island manufacturing in China.
-The European Union Refugee crisis.
-Solar Panel boom
-Facetime
-Brazil never being the BRICS power Lira always claimed it would be
-NASA Budget cuts
Things yet to come?:
-Collapse of the Two-Party System.
-Revolution in Mexico
-End to the War on Drugs
-Britney Spears suicide (LOL :wtf: )
-WW3
Where Alberto was straight up wrong:
-Bin Laden Search abandoned
-Countries not attending the 2012 Olympics |
|
|
|
|
