Quote :

"the LD50 for THC is lower than it is for methamphetamine. why don't you ponder on that for a minute before you keep babbling on about safety. "

irrelevant...

look at someone who's been a meth addict for 10 years to someone who's smoked pot for 10 years, then you won't compare the two. meth ravages the body.

[Edited on June 20, 2007 at 4:53 PM. Reason : .]

6/20/2007 4:52:30 PM

it's not irrelevant just because you want to ignore the facts. stoners don't look like the epitome of great health after 10 years of chronic use either; they're typically overweight, have a chronic cough, and suffer from delayed reaction times and cloudy memory. If you don't think chronic marijuana use ravages the body, then you've never been to a Grateful Dead show or a willie nelson concert.

6/20/2007 5:31:17 PM

heavy use of anything can ravage your body. with that said, it would take a surreal amount of weed to the common person to do that. those names you called have millions of dollars. thats the difference. although scarface is a movie, it is just a good idea of what tons of money coupled with drug addiction is like.

6/20/2007 5:42:35 PM

^Exactly. Drugs are not black and white. Just because someone smokes pot doesn't mean they're a chronic user. Same with alcohol or nicotine or caffeine. Any drug. Marijuana just happens to be the least harmful.

6/20/2007 5:45:21 PM

Pot is for losers and clearly affects logic, for example ^

6/20/2007 6:11:55 PM

Quote :

"those names you called have millions of dollars. thats the difference. although scarface is a movie, it is just a good idea of what tons of money coupled with drug addiction is like."

I wasn't referring to the musicians. their fans look much worse off.

Quote :

"Same with alcohol or nicotine or caffeine. Any drug. Marijuana just happens to be the least harmful. "

how can you honestly believe that marijuana is safer than caffeine? caffeine has numerous theraputic uses with almost no adverse side effects at typical doses.

6/20/2007 6:19:21 PM

^Dude do some research before you make false claims. You have completely the wrong impression of marijuana, and yes caffeine is more harmful to the body than marijuana. I said it.


Can you guys tell me which ones are legal and which ones are illegal? Weird isn't it?


MARIJUANA IS THE LEAST HARMFUL DRUG HERE!!! DUMBASS!! Where is caffeine? Oh second to least harmful.

Haha i have enough evidence to completely pwn you guys at any marijuana argument.

Oh and in regard to hemp as a fuel source:

"Marijuana can produce several different kinds of fuel. In the 1800's and 1900's hempseed oil was the primary source of fuel in the United States and was commonly used for lamps and other oil energy needs. The diesel engine was originally designed to run on marijuana oil because Rudolf Diesel assumed that it would be the most common fuel. Mairjuana is also the most efficient plant for the production of methanol. It is estimated that, in one form or another, marijuana grown in the United States could provide up to ninety percent of the nation's entire energy needs."-
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/index.htm

Oh and i've read the entire Nixon report on "Marihuana". Tons and tons of privately and government funded tests. Please read up before you criticize.

http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/

Myth: Marijuana Kills Brain Cells. Used over time, marijuana permanently alters brain structure and function, causing memory loss, cognitive impairment, personality deterioration, and reduced productivity.

Fact: None of the medical tests currently used to detect brain damage in humans have found harm from marijuana, even from long term high-dose use. An early study reported brain damage in rhesus monkeys after six months exposure to high concentrations of marijuana smoke. In a recent, more carefully conducted study, researchers found no evidence of brain abnormality in monkeys that were forced to inhale the equivalent of four to five marijuana cigarettes every day for a year. The claim that marijuana kills brain cells is based on a speculative report dating back a quarter of a century that has never been supported by any scientific study. -drugpolicy.org

http://www.changetheclimate.org/facts/
Facts/Myths

http://www.digitalhemp.com/enter/eersrch/page1.htm
1937 Popular Mechanics article in regard to the "billion dollar cash crop."

