[joerocker]

Originally Posted by Golfingnut

When I go to a party, I have to maintain self control to the point that if I have a third beer I will regret it in the morning. I doubt if I ever reach .08 or even .05 % blood alcohol! but on the rare occasion I do have the extra round, I always feel bad the next day even if I only have three beers over a three hour party.

I wonder, does smoking a small amount cause the same morning after result.

No, there is no "hangover". You made a key point to this whole thing. Self control. Most against it assume the user has none. They've been brainwashed by "Reefer Madness" which couldn't be farther from the truth.

Originally Posted by senior citizen

There was a Swedish study done with regard to all of the American military deserters who ended up in Stockholm back in the 1960's. Within the past decade (while they were in their late 50's and early 60's) they were coming down with early onset Alzheimer's Disease and Dementia.....dying quickly. The physicians said it was due to their use of Hashish when they arrived in Sweden. I'm not a drug expert but Hashish is, I believe, a more potent type of marijuana??


I have this as firsthand information from the Swedish family of one of these deceased men. The clinic in Stockholm did extensive research on the hashish usage leading to the dementia. The doctors began seeing more and more of this certain generation coming in with the severe symptoms of dementia......dying soon afterward......


It's very sad to see someone fading away with dementia.

Please link to the study.

"Hearing something from a Swedish family" is NOT "first hand information", it's hearsay, not admissible in court or evidence of anything.

I find it hard to believe. First that they kept track of "all the American deserters" for 50 years along with their marijuana smoking habits. Second, that only the "American deserters" were coming down with early Alzheimers from smoking. If true, ALL Swedes who smoked it should have had the same affliction.

Most of the "information" we hear is just plain false.

I think we're all going to have to take a field trip to Colorado. Educational, for research (tax deductible?). We'll get first hand experience. Then we can decide on our own. Who's with me?

[PennBF]

How many actually know the statistics of users moving from pot to harder drugs? How many have actually treated Drug and Alcholol abusers and understand the sequence of moving from light drugs (pot) to hard drugs. How many actually know the statistics of person(s) under 18 moving on and the long term effects on their brain and reproduction(s)? How many have actually worked in a "Rehab" and understand the history of drug users (e.g. pot)? How many have actually studied the differences between Alcholol and Pot and the different impacts on the body, brain, etc.?
Moving on..Net: Statiscially between 15 and 20% of pot users move on to the harder drugs, although all drugs are actually "hard". The cost of all of this on society is tremendous. Who do you think is paying for the "Rehabs"? The good news is that it creates employment for the thousands of Drug Psychologists and Counselors. The good news is that as it is made "legal" there will be more opportunities for these Psychologists, et al.

[billethkid]

Originally Posted by PennBF

Statiscially between 15 and 20% of pot users move on to the harder drugs, although all drugs are actually "hard". The cost of all of this on society is tremendous. Who do you think is paying for the "Rehabs"? The good news is that it creates employment for the thousands of Drug Psychologists and Counselors. The good news is that as it is made "legal" there will be more opportunities for these Psychologists, et al.

Accepting the above statistic then we can certainly expect a significant increase in hard drug useage.

And now if we had a statistic of the number of people who use alcohol (any and all levels) and how many move on to be alcoholics we might have something to compare.

It would also be helpful to know how many drug users participate in some kind of rehab. And how many alcoholics participate in an AA type rehab.

Again a more meaningful comparison.

Without hard numbers like the above all else is opinion/belief driven, regardless the source.

The other issue that has not been addressed is there will be a definite increase in the number of school age (ALL levels) children who will begin trying/using drugs......because it is now legal (wherever it is).

There is absolutely no doubt the legalization will incrementally add to the problems of abuse at all ages via a new user group that did not exist before legalization.

Hence a bigger problem than exists today with significant cost implications for the future....to just heap on the pile already headed our way. Cost as measured in dollars as well as all the humanity type losses that will occur as well.

True marketing states find a need and fill it. What is the need for pot the government is responding to satisfy? And per my previous post why now and not 10, 20 ,30 ,50, 70 years ago?

Short answer: Greed and politics.

[joerocker]

Originally Posted by billethkid

Accepting the above statistic then we can certainly expect a significant increase in hard drug useage.

And now if we had a statistic of the number of people who use alcohol (any and all levels) and how many move on to be alcoholics we might have something to compare.

It would also be helpful to know how many drug users participate in some kind of rehab. And how many alcoholics participate in an AA type rehab.

