LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksWhat are uses for Medical Marijuana?
Is it for terminal illness patients?
Does it work?
What's YOUR opinion on it?
11Likes
July 9th, 2012, 05:15 PM
What are uses for Medical Marijuana?
Is it for terminal illness patients?
Does it work?
What's YOUR opinion on it?
I think that it is quasi-legal in Canada and some other countries, and I think that very soon Slim Shady or another 1 post member will post a link to purchase it.
pffffft....pfft, pfft, pffffffft
wow man, pfffffffffffffffffffffft, ... i feel healthier already........................................... ...sorry, what was the question?
(I'm gonna rant a bit here)
imho medical marijuana is an end run around a silly and stupid law(read fence) that never should have been there in the first place.
Seriously, i'm still a bit of a libertarian, and see no rational reason to keep any drugs illegal.
The laws make criminals wealthy and provide work for cops, lawyers, judges, prison guards and counselors, at an exhorbitant cost to the tax payers.
In the USA, almost 1/2 our prison population are nonviolent offenders(read drug busts).
As a youth, I was a young republican, and read and listened to William F. Buckley-(the voice of the right wing---the correct wing) and in 1995, he finally said:
and:"Marijuana never kicks down your door in the middle of the night.
Marijuana never locks up sick and dying people,
does not suppress medical research,
does not peek in bedroom windows.
Even if one takes every reefer madness allegation
of the prohibitionists at face value,
marijuana prohibition has done far more harm
to far more people than marijuana ever could."
Buckley broke down the troublesome cost of prohibition:It is outrageous to live in a society whose laws tolerate sending young people to life in prison because they grew, or distributed, a dozen ounces of marijuana. I would hope that the good offices of your vital profession would mobilize at least to protest such excesses of wartime zeal, ...
Treatment is not now available for almost half of those who would benefit from it. Yet we are willing to build more and more jails in which to isolate drug users even though at one-seventh the cost of building and maintaining jail space and pursuing, detaining, and prosecuting the drug user, we could subsidize commensurately effective medical care and psychological treatment, ...
and the costs have gone up considerably since 1995---------really crazy, irrational, and a disgrace.“We are speaking of a plague that consumes an estimated $75 billion per year of public money, exacts an estimated $70 billion a year from consumers, is responsible for nearly 50 per cent of the million Americans who are today in jail, occupies an estimated 50 per cent of the trial time of our judiciary, and takes the time of 400,000 policemen ...
Now here in the UK we have the same drug problems as anywhere else, people addicted to drugs like heroin have had there lives blighted and are probarbly criminals trying to fund there habits. You have to ask how these people got to this stage.
Well I think it comes down to this, many young people try recreational drugs, most of them grow out this like going through a phase, but not all of them, some of them go on to try harder and more dangerous and addictive substances such as heroin.
When people go to buy illegal drugs they are exposed to the bottom rungs of drug dealing networks. This is what also provides those who go on to be hard drug addicts access to people that supply the harder drugs.
Now if commercial, wether it be medical or any other kind of 'legal' cannabis were generally available it removes the introduction to the bottom rungs of these illegal drug dealing networks. This in it's self would prevent so many people from ending up criminals and addicts.
That said I would personally advocate going much further than just the commercial availability of canabis, I would like to see investment in a whole range of new recreational drugs that are designed to be safe and non adictive. This would give people what they clearly want in a safe way and remove any necessity for people to become involved with criminal networks. Any development costs could easily be recouped through tax and the reduction in crime.
It would also remove the criminal networks as they would no longer have a market for their products.
To me this would be a good alternative to the current approach of prohibition which has clearly failed miserably.
Last edited by Ascended; July 14th, 2012 at 01:32 PM.
As I am sure you are all aware, Bayer wanted to sell more aspirin and Dupont wanted to sell more plastics, so they got together and started a "smear" campaign with "Reading, Writing, Reefer" and "Reefer Madness,...". It worked, just as planned! Now we have plastic bags [everywhere!] and drug stores [on every corner!].Is anyone aware of the environmental impact?
It only shows a lack of intelligence, to believe one can dictate morality. Prohibition can not work. In fact it only compounds the problem. It all comes down to education. The same ones that do heroin are the same ones that snorted gasoline. This is the reason for all the "exotic" drugs, such as "crystal meth". No drug was ever "illegal" until less than a century ago, and people still existed. "Use not abuse"
Why would anyone think that it is o.k. to make a plant illegal, and if it is, why not something like poison ivy or maybe kudzu! It amazes me, how stupid human mentality can sometimes be! I am sure these people have good intentions, but the ones that have made these "laws" end up being the ones that have caused the problems.
I would consider making all drugs unavailable to anyone that has not been properly educated as to the effects [long and short-term], maybe similar to our present laws on alcohol. I find it rather strange that, so many drugs can easily kill and so many pharmaceutical drugs are steadily being re-called, yet never an overdose of marijuana. The non-taxed drugs are the ones that are bad for you?
This has become such an old arguement, it's disturbing. To date, there is only one country with enough intelligence to understand that drug abuse is not a legal issue, but a health, moral, and religous issue. Thank you, Portugal! [and look what happened to their crime rate!]
Marijuana is better for you then smoking, drinking, and eating to much. Marijuana makes you want to eat though, and most people smoke it, and usually smoking it near a bar so they usually take a few drinks with it as well..
Still, marijuana is one of the best drugs known to man. It's relatively cheap, few side effects, and many benefits.
Used for pain prevention, in tea for astma patients, strengthens the immune system, stress relief, good for the eyes, etc..
I am an admissions nurse for a psych hospital that handles people trying to detox from addictive drugs. We don't have any detox protocol for marijuana, because it is virtualy non addictive. Addiction is measured by the evidence of witdrawal symptoms. There are no significant withdrawal symptoms for marijuana use.
The drug laws in the US make no sense. Opioids are dangerous drugs. They can supress respirations to the point of death. They are addictive. Access to these needs to be controled. Benzodiazepines are dangerous drugs. While it is difficult to overdose on them by themselves, they make death more likely in combination with opioids. They are addictive. Access to these needs to be controled.
But tobacco which is the second most addictive substance, right after heroin. Most smokers are hooked by their second pack of cigaretts. Alcohol is the second greatest health problem world wide. It is second only to malnutrition. Yet both of these substances are legal for adults to purchase and use. If there is no reason to prohibit them then there is no reason to prohibit anything.
No, I am not aware of that. What is the evidence and how does banning marijuana sell more aspirin and plastic?Originally Posted by Kalopin
Hey Harold, How you been? Never did get to thank you for my "off topic" thread, so THANKS!No, I am not aware of that. What is the evidence and how does banning marijuana sell more aspirin and plastic?
Cultivating Cannabis, Plant, Hemp, Cash Crop, Medicine, Rope, Thomas Jefferson [go to "Confusion,Conspiracy, or Coincidence], [there are many].
Many used marijuana for headache symptoms, and before nylon, most ropes [as well as some clothes, sacks, boxes, furniture, animal bedding,...] were made of hemp. You see, it is much cheaper, but it is also much better for the environment!
