Not in France, where street stuff is cut to hell by unscrupulous retailers, esp since, due to transportation issues, haschich is more common than grass.JimC wrote:It is commonly believed here that the average strength of street dope is much, much higher now than it was in the 70s, due to efficient selection of high THC yield varieties by growers, so any bad effects to susceptible individuals may be worse...
Perception of Marijuana as a 'Safe Drug' Is Inaccurate
- Svartalf
- Offensive Grail Keeper
- Posts: 41068
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
- Location: Paris France
- Contact:
Re: Perception of Marijuana as a 'Safe Drug' Is Inaccurate
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug
PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping
PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping
- MrFungus420
- Posts: 881
- Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 4:51 pm
- Location: Midland, MI USA
- Contact:
Re: Perception of Marijuana as a 'Safe Drug' Is Inaccurate
People have died from caffeine overdose.hadespussercats wrote:Hm. I've never heard of caffeine driving anyone loony.MrFungus420 wrote: Now, as to the OP, it is less inaccurate to say that marijuana is a safe drug than it is to say that caffeine or aspirin is a safe drug. Relatively speaking, marijuana is one of the safest drugs that we know of.
And, marijuana hasn't driven anybody "loony" either. It has been associated with an increased risk in some people already at risk.
P1: I am a nobody.
P2: Nobody is perfect.
C: Therefore, I am perfect
P2: Nobody is perfect.
C: Therefore, I am perfect
- MrFungus420
- Posts: 881
- Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 4:51 pm
- Location: Midland, MI USA
- Contact:
Re: Perception of Marijuana as a 'Safe Drug' Is Inaccurate
Has anybody in this thread said that it is harmless?Blind groper wrote:Interesting that on a forum called rationalia, there are a heap of people who practice rationalisations rather than rational thinking.
To those people who smoke pot and think it is harmless, think again. The best you can say is that it is probably no worse than alcohol, and definitely better than tobacco. However, it is not harmless.
Really? You sure about that?Blind groper wrote:The fact that it contains tiny amounts of a chemical that may (emphasize may) work against cancer, does not alter the fact that the amounts of cancer causing chemicals are present in amounts orders of magnitude greater. Smoking marijuana almost certainly increases the risk of lung cancer by a substantial margin.
"These studies were not able to demonstrate a relationship between marijuana smoking and a diagnosis of lung cancer."
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article ... eid=410634
"A comprehensive Health Canada monograph on marijuana concluded that while there are many cellular and molecular studies that provide strong evidence that inhaled marijuana is carcinogenic, the epidemiologic evidence of a link between marijuana use and cancer is still inconclusive"
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/ ... ection_105
No, it doesn't remain to be seen.Blind groper wrote:However, to avoid being a hypocrite, let me admit I enjoy ethanol. This chemical certainly causes far more harm to society than marijuana does. Whether it harms the individual, on average, more or less remains to be seen.
Alcohol is, objectively, more harmful than marijuana.
On this, we seem to agree.Blind groper wrote:My personal view is that marijuana is a 'soft' drug, like tobacco, alcohol, and ecstasy. It causes harm, but not sufficient harm to justify it being made illegal. Our respective governments, if they had any sanity (doubtful) would legalise it, regulate its sale, and make taxes from those sales.

P1: I am a nobody.
P2: Nobody is perfect.
C: Therefore, I am perfect
P2: Nobody is perfect.
C: Therefore, I am perfect
- Blind groper
- Posts: 3997
- Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 3:10 am
- About me: From New Zealand
- Contact:
Re: Perception of Marijuana as a 'Safe Drug' Is Inaccurate
MrFungus
Marijuana is less likely to cause lung cancer than tobacco. But the major reason for that is simply that a marijuana user smokes less than an equivalent tobacco user. The harm follows a classic dose response curve. But that is the reason epidemiology has more difficulty picking up a causative relationship. A bit like second hand tobacco smoke. Lots of studies. Some purport to show second hand tobacco smoke causes lung cancer. Some studies do not. All because the effect is slight. Same with marijuana.
You disagree with my statement that alcohol causes more harm to society, but we do not know if the same applies to the individual. Why do you disagree? I see few grounds here for disagreement.
Marijuana is less likely to cause lung cancer than tobacco. But the major reason for that is simply that a marijuana user smokes less than an equivalent tobacco user. The harm follows a classic dose response curve. But that is the reason epidemiology has more difficulty picking up a causative relationship. A bit like second hand tobacco smoke. Lots of studies. Some purport to show second hand tobacco smoke causes lung cancer. Some studies do not. All because the effect is slight. Same with marijuana.
You disagree with my statement that alcohol causes more harm to society, but we do not know if the same applies to the individual. Why do you disagree? I see few grounds here for disagreement.