Again a more meaningful comparison.

Without hard numbers like the above all else is opinion/belief driven, regardless the source.

The other issue that has not been addressed is there will be a definite increase in the number of school age (ALL levels) children who will begin trying/using drugs......because it is now legal (wherever it is).

There is absolutely no doubt the legalization will incrementally add to the problems of abuse at all ages via a new user group that did not exist before legalization.

Hence a bigger problem than exists today with significant cost implications for the future....to just heap on the pile already headed our way. Cost as measured in dollars as well as all the humanity type losses that will occur as well.

True marketing states find a need and fill it. What is the need for pot the government is responding to satisfy? And per my previous post why now and not 10, 20 ,30 ,50, 70 years ago?

Short answer: Greed and politics.

Everything written there was a guess. A forecast. What you think will happen.

How about numbers on alcohol use leading to marijuana use. Bet it's higher than the other way around.

What you're also saying is that government has to control/protect the population from themselves. We are incapable of handling our own lives and making our own choices. Is that what you're saying? You need others to lord over you, determine what you can and can't have? For your own good, because you're incapable of making wise, self beneficial, decisions, and if given any chance, will stray from what is good for you and society? That's what prohibition really is. "You're not capable of self control therefore you can't have it". NYC outlawed, prohibits, sodas larger than 16oz. Why? Because NYC has deemed that you are not capable of limiting your soda intake ans therefore must be limited and forbidden a serving larger than 16oz.

You don't "punish" everyone for the few who can't control themselves.

Why does a "user" have to go to rehab? An ABUSER yes, a user no.

Again, always bringing up the children. It's STILL illegal for children. It's been illegal for children. It will stay illegal for children. Children can already get all they want. Nothing changes for children.

[elizabeth52]

Originally Posted by PennBF

How many actually know the statistics of users moving from pot to harder drugs? How many have actually treated Drug and Alcholol abusers and understand the sequence of moving from light drugs (pot) to hard drugs. How many actually know the statistics of person(s) under 18 moving on and the long term effects on their brain and reproduction(s)? How many have actually worked in a "Rehab" and understand the history of drug users (e.g. pot)? How many have actually studied the differences between Alcholol and Pot and the different impacts on the body, brain, etc.?
Moving on..Net: Statiscially between 15 and 20% of pot users move on to the harder drugs, although all drugs are actually "hard". The cost of all of this on society is tremendous. Who do you think is paying for the "Rehabs"? The good news is that it creates employment for the thousands of Drug Psychologists and Counselors. The good news is that as it is made "legal" there will be more opportunities for these Psychologists, et iave:

I worked in this field for years. Someone posted an article by Mitch Rosenthal...I sat in many meetings with Mitch. You can quote any number of studies or statistics to support an argument on either side. I have worked with this population. I have sat with individuals who begin their story the same way...I started with a couple of joints. I have seen the ravages of human beings of all ages who suffer the effects of long term subtance use or the consequences of short term impairment due to substance use. This includes grade school children to senior citizens.

To the arguement that alcohol is legal so why not marijuana I say SO WHAT!! let the argument for or against marijuana stand on its own. I have read the research, I have seen the damage and I believe that our society is better off not legalizing marijuana. Here is the current research from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA).


DrugFacts: Marijuana | National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)

[Golfingnut]

Originally Posted by elizabeth52

I worked in this field for years. Someone posted an article by Mitch Rosenthal...I sat in many meetings with Mitch. You can quote any number of studies or statistics to support an argument on either side. I have worked with this population. I have sat with individuals who begin their story the same way...I started with a couple of joints. I have seen the ravages of human beings of all ages who suffer the effects of long term subtance use or the consequences of short term impairment due to substance use. This includes grade school children to senior citizens.

To the arguement that alcohol is legal so why not marijuana I say SO WHAT!! let the argument for or against marijuana stand on its own. I have read the research, I have seen the damage and I believe that our society is better off not legalizing marijuana. Here is the current research from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA).


DrugFacts: Marijuana | National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)

The key issue missed is that we're not talking about alcoholics or drug addicts. They are the same sad lot.
We are talking about two beers or one joint. See the difference?

A true abuser will sniff glue if that is all that is available.
Point is: A JOINT IS A BETTER SAFER CHOICE THAN ALCOHOL FOR ALL THE REST.

[elizabeth52]

[: A JOINT IS A BETTER SAFER CHOICE THAN ALCOHOL FOR ALL THE REST.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, but this is where I respectfully disagree. Both alter brain chemistry. Both cause impairment. Pick your poison.

[Golfingnut]

Originally Posted by elizabeth52

[: A JOINT IS A BETTER SAFER CHOICE THAN ALCOHOL FOR ALL THE REST.

Sorry, but this is where I respectfully disagree. Both alter brain chemistry. Both cause impairment. Pick your poison.[/QUOTE]

OK. You may be right and they may be very close, but when you take away the drug that causes violent tendacies you are left with pot. Yes they are both drugs, but I see marijuana as a much safer choice.

[rubicon]

Originally Posted by joerocker

So you're FOR the legalization for ADULTS? Since it does no harm to them.

Which is exactly what these states are doing. Nobody is saying allow kids to have it. It'll be the SAME as it is now for alcohol. Over 21. It's still illegal for kids.

Why does everyone think kids will suddenly be getting inundated with marijuana? If they want it, they can get it now. Cigarettes are legal for adults and not kids, not every child smokes. Alcohol is available for adults, not every kid drinks. This will be the same. There will be some increase in use because that's what happens when something formerly forbidden is legalized. But there won't be an explosion of stoned teens. Because, as I've said before, if a kid wants it, he can get it. Right now, here in Florida, I'm sure in the villages charter school. It's already everywhere. Because people like it.

We have an epidemic of kids binge drinking, and you blame marijuana? Huh? They're drinking alcohol. A separate entity, with it's own laws. That's the thing, there isn't anything really bad to say about marijuana, so people against it, make up stuff about other things and try to tie it to marijuana. Binge drinking alcohol has nothing to do with marijuana.

I know what will happen in CO and WA, "pot tourism". I'm going, soon. Going to meet friends from other states. Beats having to go to Jamaica. This is no different than tourists going to Las Vegas to gamble before gambling was "legalized" in practically every state. Maybe the Native Americans can add "pot shops" to their casinos.

Go to CO yourself. LEGALLY see what all the clamor for legalization is all about. Try it, you'll like it. In moderation of course. Don't want you coming back like Tommy Chong.

joerocker: I have not made such a claim. I believe marijuana ought to continue to be against the law. what I said is by socializing it we normalize it which sends a signal to kids that's its cool.

People drink for different reason. I like (one) glass of wine with my meal. However people who light up marijuana do so for one reason only and that is to get high
If marijuana fits so well then why is it not included in the description for a healthy lifestyle? Alcohol limited in nature is said to be healthy

[joerocker]

Originally Posted by elizabeth52

[: A JOINT IS A BETTER SAFER CHOICE THAN ALCOHOL FOR ALL THE REST.

Sorry, but this is where I respectfully disagree. Both alter brain chemistry. Both cause impairment. Pick your poison.

Exactly...LET me pick my "poison". Why should someone else dictate which I'm "allowed" to have? I'm a free man...am I not? Then why am I not free to choose?

Yes, they both make you high. They both "impair". That's the reason people like it. Why not let them have what they want. Why do you think they'll ALL abuse it?

Originally Posted by rubicon

joerocker: I have not made such a claim. I believe marijuana ought to continue to be against the law. what I said is by socializing it we normalize it which sends a signal to kids that's its cool.

People drink for different reason. I like (one) glass of wine with my meal. However people who light up marijuana do so for one reason only and that is to get high
If marijuana fits so well then why is it not included in the description for a healthy lifestyle? Alcohol limited in nature is said to be healthy

By calling for continued illicitly, you are de facto saying that people cannot control themselves and therefore it is to be taken away, made not available. Banned.

What's wrong with "normalizing" it? Like beer and wine, ADULTS consume it, you can too when you're old enough. Just like we have now with alcohol.

So, you don't like the "buzz" from 2 or 3 glasses of wine, then it's not for you. Leave it at that. Let others decide if it is for them. Are you their master? You have domain over them? You should judge them? You should control them? That's what "I believe marijuana ought to continue to be against the law." implies. I'd like to be my own master, make my own decisions about what I can and can't have. I'm reasonable, I'm responsible.

It's not included because currently, it's illegal. Would they say "get some heroin" for PMS to women? Organizations don't usually tell their members to do something illegal. But the day is coming. If all goes well, you may someday hear "just a toke to brighten your evening out".

BTW, alcohol (literally a poison) is "said" to be beneficial. By whom? People working for the alcohol producers industry? Maybe some of the other things contained in the product, but not the ethyl alcohol itself. Like the beef producers and dairy producers pushing their product as healthy.

Unfortunately, the world is full of lies and misinformation.

[billethkid]

Originally Posted by joerocker

Everything written there was a guess. A forecast. What you think will happen.

How about numbers on alcohol use leading to marijuana use. Bet it's higher than the other way around.

What you're also saying is that government has to control/protect the population from themselves. We are incapable of handling our own lives and making our own choices. Is that what you're saying? NO! You need others to lord over you, determine what you can and can't have? For your own good, because you're incapable of making wise, self beneficial, decisions, and if given any chance, will stray from what is good for you and society? That's what prohibition really is. "You're not capable of self control therefore you can't have it". NYC outlawed, prohibits, sodas larger than 16oz. Why? Because NYC has deemed that you are not capable of limiting your soda intake ans therefore must be limited and forbidden a serving larger than 16oz.

You don't "punish" everyone for the few who can't control themselves.

Why does a "user" have to go to rehab? An ABUSER yes, a user no.

Again, always bringing up the children. It's STILL illegal for children. It's been illegal for children. It will stay illegal for children. Children can already get all they want. Nothing changes for children.

How you extrapolated to what YOU think I said is a mystery to me as there was no indication of any of your conclusion(s).

Regarding the children there was no indication I thought it was legal for them. No where in my post. My statement has all to do with increased availability (among adults...increased availability) therefore more easily accessible by young folks.

I only respond with counterpoint when ANYBODY misrepresents my intentions.

[elizabeth52]

Originally Posted by Golfingnut

Sorry, but this is where I respectfully disagree. Both alter brain chemistry. Both cause impairment. Pick your poison.

OK. You may be right and they may be very close, but when you take away the drug that causes violent tendacies you are left with pot. Yes they are both drugs, but I see marijuana as a much safer choice.[/QUOTE]

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. However, if I am run down by an angry alcoholic or an mellow marijuana smoker, both whose reaction times are off because they are impaired, I am just as dead. Marijuana causes distorted perceptions, impaired coordination, difficulty with thinking and problem solving, and disrupted learning and memory. Doesn't really matter if your angry or mellow, your still impaired. While you are impaired (not addicted) you are a liability as an employee, a risk to any property owner, a danger on the road, an irresponsible caregiver, etc., etc.

[joerocker]

Originally Posted by billethkid

How you extrapolated to what YOU think I said is a mystery to me as there was no indication of any of your conclusion(s).

Regarding the children there was no indication I thought it was legal for them. No where in my post. My statement has all to do with increased availability (among adults...increased availability) therefore more easily accessible by young folks.

I only respond with counterpoint when ANYBODY misrepresents my intentions.

Then tell me what exactly keeping something banned means to you. It's not individual freedom. It's dictating what we can and can't have. If something is illegal, it's because you (the collective "you") don't trust me with it.

Why do you make the jump that just because adults can have it...children will have increased availability? There's already as much available to children as they want. It's MORE available to children than alcohol is. Ask your grandkids if they can get it, which is easier for them to get. I know what the answer will be.

I know what your intentions are, to deny others something they desire. You use the reasoning that "it's to protect the children". My intention is to allow adults to "pick their poison" and not deny something they'd like to have over a false assumption that kids will become walking zombies all hopped up on marijuana.

I don't think we're getting through to each other.

[joerocker]

Originally Posted by elizabeth52

OK. You may be right and they may be very close, but when you take away the drug that causes violent tendacies you are left with pot. Yes they are both drugs, but I see marijuana as a much safer choice.

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. However, if I am run down by an angry alcoholic or an mellow marijuana smoker, both whose reaction times are off because they are impaired, I am just as dead. Marijuana causes distorted perceptions, impaired coordination, difficulty with thinking and problem solving, and disrupted learning and memory. Doesn't really matter if your angry or mellow, your still impaired. While you are impaired (not addicted) you are a liability as an employee, a risk to any property owner, a danger on the road, an irresponsible caregiver, etc., etc.

Who said they should drive while high? Did anyone? Did anyone here say anything condoning driving while high? Don't do it. Just like beer and wine, if you have too much, don't drive. Remember, people smoking marijuana DON'T do the stupid things people who drink do. Again an argument out of the blue, taken out of context. You shouldn't drive under medication, under alcohol, or high.

You want to talk about impaired drivers, our biggest danger here is the elderly who shouldn't be behind the wheel.

[memason]

Joe..... are you high???