I have to agree with daniel. There are no good or bad drugs. Drugs have no morals. Just like money. It can be used for good or bad. Heroine had many good uses for it till junkies starting abusing it.

Another related interesting article:

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/02/19/on-marijuana-dea-the-drug-employment-agency/

SORC: "Denial, my position on the use of POT has nothing to do with anything other than common sense..."

Maybe you should try science for change, as you "sense" is very "common". To speak with such robust authority, your answers have a very ignorant tone. You are the one blurring the "facts"...what few "facts" that you even bother to invoke. The rest are myths that you just heard somewhere, or pulled from some source that has little regard of peer reviewed science.

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/02/18/"gold-standard'-studies-show-that-inhaled-marijuana-is-medically-safe-and-effective/

Coca Cola is still the largest legal importer of cocaine into the US. There is only one of the many alkaloids in coca leaves that is restricted by law...the so-called active ingredient. The other 20 or so alkaloids are still in Coke for "flavoring", according to the company.

I am not advocating anything...I am just laying into your BS with facts.

This conversation has no purpose anymore.

Get em Daniel, Were is Jerry? Chime in Jerry

Interesting article that partially explains SORC and his ilk's position:

http://www.alternet.org/story/145713/hypocritical_obama_and_corporate_media_are_agressively_undermining_pot_normalization

Daniel sez:
"Once again, you are the only one promoting anything, like an anti-American oppressive agenda, like that folks just be locked up for just having this discussion. You and your ilk would really be a big hit in Iran, North Korea, Russia, (or FTM, the DEA) or any other oppressive regime, 'cause they believe that crap too. Luckily, there is something called the Second Amendment that takes the wind out of your oppressive sails. Your argument is downright Un-American. "

Er ah, I mean luckily we have the First Amendment to guarantee freedom of speech and expression AND the Second Amendment to guarantee that when SORC and his thought police come for us that we can defend our 1st Amend. rights. ;-)

There is not one case of cancer that has been attributed to pot smoke. NOT one.

It is true that there are carcinogens in SOME (depending on temperature) pot smoke as there is in ANY burning vegetable matter or for that matter (FTM) that big charcoal steak that you had last night! (broiling DOES make a difference!). But the THC in the pot smoke apparently also inhibits cancer from forming. (NORML is just posting the peer reviewed study, they did not DO the study.)

http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7241

A quote from that:

"The administration of THC significantly reduces lung tumor size and lesions, according to preclinical data presented this week at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) in Los Angeles.

Investigators at Harvard University's Division of Experimental Medicine reported that THC inhibited the growth and spread of cells in vitro from two different lung cancer cell lines and from patient lung tumors. They also reported that THC administration reduced the growth of lung tumors in mice by more than 50 percent compared to untreated controls over a three-week period."

So, not only does pot NOT cause cancer, but the evidence indicates that it actually inhibits growth of cancer cells. We need more study on this, to see exactly how it should be administered for the best results. It is difficult to get more studies approved as the DEA opposes ANY studies, based on the same myths that you are proposing. That is yet another "moral" reason for legalization, thank you very much.



FACT: One does not have to smoke the burning leaf, in fact, vaporizers appear to be the way to eliminate all of the properties releases by burning ,while still being able to ingest the active THC. One can also eat the THC in food and avoid heat altogether. There are lots of ways to ingest without consuming any carcinogens.

http://www.bcvaporizer.com/what_is_the_bc_vaporizer/what%20is%20BC%20Vaporizer.htm



And then, there is the whole field of medical marijuana, for even more moral reasons. See this for more info:

http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5441



So, the argument that you are making is moot if no one has ever contracted cancer from smoking pot. And there has not been a single case. Not one. If so, name that individual...they would be famous as the only person to ever die from smoking pot.

You should not try to shovel all that "Horsesh@t" in a stiff headwind, SORC.

I don't recall anyone "promoting" the ideal that the use of any drug, substance, food-like substance (the diet of the average American) is "harmless", but the relative toxicity is what really matters, not if something is completely harmless.

Once again, you are the only one promoting anything, like an anti-American oppressive agenda, like that folks just be locked up for just having this discussion. You and your ilk would really be a big hit in Iran, North Korea, Russia, (or FTM, the DEA) or any other oppressive regime, 'cause they believe that crap too. Luckily, there is something called the Second Amendment that takes the wind out of your oppressive sails. Your argument is downright Un-American.

You argument is that marijuana is illegal, therefore it is bad, and because it is bad, therefore it should be illegal...and that is called circular logic. Not very impressive in any argument. The fallacy of petitio principii, or "begging the question", is committed "when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof." More specifically, petitio principii refers to arguing for a conclusion that has already been assumed in the premise. The fallacy may be committed in various ways.


I don't recall anyone saying anything about giving any thing (including Big Macs) to "teenagers" or minors, or giving anything to anybody FTM, either. I don't recall any one promoting smoking pot at all, we are just talking about the substance in a factual way, which is WAY different than you.

Are you just going to start making up stuff now? Is THAT the best ye' got? LOL!

Have a nice day!

13. Posted by SORC8427 about 4 hours ago

"The vast majority of folks who use recreational illicit drugs do NOT have a drug abuse problem,or ever become addicted."

How does that work?

"When you USE illegal drugs on a continual basis,.....is that not participating in the definition of addiction?"

Not necessarily. So many myths...so little time. Drug abuser is defined as "People who use drugs in ways that threaten their health or impair their social or economic functioning."

SORC: "Trying pot once and saying "no thank you"...... is not the same as "rolling a fat one" every night when you get home from work."

Obviously, but if it is not threatening their health or impairing their social or economic functioning, what the hey?


SORC: "Not to mention that MANY, MANY illicit drugs drugs are "one use addictors", crack, meth, heroin, etc."

Pure BS. There is simply no such thing. There are no bad drugs or good drugs as drugs, like food, are neutral. There are no "addictive" drugs (or foods) or "habit" forming drugs, there are just people with emotional problems, most of whom are clinically depressed, that are self-medicating. The addicts makes the drugs, the drugs do NOT make the addicts.

You can play word games (like the cops and politicians do) with this issue all day, but in the end, all psychoactive drugs fall into the same boat, and it is up to the individuals with the emotional problems to choose which one(s) to use to self-medicate, based on which one(s) work for them. The fact is that MOST people use these same "addictive" drugs recreationally and NEVER develop an unhealthy relationship with them. It is one thing to use a drug (taking a little vacation) and totally another to abuse a drug (living there full time). The difference is the emotional problems of the user, not the "addictive" properties of the substance.

The drug war is based on myths like these, where perfectly 'normal' and innocent folks come into contact with the "evil" substance and slide down this slippery slope into addiction. This myth takes personal responsibilty completely out of the equation and is perpetuated by researchers and practicioners alike, who obviously have never experienced the effects of the substances in question. It is just so much easier and simpler to blame an addiction on a substance than to deal with the psychological reasons that the addict is taking it.


SORC: "Do not forget that some one use addictors also have life long, mind altering side effects, like LSD."

Outrageous propaganda. I don't suppose that you have a source for this stuff?


SORC: "Comparisons to prescription medications and alcohol are straw-man arguments without merit based on the simple fact that they are illegal, and that even employees who use prescribed medications illicitly, or abuse alcohol are subject to the same rules of conduct."

It is not a straw man argument if it is based on the facts. There are differences in toxicity and general classes (i.e. stimulants, depressants, etc.) of drugs, so the side effects do vary with some being much harder on the body. Alcohol and tobacco are particularly damaging to the body since they cause a breakdown at the cellular level. However, our drug laws are not based on relative toxicity and disease, but rather on myth and political "realities", or else both alcohol and tobacco would have been banned long ago.



SORC: "I find it hard to believe that the same people all over the country who decry the use of Tobacco and the harmful effects of nicotine and second hand smoke, along with the 1st user effects are so determined to advocate for the legalization of marijuana."

The ONLY difference between smoking tobacco and smoking pot is the "high" from the THC. ALL of the cancer causing properties are still prevalent. As a matter of fact Marijuana smoke is 50% more likely to cause emphysema and lung cancer."

How long would it be before the "no smokers" would decry the "smoke" from marijuana cigarettes as the reason they should be "rebanned"?"

Apples and oranges. The difference between smoking tobacco and smoking pot are many, including the relative toxicity, number of deaths for those using them, addictive properties, diseases from using them exactly as intended. In every one of these instances, there simply is NO contest between the substances.

-There has not been a single death from consuming pot in any form. Tobacco kills 440,000 direct users and 63,000 passive users a year in the US alone.

-There has never been a case of lung cancer or emphysema caused by smoking pot.

-Nicotine is a near twin to methamphetamine. Chemical data:
Meth Formula C10H15N Nicotine Formula C10H14N2
You do not have to be a chemist to see that these drugs are in the same family and chemical formula.


SORC: "There are NO ethical arguments for legalization of pot, for any purpose."

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. But I believe it to be unethical in a free society to jail folks and destroy their lives and their families for doing something that "may not" be good for them. There is no toxic dose for pot...period.

That is why our simplistic legal approach and governmental policies are geared towards eradiction of the drug sources, dealers, etc., and not in fixing the emotional problems that are causing the addicts to need to self-medicate all the time. Drug abuse is always a medical problem and never a legal one. The legal system is just the wrong tool for the job.

It is much more complex to think about addiction as a symptom of the problem, which is probably why most folks just don't get it. We don't really have a drug problem, we have a severe clinical depression problem. Some folks just have a hard time living in this "modern" society with its unnatural stresses. Unfortunately, our jails are full of people who do NOT have drug problems but were caught up in either the illegal drug business or simply partaking in recreational use, and therein lies the rub.

It is time that we admit and acknowledge that the so-called drug addicts have serious emotional issues from their childhood that caused them to want to stay ******-up all the time. We are stuck on the comfortable mythology that if they can just stay away from the substances, that everything will be OK. Most stories of addicts (or obese people) blame the drugs only, instead of the admission that the problems lay within themselves. The same myths lure obese people to have their stomachs stapled, only to realize that even though they are skinny, the underlying problems still exist and that their lives are even more screwed up afterwards.

And then there is the issue of tax dollars wasted. Unfortunately, our legal system has this b@$$-ackwards, which is why the Drug War, and programs like DARE are failing so miserably. It is your tax dollars that they are wasting by the billions.