- MrFungus420
- Posts: 881
- Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 4:51 pm
- Location: Midland, MI USA
- Contact:
Re: Perception of Marijuana as a 'Safe Drug' Is Inaccurate
Amazing that you know this but the people doing the studies don't.Blind groper wrote:MrFungus
Marijuana is less likely to cause lung cancer than tobacco. But the major reason for that is simply that a marijuana user smokes less than an equivalent tobacco user.
Tell me, what gives you the inside information about it that the experts don't have?
I disagreed for the reason that I stated:Blind groper wrote:You disagree with my statement that alcohol causes more harm to society, but we do not know if the same applies to the individual. Why do you disagree?
Alcohol is objectively more harmful than marijuana.
That is why I disagree with your statement that it "remains to be seen" if alcohol is more or less harmful to the individual than marijuana.
P1: I am a nobody.
P2: Nobody is perfect.
C: Therefore, I am perfect
P2: Nobody is perfect.
C: Therefore, I am perfect
- Tyrannical
- Posts: 6468
- Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:59 am
- Contact:
Re: Perception of Marijuana as a 'Safe Drug' Is Inaccurate
Chewing tobacco is statistically almost cancer free. There's a reason the antis always drag out the same jaw cancer victim, he's almost the only one!Blind groper wrote:MrFungus
Marijuana is less likely to cause lung cancer than tobacco. But the major reason for that is simply that a marijuana user smokes less than an equivalent tobacco user. The harm follows a classic dose response curve. But that is the reason epidemiology has more difficulty picking up a causative relationship. A bit like second hand tobacco smoke. Lots of studies. Some purport to show second hand tobacco smoke causes lung cancer. Some studies do not. All because the effect is slight. Same with marijuana.

So I guess this would solve everything. New meaning to potty mouth

A rational skeptic should be able to discuss and debate anything, no matter how much they may personally disagree with that point of view. Discussing a subject is not agreeing with it, but understanding it.
- laklak
- Posts: 21022
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:07 pm
- About me: My preferred pronoun is "Massah"
- Location: Tannhauser Gate
- Contact:
Re: Perception of Marijuana as a 'Safe Drug' Is Inaccurate
Slacker teenaged stoners will be slacker teenaged stoners, just like slacker teenaged alcoholics will be slacker teenaged alcoholics. The fact that a small percentage of the population cannot control their cannabis intake is not sufficient reason to criminalize my use of it, just as the fact that a larger percentage of the population cannot control their alcohol intake is no reason to prohibit it's sale or consumption.
Yeah well that's just, like, your opinion, man.
- Tyrannical
- Posts: 6468
- Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:59 am
- Contact:
Re: Perception of Marijuana as a 'Safe Drug' Is Inaccurate
Or, anyone that wants pot can already get pot.
A rational skeptic should be able to discuss and debate anything, no matter how much they may personally disagree with that point of view. Discussing a subject is not agreeing with it, but understanding it.
- laklak
- Posts: 21022
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:07 pm
- About me: My preferred pronoun is "Massah"
- Location: Tannhauser Gate
- Contact:
Re: Perception of Marijuana as a 'Safe Drug' Is Inaccurate
Pretty much. Making it legal or at least decriminalized would hurt only the private prison industry, otherwise there'd be little if any change.
Yeah well that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Re: Perception of Marijuana as a 'Safe Drug' Is Inaccurate
Well, legalisation would remove the market for criminal scumbags - or at least would allow them to go legit.laklak wrote:Pretty much. Making it legal or at least decriminalized would hurt only the private prison industry, otherwise there'd be little if any change.
FUCKERPUNKERSHIT!
Wanna buy some pegs Dave, I've got some pegs here...
Wanna buy some pegs Dave, I've got some pegs here...
You're my wife now!
- laklak
- Posts: 21022
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:07 pm
- About me: My preferred pronoun is "Massah"
- Location: Tannhauser Gate
- Contact:
Re: Perception of Marijuana as a 'Safe Drug' Is Inaccurate
True, I guess it would hurt the cartels. Unless, as you said, they go legitimate. There's gold in that Acapulco Gold. And Panama Red, and Swazi Gold, and Skunk, and Chronic, and Seattle Green, and....Cormac wrote:Well, legalisation would remove the market for criminal scumbags - or at least would allow them to go legit.laklak wrote:Pretty much. Making it legal or at least decriminalized would hurt only the private prison industry, otherwise there'd be little if any change.
Yeah well that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Re: Perception of Marijuana as a 'Safe Drug' Is Inaccurate
Yes - and if they go legit, then they'll have lots of competition - from organic farmers and botanists who're expert in creating mellow highs, and so on. They'd be spanked up and down Mary Jane street.laklak wrote:True, I guess it would hurt the cartels. Unless, as you said, they go legitimate. There's gold in that Acapulco Gold. And Panama Red, and Swazi Gold, and Skunk, and Chronic, and Seattle Green, and....Cormac wrote:Well, legalisation would remove the market for criminal scumbags - or at least would allow them to go legit.laklak wrote:Pretty much. Making it legal or at least decriminalized would hurt only the private prison industry, otherwise there'd be little if any change.