Sorry that it all comes down to a big money game, once again. Never underestimate the "greed for the dollar" card!
A lot of people say it has good physiological effects. I'm not sure if these wide claims are credible, though. I think there's more argument however for a lack of negative cognitive effects. See Harvard: Intelligence Unaffected by Heavy Marijuana Use and UNC: Effects on Cognitive Functioning
Some use it to relieve the symotoms of Glaucoma while others use it to relieve the nasea from chemotherapy. The symptoms of Glaucoma can more easily be relieved from medication. When I was undergoing chemo anytime I tried to eat I got nausea and tossed up everything I ate. Within oiur weeks I lost 30 pounds. My oncologist didn't like me not eating and starving for a month was one of the worst experiences of my life. But the nausea itself from the chemo was kept under control with Ativan. My oncologist told me that marijuana wouldn't have helped much and if it did then they had the active ingredient, TCP, in pill form.
However, that said, I see no good reason to make any drug illegal. The stigma that comes with it only serves to make it harder for drug addicts to get clean.
Lots of innuendo, not much hard evidence for a conspiracy.
I hope that I never have to make a decision to recieve chemo' or radiation therapy. It kills as many good cells as bad.Some use it to relieve the symotoms of Glaucoma while others use it to relieve the nasea from chemotherapy. The symptoms of Glaucoma can more easily be relieved from medication. When I was undergoing chemo anytime I tried to eat I got nausea and tossed up everything I ate. Within oiur weeks I lost 30 pounds. My oncologist didn't like me not eating and starving for a month was one of the worst experiences of my life. But the nausea itself from the chemo was kept under control with Ativan. My oncologist told me that marijuana wouldn't have helped much and if it did then they had the active ingredient, TCP, in pill form.
However, that said, I see no good reason to make any drug illegal. The stigma that comes with it only serves to make it harder for drug addicts to get clean.
Ativan is a barbiturate and is mainly for anxiety and depression. It is addictive and slows brain activity and not good for your digestion. Ask for Marinol or Dronabinol [the latest names for pills containing THC]-They are non-addictive and great for "the munchies"! [or so I've been told
Look into every prescription that you take and use a "common sense" approach. Cancer is a tricky subject, what may work at one age, stage, or degree, may not work for others. Preventative[eating right, vitamins, minerals, amino acids, and exercise] is always the best, if possible.
It is my belief that ALL labels on ALL drugs, as well as foods, should explain EVERY ingrediemt! [FDA!]
[Prozac contains cocaine, as do many prescription drugs, but I have never heard of any doctor telling that to any patient, and you will only find this info. at the U.S. Patent Office]
Last edited by Kalopin; July 15th, 2012 at 07:47 PM.
Nope, documented facts!Lots of innuendo, not much hard evidence for a conspiracy.
ALL of our "founding fathers" grew and promoted hemp. Every parachute on both sides in WWII was made of hemp. Almost every boat that ever sailed, prior to plastics, had rope made of hemp! It is safe to say that, if it were not for the amazing power of hemp, without it we would, more than likely, not have advanced to this degree.
Just think, if we could use hemp for grocery bags. Just that, alone, would improve many problems being seen! Currently the U.S. is the only country where you will find hay bales wrapped in nylon, why? Does anyone understand the environmental impact?
Last edited by Kalopin; July 15th, 2012 at 07:12 PM.
Good grief! Throwing people out of a plane with a sack of hemp on their backs, you might as well have packed it with rocks. Parachutes were made of silk. Wedding Gowns of WWIIEvery parachute on both sides in WWII was made of hemp.
Hemp was a naval material for ropes and sails. Also for canvas tents and other military gear. And of course, jeans. The Origin of Levi’s
The only halfway sensible conspiracy theory I've ever come across for suppression of marijuana comes from the end of the Prohibition era. We have a volatile combination.
Rampant worldwide unemployment,
the spread of socialist and communist ideas to deal with the economic/political mess,
the USA still wildly broken by the overhang of the Civil War and continuing vicious racism,
general US acceptance of lawlessness due to the ludicrous prohibition era,
a powerful enforcement agency with nothing to do now that alcohol's legal again,
a cotton industry looking to expand its market (now that the strength of hemp is no longer 'needed' for sails and the like).
Leaders of last on list get together with leaders of second last on list - add a few relevant congress critters. Away we go!
Well. It makes as much sense as any other conspiracy theory.
Sorry, the ropes for the parachutes.http://hemporganic.com/whyhemp.html [hope you have a moment to read all of this page!] [although this page does suggest that the entire parachute was made from hemp fiber]
and, you maybe should study a little more history- http://www.ukcia.org/potculture/20/lies.html and we still have the "Harry Anslingers". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassin_of_Youth Now, that's conspiring!
Last edited by Kalopin; July 16th, 2012 at 12:20 AM.
I think hemp would have functioned on a parachute, practically identically to silk. Also packing a bag of silk would be the same as rocks also, but rocks can save you life better, if you throw a rock down at 4 times terminal velocity, when it's 1/4th of your weight, you float in the air for a millisecond. Just do it before you hit the ground, and you won't even have a scratch. In theory ofcourse..
AFAICT canvas 'parachutes' were only ever used in early experimental jumps from hot air balloons - not from moving planes.
Can't see how hemp canvas would 'function' like lightweight, flexible parachute silk. It was abandoned for jeans and overalls because cotton twill (or drill) was more flexible and comfortable. The parachute packs were still made of tough and durable canvas.
How parachute is made - material, manufacture, making, history, used, parts, components, structure, machine, History, Raw Materials, Design, The Manufacturing Process of parachute, Quality Control
For WW2, silk soon became unavailable (Japan being the earlier source) which meant they moved to nylon which was lighter and more flexible again.
When it comes to parachutes I also believed, like adelady, that they were made from silk during world war 2. That said though I think this is digressing from the subject at hand.
There is a more interesting aspect that this thread raises, the whole idea of medical marijuana just goes to highlight the hypocrisy within the medical profession.
Let me explain more, for years we have been told by doctors about the damage and harmful effects of recreation drugs. This supposed medical evidence forms the fundemental argument put forth in support of the policy of prohibition.
Yet we have hundreds of thousands of drugs prescribed by doctors every single day, these drugs we are told by the medical profession are 'safe'.
So that leaves me to wonder how all of a sudden that this harmful plant marijuana that some how corrupts the young, causes schizophrenia and destroys lives, all claims made by doctors in support of the prohibition policy, is suddenly perfectly safe and acceptable when prescribed as a medical treatment.
The trend has been constant that for any substance used for recreation purposes the doctors have come out and said it is harmful, for sure just how many recreational drugs can anyone think of that doctors don't tell us are harmful?
Given that there are so many safe medical drugs out there, is it really going to be that hard to make safe recreational drugs? I think not and the medical profession needs to be tackled on this issue.
There intransigence is allowing politicians to continue with the prohibition policy, generating huge profits for drug cartels, costing a fortune in tax payers money, leading to crimal activity such as burglary and street crime and also destroying lives as people end up addicted to dangerous drugs.
Something has to be done and the doctors should come out and say so, they are directly responsible for the consequences of their actions and at present prohibition is one of them.