I could go on and on, but i've listed a couple sites that reference hundreds of private/public/government/international reports supporting me.

[Edited on June 20, 2007 at 9:10 PM. Reason : .]

6/20/2007 8:41:03 PM

Quote :

"nyway, i think the campus needs to focus more on alcohol awareness and such, considering alcohol kills"

I do not even agree with that. I think it is ridiculous that the police actively try to bust students for "drinking underage." Instead of drinking on campus freshman go to a private residence where they are more likely to drive drunk. I do think alcohol education to teach safe drinking skills is good though.

6/20/2007 9:15:43 PM

^ You said you do not agree with this?
But then you said "I do think alcohol education to teach safe drinking skills is good though." That's exactly what i said! People need to know how to use alcohol.

And yes alcohol is the drug that kills the most amount of people in the united states other than tobacco (direct causes, not car crashes etc.) Not to mention alcohol related accidents are the number one cause of death among college students.

[Edited on June 20, 2007 at 9:22 PM. Reason : .]

6/20/2007 9:18:58 PM

oh my bad i misunderstood. but yeah i agree then.

6/20/2007 9:36:23 PM

Yeah. ^^^^Sorry for my long thread there. I just get upset when people come along with thier initial bias and assume they're right because that's how they've been raised. People really need to do research before trying to insult people who actually have done the research.

A lot of people find it hard to believe the actual facts about marijuana. The government and media are mostly to blame. Those anti-drug government funded commericials are hilarious! Remember the one with the egg and the girl? This is your brain, this is your brain on dope. Or something like that. Education is the key to all this shit. The government knows marijuana is safe, they just don't want to go against the last 70 years of drug policy, and the last 20-25 years on the "war on drugs" which is not working at all.

6/20/2007 9:42:09 PM

Quote :

"irrelevant... look at someone who's been a meth addict for 10 years to someone who's smoked pot for 10 years, then you won't compare the two. meth ravages the body."

I am not sure i buy that I think whoever posted that is incorrect data. I wish I remember where i saw it but some magazine I read had a scale of effective drug doses : LD drug does.

I think alcohol was the refrence at 10:1 (so 10x the effective dose would be LD50)

Heroin was the most dangers at 4:1

Cocaine was right below alcohol at 7.5:1 or something

and Marijuana was at the far end.

You can definitely OD on meth and any other amphetamine. Both are a stimulant taken in too high of a dose puts to much strain on the heard and will lead to cardiac arrest. I thought meth was more deadly then alcohol on the list but i can not recall off the top of my head.

6/20/2007 9:43:19 PM

^Yeah according to the LD50 system pretty much everything is more toxic than marijuana. I think vitamin C per g is even more toxic than marijuana. As well as table salt.

[Edited on June 20, 2007 at 9:53 PM. Reason : .]

6/20/2007 9:53:25 PM

the Merck reference manual lists the LD50 of THC as:
29 mg/kg INTRAVENOUS-RAT LD50


Methamphetamine MSDS:
ORL-MUS LD50 143 mg kg-1
IPR-RAT LD50 55 mg kg-1
IPR-MUS LD50 57 mg kg-1

marijuana advocates love to quote the oral LD50 of marijuana since the lipid structure of THC makes it difficult for the stomach to absorb. The IP and IV LD50's are much lower.

also, it's damn near impossible to fatally overdose on methamphetamine alone. almost all methamphetamine overdoses involve other substances; usually barbituates or opiates.

6/20/2007 10:03:49 PM

Quote :

"Can you guys tell me which ones are legal and which ones are illegal? Weird isn't it?"

durrhurr, i wonder why legal drugs kill more ppl.

Quote :

"MARIJUANA IS THE LEAST HARMFUL DRUG HERE!!! DUMBASS!! Where is caffeine? Oh second to least harmful."

you seem to have misread your own chart once again. least addictive according to the chart. harmful is a less measureable item.

[Edited on June 20, 2007 at 10:17 PM. Reason : then again that chart has nicotene and caffiene at the same intox lvl. im not sure ho wmuch i trust]

6/20/2007 10:16:23 PM

^Neither of those statements make any sense. Yes it's hard to measure "harmful", i tried my best in regard to deaths, and drug comparisons. I haven't seen anyone else do any better.

^^ yes i'm going to pump my veins full of pure thc? Of course not.
The reason why that is so low, is because THC is soluble in fat and insoluble in water, so the value changes. You can't use the intravenous value for comparison. That's like comparing it to caffeine in saying people just pump themselves full of pure caffeine.

Yes it's hard to OD on meth, but it's still a WHOLE lot easier than to OD on marijuana. There's actual cases where people have OD on meth. There still hasn't been a case where someone has OD on marijuana alone.

[Edited on June 20, 2007 at 10:20 PM. Reason : .]

6/20/2007 10:17:15 PM

you need to work on your thinkering skillz then.

obviously tobacco is going to have the most deaths. it was unknown to cause cancer for decades, was legal, and was/is still widely used. plenty of the people dying might not even still use the drug.

and you proved the caffiene was more addictive than marijauna overall. wow, too bad caffiene has little to no effect on most people so it really is a moot point.

[Edited on June 20, 2007 at 10:22 PM. Reason : .]

6/20/2007 10:20:31 PM

^hahah
you're condradicting yourself.

Quote :

"harmful is a less measureable item."

You said it not me. I was agreeing with you.

Quote :

"then again that chart has nicotene and caffiene at the same intox lvl. im not sure ho wmuch i trust"

What do you mean? Which would you say has a stronger intoxicating effect?

[Edited on June 20, 2007 at 10:25 PM. Reason : .]

6/20/2007 10:22:17 PM

also based on your chart, are you pro-cocaine? it has less deaths and similar intox levels to weed.

6/20/2007 10:25:06 PM

^My chart? It comes from government numbers. While cocaine has plenty of medical applications it IS very addictive and i believe shouldn't be used in the way marijuana is used. (recreational drug).

6/20/2007 10:26:57 PM

Quote :

"Has a drug conviction affected you?"

Every year when the IRS forms cometh and I look at how much was taken out.

[Edited on June 20, 2007 at 10:27 PM. Reason : l]

6/20/2007 10:27:00 PM

^i'm too tired to think anymore. You're referencing the war on drugs? It is a big waste of money.

6/20/2007 10:29:15 PM

^^ i dont see why. if we're using legal drugs as the test in our arguments we might as well make cocaine legal too. plus the intoxication levels are pretty similar between weed and cocaine (so it cant be THAT bad). sure people might get addicted, but hey even caffeine is addicting so why should we worry about what people do in their own homes?

[Edited on June 20, 2007 at 10:30 PM. Reason : I JUST WANT SENSIBLE DRUG POLICY HOLMES]

6/20/2007 10:29:48 PM

^Just because something has equal intoxication levels doesn't mean there aren't other harmful things about the drug. Cocaine has a lot more harmful side effects to the body than marijuana or caffeine.

Yeah i think we all agree, we just need sensible drug policies. Also i think most people here agree the current federal war on drugs is not working.

[Edited on June 20, 2007 at 10:33 PM. Reason : .]

6/20/2007 10:32:12 PM

didnt say it was, but i dont think that means we need to legalize marijuana or decriminalize it super heavily.

6/20/2007 10:44:14 PM

I think it should be legalized eventually. I mean of course with the same harsh restrictions as alcohol, possibly more so. Camel apprently already has a patent for a marijuana cigg called camel greens or something funny.

I mean just think who all can make money off of it. The tobacco industry can grow it, the cotton industry can once again use hemp for most products (as it was pre-1937), energy companies can use it as a form of biomass and eliminate other non-renewable sources, and it'll change the way people look at it for medicinal purposes.

[Edited on June 20, 2007 at 10:52 PM. Reason : .]

6/20/2007 10:47:16 PM

I think we should legalize cocaine, too.

6/20/2007 11:02:38 PM

Quote :

"There still hasn't been a case where someone has OD on marijuana alone. "

There are lots of reports of people overdosing on marijuana; hospitals admit people for it all the time. There was some dumbass cop out in Michigan that reported he and his wife overdosed on pot brownies just this year.

You're probably trying to imply a fatal overdose though, and there are reports of native americans fatally overdosing on marijuana by consuming shamanic doses. Unfortunately - since most of these reports are from the turn of the century, there's no way to prove what exactly happened. they might have died from asphyxiation after smoking out their teepee for 12 hours straight. Regardless, there are still cases in the literature of lethal marijuana overdose.

6/20/2007 11:05:49 PM

Quote :

"energy companies can use it as a form of biomass and eliminate other non-renewable sources,"

what in the fuck are you smoking!?!?!

6/20/2007 11:06:33 PM

for the few that have not realized this yet - you can't argue with potheads

[Edited on June 20, 2007 at 11:16 PM. Reason : did you really say it's partially one-sided...]

6/20/2007 11:15:48 PM

^Didn't you read anything i posted before?
http://www.hemp4fuel.com/challenge.html
Read it, and that's what i mean.

^I'm not a pothead. I never even said i smoked the stuff.

Ya know you get bored at work and you take a side on the issue...

[Edited on June 20, 2007 at 11:20 PM. Reason : .]

6/20/2007 11:15:52 PM

Quote :

"Over the past two months Students for Sensible Drug Policy has asked supporters like you to send letters to senators on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee urging them to repeal the law that denies federal financial aid for college to students with drug convictions. To date you have generated thousands of letters, and senators are listening! This morning the HELP Committee approved the Higher Education Access Act of 2007 with language that expressly prohibits the Department of Education from asking students about drug convictions as a condition of receiving financial aid! This is a huge step toward erasing the penalty from the lawbooks altogether, but there is still work to be done. The full Senate still has to approve the bill without changes, and the House will take it up later this summer. Please consider visiting http://www.ssdp.org/donate/ and making a generous financial contribution to SSDP today to support our efforts to restore financial aid eligibility to students with drug convictions. This year marks the first time Congress will reauthorize the Higher Education Act since the Aid Elimination Penalty was added in 1998, and it likely will not be dealt with again for another five to seven years. If we are going to convince Congress to fully repeal the penalty, we really have to turn the heat up this summer. I hope you will support our efforts at this critical juncture by making a donation at http://www.ssdp.org/donate/ In addition to making generous monetary contributions, we also need supporters like you to continue urging your legislators in Washington, D.C. to take action. The full Senate will vote on the bill at some point this summer. The House is expected to consider HEA reauthorization later in the year, and inside sources tell us that the House version is likely to include language fully repealing the penalty. However, decision makers need to hear a strong message of support from constituents like you in order to fight off potential unfriendly amendments from the likes of Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN), the author of the original penalty. If you have not done so already, please visit http://www.ssdp.org/help/ to send a pre-written letter to your members of Congress. After a nine-year campaign to repeal the HEA Aid Elimination Penalty, we are closer than ever to victory. Your contribution will help make it happen. Thank you for all of your help. Sincerely, Kris Krane Executive Director "

6/20/2007 11:19:43 PM

sweeet. we did get off topic there.

6/20/2007 11:22:28 PM

hemp could NEVER replace all of our non-renewable energy needs. It could support an incredibly small portion of our energy needs, but to claim it could single-handedly eliminate our dependance on non-renewable energy sources is preposterous.

6/20/2007 11:23:19 PM

From what i've read, according to current technology it's possible but the implementation, investments, not to mention legal issues would be too much trouble. More of a theory with lots of solid evidence.

6/20/2007 11:26:17 PM

using elusis's logic we should ban Water. I can technically overdose on water too. That lady for the Nintendo Wii drank a lot and died

6/20/2007 11:36:07 PM

Quote :

"^i'm too tired to think anymore. You're referencing the war on drugs? It is a big waste of money."

Yes. I was thinking more specifically about the costs related to incarcerating inmates for drug crimes, but the whole war on drugs would be a better anecdote. I am not arguing in favor of people doing drugs because I've seen the hurt that they cause. I just have a very libertarian side and believe that the war on drugs causes more damage than if we just removed legislation against the milder drugs.

6/21/2007 12:48:37 AM

So, is this graph normalized for the total amount of users or not? Because it makes perfect fucking sense that illegal drugs would have far fewer deaths because far fewer people use them in the first place.

[Edited on June 21, 2007 at 12:59 AM. Reason : 213]

6/21/2007 12:58:58 AM

It's a pretty simple cause/effect relationship i think. If you want to keep your financial aid, don't participate in pot smoking until after you graduate. How hard is that?

6/21/2007 1:26:21 AM

Quote :

"using elusis's logic we should ban Water."

find one single instance of me claiming that pot should be banned, and then you might have an argument. You won't though, so don't try to bring your logical fallacies into this discussion.

I believe that ALL drugs should be legalized, and it pisses me off to listen to the propaganda that potheads spew forth claiming how their drug of choice is safer than all the others. All they're really doing is pidgeonholing drugs into categories of what they deem should be legal or not based on safety or non-recreational uses, and by doing so they make it really easy for politicians and governing agencies to place laws against ALL drugs. They'll be more likely to push lobbyists towards heavier regulations on alcohol, tobacco, and OTC medications than they will be to lift marijuana restrictions with their current methods of attack.

6/21/2007 8:22:44 AM

^I wouldn't say propaganda, and I NEVER stated it was "my drug of choice." Again with the pothead argument. Should i start calling you a redneck or an alcoholic? Your tactics are poor, and your approach weak. You said "marijuana advocates" a few posts ago. Use that from now on, it'll make you sound better. I know it's more semantics but your choice of words effects how people see you. If you go around calling everyone potheads, or stoners who have tried the stuff, you're not going to sound very intelligent on the long run.

6/21/2007 8:35:53 AM

Quote :

"I believe that ALL drugs should be legalized, and it pisses me off to listen to the propaganda that potheads spew forth claiming how their drug of choice is safer than all the others."

I could see some of the harder drugs available for medical use......there was a huge uproar among psychiatrists when what we know as ecstasy was banned....many testified in congress of how during marriage counseling the use of ecstasy allowed for the progress in a few weeks that would have taken over a year w/ no aid.

but you have to face the facts that some drugs are more dangerous/harmful than others....if you can't see that, you're fooling yourself. Weed, relatively speaking is one of the less harmful drugs....there is even evidence to support smoking weed actually helps prevent lung cancer.

Quote :

"I know it's more semantics but your choice of words effects how people see you."

the pothead or stoner label is just an easy (albeit totally misguided) way of casting an instant negative light on it w/o actually having to show proof.

[Edited on June 21, 2007 at 8:41 AM. Reason : .]

6/21/2007 8:39:32 AM

^Yeah I've seen that. Trying to find a few sources now.
But yeah, if you can't see how some drugs are safer than others, then that's a problem. Of course a "marijuana advocate" is going to tell you how safe marijuana is. They're saying that because, yes it's what they want to believe, but also because it's very very true. Marijuana is probably one of the least harmful drugs known to man. Safer than many foods we eat today according to the DEA's Francis Young years back.

^Exactly, it's an easy way of stereotyping. Despite what people maybe think, the "stoner" stereotype only makes up probably less than a couple percent of the smoking population. The rest are hard working, everyday americans who just want to be able to do what they want in thier own house. It's just like calling someone a redneck because they're from a small town in NC, or an alcoholic because they occasionally drink beer. Both those statemnets are unfounded and just rude, but it's an easy instant insult, but i still say it makes you look stupid and ignorant.

^http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/armentano-p1.html

"Today, Guzman believes that enough favorable clinical evidence exists supporting pot’s anti-cancer properties to warrant clinical trials in humans. "The scientific community has gained substantial knowledge of the palliative and anti-tumor actions of cannabinoids during the past few years,""

That link sites 5 recent studies claiming that cannabinoids can be potential anti-cancer agents. It also goes into the fact that the first studies were in the 70's funded by the government proving that cannabinoids are anti-cancer agents.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000EA0BF-1BE4-1121-927783414B7F4945

Another one from Scientific America.

"The scientists also tested the therapy on tumors taken from two patients who had not responded to conventional therapy for their glioblastoma, a deadly form of brain cancer. After the cannabinoid injections, both tumors exhibited decreased VEGF levels. Writing in the current issue of the journal Cancer Research, the team notes, however, that a combination of therapies will most likely be required to obtain significant clinical results."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3561686.stm

[Edited on June 21, 2007 at 9:01 AM. Reason : .]

6/21/2007 8:45:15 AM

Quote :

"but you have to face the facts that some drugs are more dangerous/harmful than others"

you have to face the facts that it's not our government's responsibility to protect people from themselves. besides, certain drugs are inherantly dangerous because they are illegal, not because of what they are. the Fentanyl analogs and MPTP that slayed so many junkies in the eighties did so because they were being cooked up by underground chemists who had no idea of how to properly cut a drug that is lethal at doses of only a few hundred micrograms. crystal meth has gained a horrible reputation due of the dangers of the labs that make the substance, and the same is true of cocaine with the violent cartels that support the cocaine trade.

you also need to face the fact that referring to people that have 420 in their screenname or continuously quote Jack Herer as stoners is a fitting description.

6/21/2007 9:27:57 AM

^Not true. As i said before i was at work, and i did some googling and that's what i came up with. I never said i was a stoner, or even smoked the stuff. But i do agree the government should not play a big a role in controlling what people do.

^I agree someone who puts 420 in thier screen name you can call them a stoner. Aside from that, marijuana is not illegal because it's harmful, we've all covered that. If that was the criteria for what is legal or not, alcohol and tobacco would be illegal and other illegal drugs would be made legal and controlled.

Quote :

"certain drugs are inherantly dangerous because they are illegal"

Yes making a drug illegal causes lots of trouble, and not even in relation to the drug. For example during the prohibition alcohol use sky-rocketed because everyone was making moonshine, and selling it all on the black market. More people died because it wasn't regulated and people were drinking dangerous stuff.

6/21/2007 9:35:14 AM

Quote :

"you also need to face the fact that referring to people that have 420 in their screenname or continuously quote Jack Herer as stoners is a fitting description. "

yeah, b/c a persons t-dub handle tells you everything you need to know about a person.....

you've just got the world figured out, huh.

6/21/2007 9:58:22 AM

Quote :

"Yeah, usually it doesn't even go on your record though. 9 outta 10 friends who i know that have gotten caught, it hasn't gone on thier record. Usually a fine, but usually never on the record. "

Do you know that many people who have been caught? I don't know anyone who's been caught since high school. I sorta figured people learned how not to at some point in most cases.

6/21/2007 10:04:42 AM

i cant take anyone seriously who says methamphetamines arent as bad for you as weed

6/21/2007 10:05:09 AM

^ agree

^^ yeah you would have to be pretty stupid or really fuck up to get caught by the law with weed esp after high school.

6/21/2007 10:10:32 AM

^^agree

^lol agreed, i still know around 10 people. Not at nc state alone. Just around. I guess i know lots of people, i don't know.

6/21/2007 10:17:50 AM