FUCKERPUNKERSHIT!
Wanna buy some pegs Dave, I've got some pegs here...
Wanna buy some pegs Dave, I've got some pegs here...
You're my wife now!
- Robert_S
- Cookie Monster
- Posts: 13416
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:47 am
- About me: Too young to die of boredom, too old to grow up.
- Location: Illinois
- Contact:
Re: Perception of Marijuana as a 'Safe Drug' Is Inaccurate
They're invested in moving contraband. They'd more likely switch the contraband.Cormac wrote:Yes - and if they go legit, then they'll have lots of competition - from organic farmers and botanists who're expert in creating mellow highs, and so on. They'd be spanked up and down Mary Jane street.laklak wrote:True, I guess it would hurt the cartels. Unless, as you said, they go legitimate. There's gold in that Acapulco Gold. And Panama Red, and Swazi Gold, and Skunk, and Chronic, and Seattle Green, and....Cormac wrote:Well, legalisation would remove the market for criminal scumbags - or at least would allow them to go legit.laklak wrote:Pretty much. Making it legal or at least decriminalized would hurt only the private prison industry, otherwise there'd be little if any change.
What I've found with a few discussions I've had lately is this self-satisfaction that people express with their proffessed open mindedness. In realty it ammounts to wilful ignorance and intellectual cowardice as they are choosing to not form any sort of opinion on a particular topic. Basically "I don't know and I'm not going to look at any evidence because I'm quite happy on this fence."
-Mr P
The Net is best considered analogous to communication with disincarnate intelligences. As any neophyte would tell you. Do not invoke that which you have no facility to banish.
Audley Strange
-Mr P
The Net is best considered analogous to communication with disincarnate intelligences. As any neophyte would tell you. Do not invoke that which you have no facility to banish.
Audley Strange
Re: Perception of Marijuana as a 'Safe Drug' Is Inaccurate
Has any state in the U.S. legalized marijuana farming? I thought it was just possession for personal use.
Anywho, I'm sure there'd be a shit-fuckton of standards, regulations, licenses, and other bullshit, put in place on marijuana farming if it was legalized. The price would likely go up for the consumer as corporate conglomerates take over production and distribution.
Anywho, I'm sure there'd be a shit-fuckton of standards, regulations, licenses, and other bullshit, put in place on marijuana farming if it was legalized. The price would likely go up for the consumer as corporate conglomerates take over production and distribution.
- Blind groper
- Posts: 3997
- Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 3:10 am
- About me: From New Zealand
- Contact:
Re: Perception of Marijuana as a 'Safe Drug' Is Inaccurate
To MrFungus
I already agreed there was limited epidemiological evidence of marijuana causing lung cancer, just as there is limited epidemiological evidence for the same due to second hand tobacco smoke. And for same reason. Low dose.
However, there is a lot of other evidence, including analysing marijuana smoke and finding heaps of polyaromatic hydrocarbons, nitrosamines and so on. All recognised carcinogens. Also evidence of tumour formation on laboratory animals. If you rely on epidemiology, you get one story. If you look at the wider range of evidence, you get another.
There is no doubt that marijuana smokers have more lung cancer than non smokers. This is often explained by the fact that many marijuana smokers also smoke tobacco. But the jury is still out on that.
And no. We have no clear evidence that alcohol causes more harm to the individual than marijuana. Both cause harm. Comparing degree of harm is difficult, because the harms are different. How do you quantify te harm from teenage psychoses caused by marijuana to the liver harm caused by alcohol in middle aged people? You cannot.
I already agreed there was limited epidemiological evidence of marijuana causing lung cancer, just as there is limited epidemiological evidence for the same due to second hand tobacco smoke. And for same reason. Low dose.
However, there is a lot of other evidence, including analysing marijuana smoke and finding heaps of polyaromatic hydrocarbons, nitrosamines and so on. All recognised carcinogens. Also evidence of tumour formation on laboratory animals. If you rely on epidemiology, you get one story. If you look at the wider range of evidence, you get another.
There is no doubt that marijuana smokers have more lung cancer than non smokers. This is often explained by the fact that many marijuana smokers also smoke tobacco. But the jury is still out on that.
And no. We have no clear evidence that alcohol causes more harm to the individual than marijuana. Both cause harm. Comparing degree of harm is difficult, because the harms are different. How do you quantify te harm from teenage psychoses caused by marijuana to the liver harm caused by alcohol in middle aged people? You cannot.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests