Why druggies don't work

[Diogenes]

Done, though I confess I don't see the trouble here. simon has been posting daily for years that he is an illegal drug user and wants to see the drug decriminalized. When I call simon a "druggie" have I said something everyone here doesn't already know? Should I have said "pothead"? "Toker"? How does this make the issue more palatable?

The point is, we have here someone who owns her position: that she is content to sponge off society because she wants to sit at home and smoke pot each day. Her other listed pastime is "visiting with friends". My contention has always been, that one of the deleterious effects of cannabis is it destroys ambition. Here we have just such an example. This is the point.

Thank you. In spite of Simon's continuous narrative for a principle in which I completely disagree, I still regard Simon as a friend with whom I will agree to disagree. I have known many such people in my life, and though I may not understand their reasons, I will still try to comprehend their world view.

The day I understand everything is the day I meet whatever maker I have.


As for the article you posted, you beat me to it. I was thinking of posting the very same story and for the very same reasons.


Yes, I agree, marijuana destroys any initiative, and makes worthless drones out of most people who partake of it. I have known, and still know several examples of this.


I would however suggest that we are better off arguing general principles rather than pointing out specific examples.


That is, of course, unless we are talking about scheisser, for whom there are no redeeming qualities. He is beyond the pale!

Perhaps he might be redeemed should he move from Kalifornia?





Again, thank you.


D.

[GIThruster]

Dio, I do see your point. I think though, for any kind of respect to be real respect, there's a line needs to be drawn. Simon has been at his escapades for years, and Joe has indeed told him to knock it off. If you think about it, hundreds of threads and maybe thousands of posts all meant to recruit sympathy for an illegal behavior is darn hard to respect. Simon is a criminal, who has an excuse for just EVERYTHING in his failed life, and honestly, that is EXACTLY the way drug addicts are. Work with a few dozen or hundred and you'll see, they all have this remarkable trait that that can't take any responsibility for their lives. And that's why Simon doesn't have my sympathy. because if you're busy sympathizing only, you are in a codependence that helps no one. And truthfully, simon needs help. The FIRST step is recognizing you have a problem and despite all the years sponging off society, simon is still not there, and he is still not there because in large portion, people pander to his sickness.

I don't pander, especially when it means him spreading his disease.

[GIThruster]

http://healthland.time.com/2013/12/16/p ... n-changes/

[williatw]

http://healthland.time.com/2013/12/16/p ... n-changes/

"Teens who were heavy marijuana smokers, smoking every day for about three years had more difficulty performing memory tasks and had abnormal brain structure changes compared with those who had never used the drug."

Yeah that is pretty heavy alright...every day for three years. Again that is an argument for not smoking pot, not for the war on drugs. These teens clearly had no trouble getting booku amounts of pot in spite of its illegality. If pot were legal and regulated, it would still be illegal to sell to people under 18 (probably 21). A licensed provider would not be very disposed to jeopardize his lawful license by selling to a minor. How many bartenders/bar owners or liquor store owners did you know in high school who would sell whiskey (or any alcohol) to some snot-nosed kid? Furthermore legal pot would very quickly find itself regulated. Meaning the THC content of pot which has sky-rocketed since the Woodstock days could now be reduced by regulation. A licensed provider would follow the regulation just as beer and wine's alcohol content I believe is regulated.

[GIThruster]

How many bartenders/bar owners or liquor store owners did you know in high school who would sell whiskey (or any alcohol) to some snot-nosed kid?

At age 16, I was walking into Lewis Liquors in Westwood New Jersey and buying beer 7 days a week. I'm sure my experience was not all that rare.

It is however YOU who keep changing the subject. If you want to argue against prohibition, do it in another thread. The point here is that cannabis alters brain morphology and screws up your memory. It does lots of other things as well. Now if you think making that legal is a good thing, you get to wear that. Just wear it somewhere else. Go ahead and argue to decriminalize krockodil as well.

[williatw]

How many bartenders/bar owners or liquor store owners did you know in high school who would sell whiskey (or any alcohol) to some snot-nosed kid?

At age 16, I was walking into Lewis Liquors in Westwood New Jersey and buying beer 7 days a week. I'm sure my experience was not all that rare.

It is however YOU who keep changing the subject. If you want to argue against prohibition, do it in another thread. The point here is that cannabis alters brain morphology and screws up your memory. It does lots of other things as well. Now if you think making that legal is a good thing, you get to wear that. Just wear it somewhere else. Go ahead and argue to decriminalize krockodil as well.

Amazing I used to have to get a fake ID when I was under 21 to get beer, or an older person to buy for me. Guess I didn't know the right liquor stores. And as far as "changing the subject" I was responding to the subject. Your link suggests the harm of frequent Marijuana use, I merely pointed out that our existing system of drug prohibition IMHO aids and abets the problem, making cheap high potency pot (and other drugs) available to whomever wants them and is willing to pay for them.

[MSimon]

There are papers out there that suggest that the memory problem is temporary and disappears if use is discontinued. Unlike heavy alcohol use where brain damage is permanent outside of some possible rejuvenation by anti depressants like marijuana which grow brain cells. Such rejuvenation has not been studied.

Now a question which has yet to be answered is this. The body's endocannabinoid production peaks in the 15 to 25 year age range. That is the same age range that marijuana use peaks. Is the correlation an accident or is there a biochemical reason.

I see all kinds of statement to the effect that heavy marijuana use in that age range is bad. And it may be so. But why is it good for the body to peak its analogs of marijuana in that age range? Obviously it must be good because the body does it. BTW those are the years of maximum brain plasticity. They also correspond to the peak years (or slightly after the endocannabinoid peak) for scientific discovery.

In any case after the peak it is difficult for a given person to learn anything majorly new. It may have some bearing on this statement:

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." - Max Planck

We have now come to that point in time where enough of the proponents of prohibition have died off to allow a change in attitudes. Those favoring an end to cannabis prohibition now number 58%. Which is why we now have Colorado and Washington and the proponents of change are targeting 10 more states in the next 4 years.

The Democrats have a plan to ride back into power on the basis of ending prohibition once the dust settles from the disaster of ObamaCare(less). If we are lucky the prohibition proponents will have mostly died off by then and they will never come back. Just as alcohol prohibitionists these days are considered a joke. Rand Paul in fact represents the best hope for a permanent Republican majority. One that both believes and acts on the "smaller government" slogan of the Republican Party. I'd like to live another 10 years so I can see it happen.

[williatw]

There are papers out there that suggest that the memory problem is temporary and disappears if use is discontinued. Unlike heavy alcohol use where brain damage is permanent outside of some possible rejuvenation by anti depressants like marijuana which grow brain cells. Such rejuvenation has not been studied.

MSimon as you must know I favor ending the failed war on drugs....but I must say pot grows brain cells?! I am afraid I find that hard to swallow...I know in recent years science has backed off from the decades old argument about you having all the brain cells you’re ever going to have by puberty, but that seems hard to believe. Perhaps it is true but I must say I am skeptical about that. Maybe you should tell Aubrey de Grey and the SENS people about this. Furthermore I am concerned about the great increase in THC content in pot over the last few decades; keep increasing it your liable to end up with something little better than cocaine and heroin. That's one of the reasons I favor ending drug prohibition, legal licensed pot would hopefully (almost inevitably in my opinion) be subject to regulations about concentration and availability.

[GIThruster]

And really, arguing that such and such percent favor decriminalization doesn't come to the issue that when something has been shown to deform your brain like a schizophrenic, that this impacts public safety issues. With evidence that cannabis actually mangles the morphology of the brain, I see little hope it will continue on it's search to destroy civilization. This was after all, predicated on the bogus claims that it's harmless. Something that twists your brain structure and causes you to have 1/37 the memory of everyone else, that's pretty straight forward evidence cannabis is screwing people up. Add on top of that the psychosis and other morphological issues.