You got it! Propaganda for" the dollar"!
You will still see many reports of how marijuana destroys brain cells, yet never compare it to other "so-called safe" drugs. Practically every prescription drug contains some form of an opiate [poppy] or derivative of the coca plant. These two drugs [plants] are extremely addictive and cause a great more harm to many parts of the body, especially the brain. There is no comparison! Medical Marijuana is, without a doubt, much safer.
People wonder why so many become addicted to these substances, when they are given to everyone in many different forms [mostly without the patients knowledge]. As far as cocaine, it is used for infants when cutting teeth and in all tooth pain medications, when you go to the dentist [novacaine] on skin [solarcaine] as a numbing local for simple cuts [as lidocaine]. It is the main ingredient in many more commonly used products. Before anyone has had a chance to grow, they have been introduced to cocaine many times!
Tetra-hydro-cannabinol [THC] is a much safer alternative for almost every case. While no drug may not have some harmful side-effects, no drug has been proven to have less.
As far as the parachutes: When Hemp Saved George Bush's Life , http://blogs.roanoke.com/theburgs/op...dustrial-hemp/ Although, today there may be better alternatives for ropes and parachutes, there are many uses for hemp that would be beyond wrong if it were not taken advantage of!
Cocaine, for toothache? The outrageous adverts that would never be allowed now | Mail Online
And it's true. Once upon a time Coca-Cola really did have coca in it.
There are no modern non-prescription medications for children that contain cocaine.
You are funny! How come I am holding a tube of "teething gel" that has an "active ingredient" of "BenzoCAINE 7.5%?
Do you not understand what benzocaine is made of? "synthetic" is just as bad, if not worse.
It amazes me, the number of people who will just put stuff in their bodies because someone told them it would be good for them, without ever even making an attempt at finding the truth! And, so much information becomes distorted. Most people don't even know that aspirin [salicylic acid, sodium-sodium salicylate] is just Willow tree bark and salt.
This has become a serious problem, here is some of the latest news FDA Issues Warning About Teething Gels | Parents News Now, by Holly Lebowitz Rossi , [oh yea, take a moment and read the comments!].This should have kinda' been a "no-brainer" [no pun intended]
Maybe the people in our recent past didn't understand the bad effects to go along with cocaine and opium, but at least they were honest about all the ingredients [mostly, I guess]. I feel every food or drug should be properly labeled with the original [plant, mineral,...] ingredients, to be honest, ya' think?
The thing that bothers me, about using marijuana as medicine, and as a non-dangerous drug, is the following.
The marijuana that was around 15 years ago had like a 3% THC content.
But the marijuana that is around today has a 13%+ THC content.
The 3% marijuana was making people lazy, stupid, and causing mental problems. But todays marijuana must be making these problems 4x worse.
I wish some group would start a marijuana breeding program, that produced marijuana with about a 6% THC content.
The world is finally getting a long needed, marijuana is ok attitude. But the problem is, its the old 3% marijuana, that 1000's of years of use, has shown to be ok.
Marijuana produces a range of effects, some long term, some short term, some cumulative, some temporary, some positive, some negative.
Marathon running produces a range of effects, some long term, some short term, some cumulative, some temporary, some positive, some negative.
As a society we find it acceptable that people should run marathons even although, for some, this will have fatal effects and for others will reduce their quality of life. We have decided, as a society, that adults should be free to make a decision, whether informed or not, that they will take up marathon running. For reasons that appear to me wholly irrational we have decided, as a society, that the same freedom will not be accorded to those who decide to make use of recreational drugs.
The crime, in this case, appears to me to be serious and reprehensible and extensive. The crime is that by making marijuana, or any drug, illegal, we remove freedoms from individuals, we facilitate the growth of criminal networks, thereby creating many victims of crimes, and we adopt a paternalistic attitude to adults that discourages responsibile action. None of that, from my point of view, is good.
NO! That is more B.S. propaganga! There are stronger and weaker and it makes a big difference how it is grown, but several of the stronger strains have been lost [that were considered an "upitty high"] from the effects of being illegal and other strong strains [most are lazy highs!] have evolved. You can still grow very weak strains as hemp or very strong strains as a drug, this has always been the case! Long ago people could find the same strengths in female plants that have not been [or too] pollenated and many understood this back when, as well! Now many more just know how to do it. It has, pretty much, always been the same versatile plant. "Just say KnoW!
Where did you hear that marijuana use was causing "mental problems" [or do you mean that, the ones who couldn't find any were going mental?
"George Bush says we're losing "the war on drugs". You know what that implies? There is a war being fought, and the people on drugs are winning it!"
Last edited by Kalopin; July 17th, 2012 at 09:14 AM.
I would not call myself a "liberal" on crime and punishment issues. My views tend to change, but I have a particular dislike for any form of organised crime such as the "criminal networks" you refer to.
On this issue I tend to agree with the above post and think that it is a mistake to make drugs illegal. It is possible that if the policy was changed this could lead to an increase in drug consumption which would cause problems for society and also, at a personal level, for individuals. I believe, however, that any rise in consumption would only occur in the short term.
There is no connection between benzocaine and cocaine (or even michael caine). Cocaine is methyl (1R,2R,3S,5S)-3- (benzoyloxy)-8-methyl-8-azabicyclo[3.2.1] octane-2-carboxylate. Benzocaine is ethyl 4-aminobenzoate. They have almost nothing in common, other than the fact that they both have an anaesthetic effect due to blocking sodium channels. As with novocaine and lidocaine, the "-ocaine" suffix was used by the marketing departments to indicate its function.
They are no more related than the two Bayer products heroIN and aspirIN.
Where did you hear that Bayer made "heroIN"? Mmm, Do you need a prescription for Bayer heroIN?There is no connection between benzocaine and cocaine (or even michael caine). Cocaine is methyl (1R,2R,3S,5S)-3- (benzoyloxy)-8-methyl-8-azabicyclo[3.2.1] octane-2-carboxylate. Benzocaine is ethyl 4-aminobenzoate. They have almost nothing in common, other than the fact that they both have an anaesthetic effect due to blocking sodium channels. As with novocaine and lidocaine, the "-ocaine" suffix was used by the marketing departments to indicate its function.
They are no more related than the two Bayer products heroIN and aspirIN.
"Almost!" It IS synthetic cocaine! "Have you ever been experienced"?
It is designed to produce the same numbing effect and uses the same base elements. ethyl is next to methyl, aminobenzoate is benzoloxy. It is done this way to purposely hide the truth! Find the basic ingredients to any drug that contains cocaine! None will admit it, until you go to the U.S. Patent office and read the fine type! The derivatives are combined in such a way as to produce only a "local" numbing effect- only difference.
Did you read the article on "teething gels" and still condone the use of "benzocaine"?!
Now people are using these synthetics and ingredients from different designer drugs like ecstasy to make even worse drugs like "bath salts".
So, cocaine or not, these synthetic concoctions are, many times, much worse!
Last edited by Kalopin; July 17th, 2012 at 09:28 AM.
It is my belief that these ignorant laws have actually "glorified" the use of many drugs and is the main reason for so much abuse. Everyone should be taught as much as possible about the effects of every drug. To "just say no" is a most ignorant approach. To understand and be knowlegable about what you may ingest will always be the best option, and this is not possible if a drug is illegal to own, or for the educated to experiment with.I would not call myself a "liberal" on crime and punishment issues. My views tend to change, but I have a particular dislike for any form of organised crime such as the "criminal networks" you refer to.
On this issue I tend to agree with the above post and think that it is a mistake to make drugs illegal. It is possible that if the policy was changed this could lead to an increase in drug consumption which would cause problems for society and also, at a personal level, for individuals. I believe, however, that any rise in consumption would only occur in the short term.
Understand that anyone can go into practically any store and find many things that, if ingested will kill them [bleach, gasoline,or even over-thhe-counter pain medications]. Now, the general public must learn these things. Why would anyone think that the general public can't understand different drugs, use and abuse. Do you believe that doctors and pharmacies should know more about any drug than everyone else? [Big money game and it cost lives!}
These drugs, being illegal also makes it more difficult for the uneducated to differentiate between the more dangerous and the lighter drugs. For a long time, most believed that Marijuana was as bad for you as cocaine and heroin, because that's the way lawmakers had portrayed it. How many peoples lives were destroyed and how many lost their lives due to this incompetence? Lawmakers-take the blame!!!
I am sure that, if these laws would have never been enacted, that there would be much less use and abuse, and if these laws are changed, then there would be no infamous element, so as to feel "above the law" and no glory from breaking the law. I believe that if all drugs were legal then you would see a major drop in crime, abuse, mental health issues, and a much more agreeable society, that doesn't feel "chained" to unjust, extreme "laws"!
Last edited by Kalopin; July 17th, 2012 at 09:11 AM.
Only in the sense they both have anaesthetic properties.
Correct - but without all the psychoactive effects.It is desidned to produce the same numbing effect
Your ignorance knows no bounds. I don't recommend that you drink methyl alcohol instead of ethyl. Aminobenzoate and the benzoloxy structure are completely different. One has an amino group (the clue is in the name). The other has a carboxyl group. One is an ester and one is an alkaloid. One is both hydrophilic and lipophylic and can cross the blood-brain barrier to cause psychoactive effects. The other isn't and doesn't.ethyl is next to methyl, aminobenzoate is benzoloxy.
Of course it is. That's right the entire universe is a conspiracy to hide The Truth from you. Yes, you personally.It is done this way to purposely hide the truth!
What did you not understand about selecting derivitives to produce a "local" numbing effect? This means removing the "psychoactive effects" I said that is the only difference. It's not methyl in alcohol it's in coca leaves, is the main part of the psychoactive effect and it is ingested by any user.Only in the sense they both have anaesthetic properties.
Correct - but without all the psychoactive effects.It is desidned to produce the same numbing effect
Your ignorance knows no bounds. I don't recommend that you drink methyl alcohol instead of ethyl. Aminobenzoate and the benzoloxy structure are completely different. One has an amino group (the clue is in the name). The other has a carboxyl group. One is an ester and one is an alkaloid. One is both hydrophilic and lipophylic and can cross the blood-brain barrier to cause psychoactive effects. The other isn't and doesn't.ethyl is next to methyl, aminobenzoate is benzoloxy.
Of course it is. That's right the entire universe is a conspiracy to hide The Truth from you. Yes, you personally.It is done this way to purposely hide the truth!
You really do not see the conspiracy that has been played on the public? For you to believe that benzocaine is safer than cocaine is one good example of how the public has been "taken for a ride". It would be safer, and has been, for a teething baby to chew on a coca leaf than to ingest benzocaine [ask any South American]!!!!
Last edited by Kalopin; July 17th, 2012 at 08:31 PM.
That is pretty incoherent (have you been sampling the products). There is both methyl alcohol and ethyl alcohol. One is highly toxic, the other is drunk in large quantities. I was simply pointing out that you statement that "ethyl is next to methyl" is just nonsense. And it isn't the methyl group that gives it the psychoactive properties.
Of course it is safer because it doesn't have the psychoactive effects and therefore isn't addictive. And, of course, they are both dangerous if misused.For you to believe that benzocaine is safer than cocaine is one good example of how the public has been "taken for a ride".
There is also methylparaben from methylalcohol and is used to preserve food. So, how "toxic" is this derivative?That is pretty incoherent (have you been sampling the products). There is both methyl alcohol and ethyl alcohol. One is highly toxic, the other is drunk in large quantities. I was simply pointing out that you statement that "ethyl is next to methyl" is just nonsense. And it isn't the methyl group that gives it the psychoactive properties.
Of course it is safer because it doesn't have the psychoactive effects and therefore isn't addictive. And, of course, they are both dangerous if misused.For you to believe that benzocaine is safer than cocaine is one good example of how the public has been "taken for a ride".
Benzocaine is NOT safer than cocaine. Cocaine has never been known to cause Methemoglobinemia. [although neither are safe for any long-term use]
Methemoglobinemia is caused by anyl nitrate, isobutyl nitrates, and other so-called "poppers" coming from synthetic forms of amphetamines.
The original plant that the oil to make benzocaine from is the leaves of the coca plant!
You can be sure that any drug with a suffix of "caine"[procaine, tetracaine,...] is chenically related to cocaine! Drugs are named according to their structure. Like "codone" and morphone" have an opiod structure, "zolam" and "zepam" in the case of "benzos".
Cocaine was just the first local anaesthetic drug to be discovered. Its structure was the starting point for less addictive locals.
Oh yea, P.S. I wouldn't think that THC would be good for a toothache. It would probably just make you think about it more!
Last edited by Kalopin; July 17th, 2012 at 12:19 PM.
What has that got to do with anything? I believe methylparaben is pretty safe. Probably similar to ethylparaben. So what? Parabens occur naturally in plants (blueberries, for example) so by your warped logic presumably they are guaranteed to be safe?
On the other hand benzocaine doesn't cause: tachyarrhythmias and a marked elevation of blood pressure, which can lead to death from respiratory failure, stroke, cerebral hemorrhage, or heart-failure; or hyperthermia causing muscle cell destruction and myoglobinuria resulting in renal failure.Cocaine has never been known to cause Methemoglobinemia.
I guess we can agree on that. They are both dangerous chemicals. One of them is extremely addictive so the long term use can be hard to avoid.[although neither are safe for any long-term use]
Really? Got a reference for that? It is pretty simple to synthesize using standard organic lab reagents: BENZOCAINE SYNTHESIS. (Part 1- the make it up as you go along strategy) « chemistrypanda (no cocaine required).The original plant that the oil to make benzocaine from is the leaves of the coca plant!
This is it, right here. And even worse, for something meant to be recreational, I hear that people are being sent to prison for ridiculous amounts of time. Meanwhile, cigarettes are marketed by enormous corporations all over the US but apparently no one cares about that. I know people who do weed (not surprising since like 1 out of 3 high schoolers do it), and of course, they're into that like whatever. And then there are my parents, who smoke cigarettes, and I know for a fact they get nothing positive out of smoking. The only reason they do it is to satisfy their unhealthy craving, thus relieving some stress. But that's just lifting a little weight off, nothing more. What a stupid double-standard.
Methylparaben is derived from methylalcohol.What has that got to do with anything? I believe methylparaben is pretty safe. Probably similar to ethylparaben. So what? Parabens occur naturally in plants (blueberries, for example) so by your warped logic presumably they are guaranteed to be safe?
On the other hand benzocaine doesn't cause: tachyarrhythmias and a marked elevation of blood pressure, which can lead to death from respiratory failure, stroke, cerebral hemorrhage, or heart-failure; or hyperthermia causing muscle cell destruction and myoglobinuria resulting in renal failure.Cocaine has never been known to cause Methemoglobinemia.
I guess we can agree on that. They are both dangerous chemicals. One of them is extremely addictive so the long term use can be hard to avoid.[although neither are safe for any long-term use]
Really? Got a reference for that? It is pretty simple to synthesize using standard organic lab reagents: BENZOCAINE SYNTHESIS. (Part 1- the make it up as you go along strategy) « chemistrypanda (no cocaine required).The original plant that the oil to make benzocaine from is the leaves of the coca plant!
That's an overdose!
babies were getting this from "normal use"
Synthesis of a substance is a chemical representation, and pretty much the same thing. Besides, why screw up the naturals?
The active ingredient in cocaine is benzoylmethylecgonine- strongest naturally occuring stimulant.
Last edited by Kalopin; July 17th, 2012 at 09:18 PM.
You got it!This is it, right here. And even worse, for something meant to be recreational, I hear that people are being sent to prison for ridiculous amounts of time. Meanwhile, cigarettes are marketed by enormous corporations all over the US but apparently no one cares about that. I know people who do weed (not surprising since like 1 out of 3 high schoolers do it), and of course, they're into that like whatever. And then there are my parents, who smoke cigarettes, and I know for a fact they get nothing positive out of smoking. The only reason they do it is to satisfy their unhealthy craving, thus relieving some stress. But that's just lifting a little weight off, nothing more. What a stupid double-standard.
Now,I expected this thread would be a lot of "preaching to the choir", didn't think that anyone would have to educate.
Only violent criminals belong in prison, otherwise give some education or mental help. Easy to draw the line between violence and non-violence.
I have heard some serious stories about prison time for weed. I heard one guy in Ohio, because of some "three strikes" law, getting a "life" sentence for one "joint' [crazy, couldn't be true?] How many people are sitting in jail or have spent time in prison for possession of a plant, while all these pharmaceutical companies are steadily getting away with murder?
NO! That is more B.S. propaganga! There are stronger and weaker and it makes a big difference how it is grown, but several of the stronger strains have been lost [that were considered an "upitty high"] from the effects of being illegal and other strong strains [most are lazy highs!] have evolved. You can still grow very weak strains as hemp or very strong strains as a drug, this has always been the case! Long ago people could find the same strengths in female plants that have not been [or too] pollenated and many understood this back when, as well! Now many more just know how to do it. It has, pretty much, always been the same versatile plant. "Just say KnoW!
Where did you hear that marijuana use was causing "mental problems" [or do you mean that, the ones who couldn't find any were going mental?
"George Bush says we're losing "the war on drugs". You know what that implies? There is a war being fought, and the people on drugs are winning it!"
Its not propaganda its facts.
In the 1980's the pot everyone was smoking had around a 3% THC content. Yes there was blue Hawaiian, but 99% of the pot America smoked was imported Mexican marijuana, with a THC content of around 3% or less.
The thing that happened, to raise the THC content from 3% to over 12%, was the following. Americas growers started breeding pot plants for high THC content. They selected their most powerful male and female plants, and breed them together. And after 20 years of breeding, they created todays new super pot.
Even Blue Hawaiian, one of the strongest pot strains from 20 years ago, does (not) have the THC crystals like todays pot plants.
The simple fact is, todays pot is 4x++ more powerful, than the pot from 20 years ago. Now you know.
I am all for changing Americas drug laws, but because of people like you, it must be done slowly and carefully.
Too bad the average person, is not able to realize, that kids smoking foot long joints of 15% THC pot, is not good.
And people like yourself, dont even want to talk about lowering THC levels.
And the crazy thing is, if all of our kids, were smoking 2 foot long joints, of 50% THC pot, you people would still say its ok. But its not.
Some people do have the control, to only take 1 to 3 hits, of todays new super pot. But many people are taking 8 hits of this stuff, in one sitting. And they are frying their brains.
If America ever does legalize pot, there should regulations on the THC content. Its the best thing for the legalize pot movement, in the long run.
And yes, 1000's of years of human history, have shown that pot is almost harmless. Buts its a 3% THC content plant, that was used to get this data, not todays new super pot.
But most people feel as you do, and its sad, because your attitude is helping to keep the war on drugs going on. Many scientists and doctors, know about todays new super pot, and many of them would legalize a 7% THC content pot, but they will not want their kids smoking blunts of 15% THC pot. And many of them will answer "no" on legalizing the new super pot plant.
I have long been a member of the legalize marijuana movement, but it seems the movement has gone blind and dumb.
If there is going to be a 100% legal marijuana future, the movement should go back to the kind of pot plant we know is safe, or something close to it.
Perhaps the leaders of the movement, are smoking too much of the new breed of super pot, and they lost all touch with reality.
We need regulations on the THC content of marijuana.
The true goal of the movement, was legalizing a plant that 1000's of years of use, has shown to be almost harmless. But todays pot movement must be too stoned to realize, that todays pot is a different kind of plant.
For most of my life, a magazine called "HIGH TIMES" has been my Bible. But after tonight, it is no longer my Bible.
And all of you, who think 15% THC pot is ok, you can take out your bags, and flush it down the toilet. And then you can go outside and eat dirt.
Todays legalize marijuana movement, is either too stupid or too stoned to realize, the plant we have always fought for has changed. We need to try to legalize a marijuana plant, that is close to the marijuana plant, that humans have used for 1000's of years. Not this new super pot plant.
I shall take a stand, against your blind, and now dangerous cause.
Last edited by chad; July 23rd, 2012 at 12:26 AM.
You need to RE-read my posts! I do not condone the use of any drug to the ignorant, or any child!NO! That is more B.S. propaganga! There are stronger and weaker and it makes a big difference how it is grown, but several of the stronger strains have been lost [that were considered an "upitty high"] from the effects of being illegal and other strong strains [most are lazy highs!] have evolved. You can still grow very weak strains as hemp or very strong strains as a drug, this has always been the case! Long ago people could find the same strengths in female plants that have not been [or too] pollenated and many understood this back when, as well! Now many more just know how to do it. It has, pretty much, always been the same versatile plant. "Just say KnoW!
Where did you hear that marijuana use was causing "mental problems" [or do you mean that, the ones who couldn't find any were going mental?
"George Bush says we're losing "the war on drugs". You know what that implies? There is a war being fought, and the people on drugs are winning it!"
Its not propaganda its facts.
In the 1980's the pot everyone was smoking had around a 3% THC content. Yes there was blue Hawaiian, but 99% of the pot America smoked was imported Mexican weed, with a THC content of around 3% or less.
The thing that happened, to raise the THC content from 3% to over 12%, was the following. Americas growers started breeding pot plants for high THC content. They selected their most powerful male and female plants, and breed them together. And after 20 years of breeding, they created todays new super pot.
If you look at pictures of marijuana plants from 20 years ago, all you will see is green bud. But if you look at the new marijuana plants, they look like they passed through a snow storm of THC.
If you are correct about your statements, you would be able to post a 20 year old picture of a pot plant, that is covered in THC crystals.
But you cant, because pot like we have today, did not exist 20 years ago.
Even Blue Hawaiian, one of the strongest pot strains from 20 years ago, does (not) have the THC crystals like todays pot plants.
The simple fact is, todays pot is 4x more powerful, than the pot from 20 years ago. Now you know.
I am all for changing Americas drug laws, but because of people like you, it must be done slowly and carefully.
Too bad the average person, is not able to realize, that kids smoking foot long joints of 15% THC pot, is not good.
And people like yourself, dont even want to talk about lowering THC levels.
And the crazy thing is, if all of our kids, were smoking 2 foot long joints, of 50% THC pot, you would still say its ok. But its not.
Some people do have the control, to only take 1 to 3 hits, of todays new super pot. But many people are taking 8 hits of this stuff, in one sitting. And they are frying their brains.
If America ever does legalize pot, there should regulations on the THC content. Its the best thing for the legalize pot movement, in the long run.
And yes, 1000's of years of human history, have shown that pot is almost harmless. Buts its a 3% THC content pot, that was used to get this data, not todays new super pot.
But most people feel as you do, and its sad, because your attitude is helping to keep the war on drugs going on. Many scientists and doctors, know about todays new super pot, and many of them would legalize a 7% THC content pot, but they will not want their kids smoking blunts of 15% THC pot. And many of them will answer "no" on legalizing the new super pot plant.
I have long been a member of the legalize marijuana movement, but it seems the movement has gone blind and dumb.
If there is going to be a 100% legal marijuana future, the movement should go back to the kind of pot plant we know is safe, or something close to it.
Perhaps the leaders of the movement, are smoking too much of the new breed of super pot, and they lost all touch with reality.
We need regulations on the THC content of marijuana.
The true goal of the movement, was legalizing a plant that 1000's of years of use, has shown to be almost harmless. But todays pot movement must be too stoned to realize, that todays pot is a different kind of plant.
I could fully live, with Americas youth smoking foot long joints of 7% THC pot.
But I will make a stand, against the youth of America, smoking foot long joints of 15% pot.
For most of my life, a magazine called "HIGH TIMES" has been my Bible. But after tonight it is no longer my Bible.
And all of you, who think 15% THC pot is ok, you can take out your bags, and flush it down the toilet. Then you can go outside and eat dirt.
Todays legalize marijuana movement, is either too stupid or too stoned, to realize the plant we have always fought for has changed. We need to try to legalize a marijuana plant, that is close to the marijuana plant, that humans have used for 1000's of years. Not this new super pot plant.
I shall take a stand, against your blind, and now dangerous cause.
Yes, I could show you "bud" from over thirty [forty, fifty]years ago that is just as strong as todays "green crack" or "northern lights". In fact some Columbian, Jamaican, Honduran,... strains seem to have gotten weaker. Control the THC level? That is funny! Smoke less! Control yourself! You can not dictate all marijuana plants, seeds, soils, conditions, growers. The thought of this is ridiculous. You are on a losing quest!
You can quote any article or make any silly statement- I lived it! I know for a fact and although you may have formed your strong opinion, mine is not opinion but fact and can not waiver. Good bud has always grown "frost" only "High Times" pictures have improved!
"Because of American growers"? You are funny! Just because you think everyone was getting some Mexican "Dirt" weed!
The reason you find kids smoking so much pot, is because it can not be controlled illegally.
Regulate? regulate THC? Legalize and regulate the age and intelligence of the users!
How can you not understand that it is about education, and not forced submission? You would just create a new genre of abuser, just as is already being done with "designer" drugs. NO, it is people like you, who have had such little experience and have attempted to self-educate on such a miniscule level, that gives wonder to the future of common drug understanding!
Yea, I can see it now: Uhoh, that plant has too much THC, it must be destroyed. That's a new "Cheech and Chong" movie!
NO, grow the best plants you can, and learn how to be disciplined or learn how to stay away! All the little Maples still want to cut the Oaks down to their same level!
Last edited by Kalopin; July 17th, 2012 at 09:46 PM.
[QUOTE=Kalopin;338343][QUOTE=chad;338342][QUOTE=Kalopin;338235]
You need to RE-read my posts! I do not condone the use of any drug to the ignorant, or any child!
Yes, I could show you "bud" from over thirty [forty, fifty]years ago that is just as strong as todays "green crack" or "northern lights". In fact some Columbian, Jamaican, Honduran,... strains seem to have gotten weaker. Control the THC level? That is funny! Smoke less! Control yourself! You can not dictate all marijuana plants, seeds, soils, conditions, growers. The thought of this is ridiculous. You are on a losing quest!
You can quote any article or make any silly statement- I lived it! I know for a fact and although you may have formed your strong opinion, mine is not opinion but fact and can not waiver. Good bud has always grown "frost" only "High Times" pictures have improved!
The reason you find kids smoking so much pot, is because it can not be controlled illegally.
Regulate? regulate THC? Legalize and regulate the age and intelligence of the users!
How can you not understand that it is about education, and not forced submission? You would just create a new genre of abuser, just as is already being done with "designer" drugs. NO, it is people like you, who have had such little experience and have attempted to self-educate on such a miniscule level, that gives wonder to the future of common drug understanding!
NO, grow the best plants you can, and learn how to be disciplined or learn how to stay away! All the little Maples still want to cut the Oaks down to their same level!
You said "I do not condone the use of any drug to the ignorant, or any child!"
So this would mean you want to keep marijuana, highly illegal so kids can never get their hands on it?
You actually believe that THC content in pot, has not increased, by modern breeding methods and crossing of strains?
Modern breeding methods and the crossing of strains, can improve anything, your beliefs are anti-science.
And all of your statements are highly conflicting.
Do you want to legalize drugs?
Or do you want to keep drugs illegal?
Do you smoke pot?
Or have you never smoked pot?
I dont have the time to study you, to find the answers.
You are one of the following,
1.) A person who has smoked, so much new super pot, that it has destroyed your brain. And it turned you into an idiot, that is so conflicting, that you must be studied to even know the point you are trying to make.
2.) A person against the use of all drugs, who got some bad information about the THC levels in pot.
But if you are a high THC pot smoker, you are a fine example, of why THC levels in pot must be regulated. Look what it did to your brain.
Chad, can you please provide links to the studies that demonstrate a notable increase in the THC content of an average Cannibus plant?
And please stop with the ad-hominims, you have been warned and suspended repeatedly for them.
[QUOTE=chad;338350][QUOTE=Kalopin;338343][QUOTE=chad;338342]You misunderstand on so many levels that it is disturbing! [need an interpreter?]
You need to RE-read my posts! I do not condone the use of any drug to the ignorant, or any child!
Yes, I could show you "bud" from over thirty [forty, fifty]years ago that is just as strong as todays "green crack" or "northern lights". In fact some Columbian, Jamaican, Honduran,... strains seem to have gotten weaker. Control the THC level? That is funny! Smoke less! Control yourself! You can not dictate all marijuana plants, seeds, soils, conditions, growers. The thought of this is ridiculous. You are on a losing quest!
You can quote any article or make any silly statement- I lived it! I know for a fact and although you may have formed your strong opinion, mine is not opinion but fact and can not waiver. Good bud has always grown "frost" only "High Times" pictures have improved!
The reason you find kids smoking so much pot, is because it can not be controlled illegally.
Regulate? regulate THC? Legalize and regulate the age and intelligence of the users!
How can you not understand that it is about education, and not forced submission? You would just create a new genre of abuser, just as is already being done with "designer" drugs. NO, it is people like you, who have had such little experience and have attempted to self-educate on such a miniscule level, that gives wonder to the future of common drug understanding!
NO, grow the best plants you can, and learn how to be disciplined or learn how to stay away! All the little Maples still want to cut the Oaks down to their same level!
You said "I do not condone the use of any drug to the ignorant, or any child!"
So this would mean you want to keep marijuana, highly illegal so kids can never get their hands on it?
You actually believe that THC content in pot, has not increased, by modern breeding methods and crossing of strains?
Modern breeding methods and the crossing of strains, can improve anything, your beliefs are anti-science.
And all of your statements are highly conflicting.
Do you want to legalize drugs?
Or do you want to keep drugs illegal?
Do you smoke pot?
Or have you never smoked pot?
I dont have the time to study you, to find the answers.
You are one of the following,
1.) A person who has smoked, so much new super pot, that it has destroyed your brain. And it turned you into an idiot, that is so conflicting, that you must be studied to even know the point you are trying to make.
2.) A person against the use of all drugs, who got some bad information about the THC levels in pot.
But if you are a high THC pot smoker, you are a fine example, of why THC levels in pot must be regulated. Look what it did to your brain.
Here is my stance: Legalize all drugs with the same laws as alcohol. Then they can be controlled, just as Portugal has. Study what they have done and see what results they have achieved.
People have been mixing and designing hybrids for way more than your fifteen or twenty years! It is so sad that so much information has been purposely distorted. It is only because of its illegal status that people do not understand how this plant has evolved. It did not jump from 3% THC to 13%! You can still get either less or even more. If you let the males pollinate it will destroy THC content, If you give a female the right stuff and keep it frpm pollinating then you get a higher THC content. Do you need me to explain every detail?
Sure, there are stronger and weaker strains through breeding, but you can make the strongest female plant very weak and take a weaker strain, control it and get a somewhat higher content, as well. I didn't say that it hadn't evolved, I said it had evolved at a much earlier date than you currently [through propaganda] believe! [Really? "New Super-pot"?!,that IS funny!]
And it was way strong enough for many thousands of years!!!!!!!
I have to say: There are sertious issues with your level of understanding. RE-RE-Read my posts!!!
Last edited by Kalopin; July 17th, 2012 at 10:53 PM.
The following link, states information from "The University of Mississippi", and "John Walters", director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. The first few paragraphs show my perspective.
Report: Marijuana potency rises - USATODAY.com
The following wiki link, also states similar information, in the potency section.
Cannabis (drug) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
But I think the actual increases are much greater.
Before 1990, most of the worlds marijuana was old style commercial grown, and had a THC level of around/bellow 3%.
But in the late 1990's, a new strain of marijuana with a THC level of 14%+, became readily available.
I believe theres a great chance, many of the figures in the links I listed, are lower than you would think.
Because there is still plenty of 3% THC marijuana on the streets. And when the 3% THC marijuana, gets divided with the 14% THC marijuana, the figures meet in the middle.
This new strain of marijuana, can have THC levels of 16%++, and it keeps getting stronger.
Last edited by chad; July 21st, 2012 at 04:36 AM.
Before 1990? WHAT? most weed was commercially grown? That is idiotic! "old style"? What is "old style" You are too gullible and have been lied to! If a female plant doesn't get pollinated it grows buds and at different levels of THC [and different levels of THC on the same plant!], today and 100,000 years ago. Now, if you want to say that higher content is more abundant, fine, but it was plenty strong for thousands of years.
The following link, states information from "The University of Mississippi" and "John Walters", director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. The first few paragraphs show my perspective.
Report: Marijuana potency rises - USATODAY.com
The following wiki link, also states similar information, in the potency section.
Cannabis (drug) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
But I think the actual increases are much greater.
Before 1990, most of the worlds marijuana was old style commercial grown, and had a THC level of around/bellow 3%.
But in the late 1990's, a new strain of marijuana with a THC level of 14%+, became readily available.
I believe theres a great chance, many of the figures in the links I listed, are lower than you would think.
Because there is still plenty of 3% THC marijuana on the streets. And when the 3% THC marijuana, gets divided with the 14% THC marijuana, the figures meet in the middle.
This new strain of marijuana, can have THC levels of 16%++, and it keeps getting stronger.
I told ya', we still have the "Harry Anslingers" spoutin' out lies!
HA!
Last edited by Kalopin; July 18th, 2012 at 12:04 AM.
[QUOTE=Kalopin;338357][QUOTE=chad;338350][QUOTE=Kalopin;338343]You misunderstand on so many levels that it is disturbing! [need an interpreter?]
Here is my stance: Legalize all drugs with the same laws as alcohol. Then they can be controlled, just as Portugal has. Study what they have done and see what results they have achieved.
People have been mixing and designing hybrids for way more than your fifteen or twenty years! It is so sad that so much information has been purposely distorted. It is only because of its illegal status that people do not understand how this plant has evolved. It did not jump from 3% THC to 13%! You can still get either less or even more. If you let the males pollinate it will destroy THC content, If you give a female the right stuff and keep it frpm pollinating then you get a higher THC content. Do you need me to explain every detail?
Sure, there are stronger and weaker strains through breeding, but you can make the strongest female plant very weak and take a weaker strain, control it and get a somewhat higher content, as well. I didn't say that it hadn't evolved, I said it had evolved at a much earlier date than you currently [through propaganda] believe! [Really? "New Super-pot"?!,that IS funny!]
And it was way strong enough for many thousands of years!!!!!!!
I have to say: There are sertious issues with your level of understanding. RE-RE-Read my posts!!!
I apologize, and take back calling you an idiot.
Sometimes in this forum, I let out all my anger, on a particular group on one person.
And I believe I have done that to you here.
I think I will read about Portugal.
Thank you, for the perhaps very interesting reading subject.
Chad.
I told ya', we still have the "Harry Anslingers" spoutin' out lies!
The following link, states information from "The University of Mississippi" and "John Walters", director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. The first few paragraphs show my perspective.
Report: Marijuana potency rises - USATODAY.com
The following wiki link, also states similar information, in the potency section.
Cannabis (drug) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
But I think the actual increases are much greater.
Before 1990, most of the worlds marijuana was old style commercial grown, and had a THC level of around/bellow 3%.
But in the late 1990's, a new strain of marijuana with a THC level of 14%+, became readily available.
I believe theres a great chance, many of the figures in the links I listed, are lower than you would think.
Because there is still plenty of 3% THC marijuana on the streets. And when the 3% THC marijuana, gets divided with the 14% THC marijuana, the figures meet in the middle.
This new strain of marijuana, can have THC levels of 16%++, and it keeps getting stronger.
HA!
We are all different, and we all view the world, in a different way.
[Guess your not here] but I am glad [you are there]
Sorry I let all my anger out on you.
Thanks for the reading subject,
Chad.
I am 39 years old, and when I was younger I used drugs. Me and many of my friends, pretty much tried them all.
And looking back, drugs messed up, ruined, or destroyed many of our lives.
My friends that dont smoke marijuana, seem to be living much better lives, than my friends that do smoke marijuana.
The non-marijuana smokers seem to have nicer houses and cars, live more stable lives, and less of them are single or depressed.
My friends that use/used powder cocaine, seem to have spent all their money on cocaine. Today they are burnt out, and own and do nothing.
I actually have a close female friend, who got hooked on crack, and she became a prostitute.
I have a casual male friend, who got hooked on crack. I heard he lived under a bridge, and was a prostitute for other men.
Putting a crack pipe in your mouth, is like playing Russian roulette.
Then my best friend when I was 18, later started using heroine, and soon everything he owned was gone, including some of his teeth.
Dont let anyone tell you drugs are ok. Drugs will mess up or ruin your life.
Last edited by chad; July 18th, 2012 at 05:47 PM.
Thanks! These are the biggest problems with drug ABUSE. People don't know and understand all the consequences. I believe that there is a way to better educate the innocent! Going to any average school you may find maybe three or four conversations during a school year on the effects of drugs and in such general terms. I truly believe that every chemical substance that can be harmful, should be taught extensively and "drilled" to our youth. Show them every gory detail!
Anything can become a dangerous addiction, even food. It is even possible to overdose on water. There is no drug that cannot be abused to the point of wasting a life. Even if the drug is not very harmful, as Marijuana, someone can still spend so much/all of their time and money doing nothing but trying to get more stoned. When they finally take a look back and at themselves to find such disappointment, it is usually too late.
I too have had many friends go down this sad path [we used to say "dead, jail, or rock & roll!"]. What is truly the saddest, to me, are the ones dead or in jail from some substance that was mixed together from different store-bought items! That's right, you can walk into most any store, buy a few different items and [even before they are mixed] you are breaking the law! An abuser makes everyone around them suffer and feel simalar helplessness. It is not an easy issue, but the present path society is trying to take is NOT working, only making matters worse. Making drug abuse a crime has/is/will only compound the problem. This is no way to confront human mentality. This direction will only breed more of a criminal element and eventually destroy society. I feel certain that, if these silly laws would have never been enacted and drug abuse would have always been treated as a mental issue, we would not see all these new drugs and all this abuse.
Education has to be the correct solution. Everyone eventually finds out anyway and can only hope to not find out "the hard way". If all drugs are made to have legal status then, I believe, they can be controlled much better and, at least, will not get into so many of "the wrong hands". We are talking about the feelings of nearly seven billion humans. I don't think that there is any other way but to catch a generation at its early stages and teach to them as much as possible before they are confronted with a substance they don't understand and someone is telling them how good it makes you feel.
No one should speak in such general terms discussing "drugs". In general- drugs can kill and drugs can save! Some are very dangerous, some are not, knowing which is which, when, where and how much is the main issue. Addictions can also be a good thing-
become addicted to education!
two prime members of the cannabis family, indica, and sativa, both of which are composed of over 400 different chemical compounds. now depending on what your chemical balance is and what compounds your body is lacking, with enough research you could grow "pot"in such a way to have a maximum yield of the compound that your lacking, which in some cases could have beneficial effects. otherwise the main chemical compound know as THC will only mask your pain, now, if your going to mask the pain, would you rather use tylenol and ibuprofen(created in a lab), or would you rather use something natural?
if someone could find a list of these known chemical compounds that would be great.
I would rather use something created in a lab because there is then greater assurance of consistency and freedom from unwanted and possible dangerous incidental chemicals.
Wouldn't you like to take something you created yourself? If i would do drugs, i'd simply buy some marijuana plants, and smoke them. As it's legal here to have 5 plants... I think i'll go fetch those who get at least 2 meters high.
Drugs are not the problem, it's people who create the problem. It's their demand, and the supply of others that create the real problem. Unless a person is high 24/7.. and can't function... it would still be the fault of the person for taking to damned much..
I don't build my own cars, washing machine, television set, bedroom furniture, or house. I subscribe to Adam Smith's view on the benefits of specialisation. My wife derives much pleasure from spinning and weaving and only misses out the sheep shearing part of the process. that, however, is a hobby. Would you have your uncle perform an appendectomy on you? It would keep it in the family.
I guess people can just grow them themselves and smoke them by themselves... .No need to legalize the drug and mass produce them. -Drug user are just minorities and so they shouldn't be allowed to legalize drug for the sake of others.
Let me repeat: they can grow it themselves. Why legalize it?? Eat from your own hand.
The only super-serious offence about making drug is the distribution of the drug. In some country illegal drug seller are punishable by death, but drug user themselves are not. It isn't about what you do with your body, its about giving away that stuff.
Last edited by msafwan; August 27th, 2012 at 01:30 AM.
I beg to differ on that one. A couple of people have just gone to jail here for murder. Why? A family had a few plants in the shed so these geniuses wanted to steal them. Took along a shotgun to threaten the household. When they broke in they got to mum first, used the gun to make her walk in front of them - and she died when someone stumbled and the gun went off. Nobody has ever reported why the gun was loaded in the first place if they only wanted it for scare value. (I suspect they didn't even know. Anyone willing to face armed robbery charges for half a dozen or less plants is really not thinking very clearly.)No need to legalize the drug and mass produce them.
Making the drug legal has many advantages. Firstly it removes its status as a gateway into criminal dealings. Then there's being able to set legal standards for quality etc. Then there are the taxpayer advantages -- reduce the outlays on law enforcement, increase revenue by taxing it like tobacco or alcohol.
If it was legal then the government must protect people from trying it. Because we didn't want these drug in the first place, we legalized them because we are left with no choice (the voilence). -It must not be sold to kids, must have health warning, must not be cheap, and must appear as morally disgusting.
People should be better off buying entertainment product (eg: playstation) than drug IMO.
This does not make sense, a majority of people at this point think it should be legalized and regulated, the same as alcohol and Tobacco.
Why is it not make sense? we suggested legalization because it can curb the violence. -I'm sure that's the reason alcohol is legal.
Do you understand the correlation between desirability, access and violence? The more desireable and harder to get it is, the more violence and crime is seen. See the effects of the US Prohibition during the 1920's for a similar situation.
And I might add, help to relieve suffering for millions of people.
| « Lower Back Problems. Just ( three ) here. | Isotretinoin and its side effects on bone loss » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