". . .when all of the participants took memory tests, the healthy volunteers who never used marijuana scored 37 times higher on average than those who had smoked pot, and the schizophrenic patients who hadn’t used marijuana scored four times higher than their schizophrenic counterparts who had."

[JoeP]

What about the smoke?

(Yes, I know some users eat the stuff...but the primary and preferred way to take the drug is to wrap it in paper and smoke it all, unfiltered.)

It isn't just the THC, it is all the carcinogenic compounds, free radicals, and carbon monoxide that you breath in that must damage the body...and the brain...just like plain 'ol cigs.

[MSimon]

What about the smoke?

(Yes, I know some users eat the stuff...but the primary and preferred way to take the drug is to wrap it in paper and smoke it all, unfiltered.)

It isn't just the THC, it is all the carcinogenic compounds, free radicals, and carbon monoxide that you breath in that must damage the body...and the brain...just like plain 'ol cigs.

The obvious answer to that is Where Are The Bodies? Shouldn't we see them in cancer wards after 40 years of widespread use? The press - such as it is - would have trumpeted that, if they had found any. There may be a reason for that.

Donald Tashkin - the subject of this report - is a noted prohibitionists. At least he was before this study. His views are milder now. I think he is fairly reliable because at the time he was arguing against interest.
Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection

Another more recent report on Tashkin:
Media Ignored Expert's Shocking Findings That Marijuana Helps Prevent Lung Cancer: Now It's Med-School Material
http://www.alternet.org/drugs/media-ign ... med-school

http://patients4medicalmarijuana.wordpr ... ince-1974/

http://patients4medicalmarijuana.wordpr ... -it-works/

The reports are out there. I know those committed to prohibition will not look. But I don't post for them. I post for those who do not comment. At this point about 80% of the population favors medical cannabis and roughly 60% favor outright legalization. Not too bad when you consider that 40 years ago the legalizers were at about 10%.

Prohibitions of popular drugs last about 50 years. If we count from the start of Nixon's War On Drugs time is about up.

[MSimon]

In a recent report, the National Cancer Institute (NCI), part of the Federal government’s National Institutes of Health (NIH), stated that marijuana “inhibited the survival of both estrogen receptor–positive and estrogen receptor–negative breast cancer cell lines.” The same report showed marijuana slows or stops the growth of certain lung cancer cells and suggested that marijuana may provide “risk reduction and treatment of colorectal cancer.” In Case You Missed It, Government Confirms And Reports That Marijuana Prevents Or Cures Certain CancersReferring to the NCI report, Patient Rights attorney Matthew Pappas said, “The Federal government’s continuing attack on people prescribed medical cannabis by their doctors is hypocritical considering the benefits reported by its own National Cancer Institute.” Pappas represents patients in defending their right to reasonably obtain medical marijuana. The patients contend the Federal government and various municipalities are trying to prevent them from obtaining cannabis for medical purposes in direct contravention of state laws. “Cities that ban dispensaries are denying patients the ability to obtain a medicine the Federal government’s National Institutes of Health says fights cancer and they’re doing it with the Obama Administration’s help.” Recently, the City of Los Angeles repealed its ban of medical marijuana collectives after Bill Rosendahl, a member of its city council diagnosed with cancer and prescribed medical marijuana said to fellow council members about the ban, “You want to kill me? You want to throw me under the bus?”

http://www.whydontyoutrythis.com/2013/0 ... ncers.html

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/ ... onal/page4

You would think conservatives would use this to attack the 0bummer. You would be mistaken.

Well the Democrats are not TOTALLY stupid. After 0bamaCare(less) they need something. They think they have found it.

Advocates for marijuana legalization say the 2014 elections represent the first time that serious, top-tier candidates for major state and federal offices are advocating for full legalization of the drug. In Pennsylvania and Maryland, top contenders for the Democratic nomination for governor are calling for legalization, as is the likely Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate in Maine. And earlier this week, a legalization bill was introduced in the Legislature in New York, making the state the sixth with an active bill under consideration. Legalization bills failed in six other states in 2013.

“It shows there has been a big shift in mainstream politics. You are a seeing a lot of movement in the Democratic Party especially,” said Erik Altieri, the communications director of the National Organization to Reform Marijuana Laws and the manager of NORML PAC, which donated to three candidates last year and has already endorsed John Hanger, the Democratic candidate for governor of Pennsylvania who has made legalization a key part of his platform. “For Democrats in primaries, it has become an issue that sets you apart and gets you votes because there is overwhelming support for legalization. Soon enough politicians are going to be stumbling over themselves not only to support this but to say who supports it more.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... ze-it.html

I have been warning my conservative friends about this for years. Given the unpopularity of 0bummerCare I don't expect much to come of this at the national level in 2014 or 2016. But 2018? 2020?

Republicans ought to get behind Rand Paul because it is already very late in the game.

[mvanwink5]

Blue blood Repubs are going to push Marco Rubio thinking that skin will win. Idiot Prog Democs could run dog catcher of the month and still beat the Prog Repubs latest poster stand-in. Am's tend to stick with their favorite Prog color, whether it is red or blue.

[ladajo]

I will regret posting this out of fear that I will be drawn back into the propaganda effort by Mike Simon. But, here goes;

The obvious answer to that is Where Are The Bodies? Shouldn't we see them in cancer wards after 40 years of widespread use? The press - such as it is - would have trumpeted that, if they had found any. There may be a reason for that.

Mike, as you may have purposefully forgotten or ignored, I have already shown you hard data where admitted drugs users live shorter lives than non-users from the national data set. That is where your "bodies" are.

This is part of why I see your effort as freshman propaganda. You spin half truths, non-truths and misrepresentations into a tangled web that you hope will not be challenged, but actually be perpetuated further. You use media as a means to dsitribute what are shown to be falsehoods with impunity, while you hide behind 'free speech' rights with a misinterpretation as 'unaccountable free speech'. You seek to disrupt the fabric of our society on a technicality of interpretation where you believe you can spin any lie you want because you think 'free speech' lets you. The sad part is you seem to give not a shit about the lives you could ruin by your efforts to propagate your myths. It is alos too bad you will not be around to be accountable for those lives you are trying to ruin with your misguided societal revenge efforts. It is too bad you have this chip on your shoulder about not being able to pee into a bottle. It is patently sociopathic of you to manifest it how you do. You seem to have missed the lesson about how society requires contribution to sustain. It is a contract between members to help each other. You present as a person who thinks that it did not give you what was your right. You never learned that society has no obligation to give anything. A typically bitter 'one- tour wonder' nuke that couldn't stay on a team because you thought you were better than the team. Society is a team, and you continue to refuse to play on it because you can't get your way. Revenge is a game the immature play.

[JoeP]

Where are the bodies?

a little speculation...
Are there reliable statistics that show pot smokers are not (also) typically tobacco users? Where is that data...

Anecdotally, I have never once met a pot smoker in my life that wasn't also addicted to regular cigarettes.

Thus, possible cancer and the cardiovascular damage of pot smoking may be embedded in the general statistics of tobacco user fatalities.

Edit: I read some of the links MSimon posted after writing the above. It seems that the key study did account for tobacco users and pot-only users to some extent. Claim is THC kills off cells before cells have the chance to become malignant.

Small comfort, *if* true. I think there needs to be more studies before I believe that. However, the mechanism theorized (killing off cells before they have a chance to become cancerous...) is small comfort if true. In that case THC is a cell-death accelerator. Much like chemotherapy drugs. A useful poison. While that could prove useful in a cancer treatment, it strikes me as a bad thing to take regularly as a recreational or "health benefit." Like taking Chemo drugs for fun. No thanks.