Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/19/08 10:28 PM, dySWN wrote: I guess, in terms of medicinal extracts from the marijuana plant, vaporization is a better way to go - there's less risk for those affected by second-hand exposure, and the complexity would likely make it less viable for illegal distributors.

Well, vaporization equipment is entirely legal, so it wouldn't put a damper on illegal distributors. If you wanted, you could go out tomorrow and pick up a convection vaporizer designed to drive the active components off of marijuana without burning the plant material.

I prefer a more controlled, scientific approach to medicine. Obviously I'm not a proponent of recreational use, but I think that the compounds involved can still have a medicinal use. Isolating compounds from the plant and synthesizing them would allow us to test each one in turn for medicinal value and control the dosages with more accuracy (though the correct dosages will need to be discovered through testing) - and we avoid the issue of the base plant's drug status altogether.

Extraction and separation leave you with compounds just as pure as those produced by synthesis. Drugs are made in reactors, not in the lab. The problem is, the plant itself isn't legal to grow, so we've shut ourselves off from the extraction route.

The other thing is, in this case, a standardized dose may not be the way to go, as the toxicity of the compounds is incredibly low, the symptoms are highly subjective, and the plant that the compounds are delivered on is large enough to meter a dose easily without any special equipment.

With this particular substance, there's no real scientific way to develop a useful standardized dose. Patients are often more familiar with their own condition than anyone else. I know a few people who can legally use marijuana for medicinal purposes, some who abuse it, some who don't. All I can tell you is that standardizing the dose won't prevent people from taking more than they need, but it will prevent people from limiting their dose to just what they need and no more.

At 10/19/08 10:34 PM, poxpower wrote: I dunno, I've tried it once alone. It was cookies and they were really strong ( so the other people who had some said ) and it really didn't do much for me. I gave pot a fair chance. Blah.

Ingesting marijuana has a high latency and a much slower "ramping up" of the effects, along with a generally more "stoned" and less "high" feeling to it. Unless you were already familiar with the effects of marijuana, cookies would probably just make you feel like you were confused and drowsy.

If you haven't tried it yet, I'd say your best bet to actually feel the effects of marijuana (without fabricating a special device) would be using a bong. You can't fuck up the inhalation, and the hits are much larger and easier to hold in. I actually somewhat dislike bongs for that very reason.

Meh maybe I'll try cocaine haha :p
Though I've drunk a shitload of red bulls and other energy drinks and they never really did anything, except taste awesome and wreck my health.

I've never noticed an actual perception change with energy drinks, just higher endurance and a lowered ability to fall asleep.

Drugs mostly sound like they'd make me vomit at this point. But I might just be saying that because I got really drunk last night and I was sick today :(

That's one of the reasons I prefer weed to alcohol. Of course, alcohol has its place, but it isn't my favourite.

At 10/19/08 10:30 PM, dySWN wrote:

At 10/19/08 10:16 PM, Elfer wrote: You know?

I understand what you're saying. It's not that I wouldn't enjoy the immediate effects, but that I know it wouldn't be something I would want for myself in the long term.

There's quite a difference between recreational use or experimentation, and making a habit of something. All I'm saying is that "I've read up on the effects" should be stricken from your list of reasons that you haven't tried pot.

If pox did shrooms we'd wake up the next day and half the world would be on fire.

At 10/19/08 11:12 PM, Helicopterz wrote: If pox did shrooms we'd wake up the next day and half the world would be on fire.

i'll pay for the shrooms.

At 10/19/08 10:37 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

supposedly it doesn't work the first time.

whatever, I've tried enough.
I'll probably try again too. Most times I was drinking as well so.
Bad combination actually, makes you vomit. Smoke + beer = barf.

At 10/19/08 10:48 PM, Rideo wrote: clearer and faster, studying and reading become twice as easy as they are sober and really fun actually.

cool, mail me some.
I have a really addictive personality, but it's countered by my lazy personality. I will not go out of my way to do something, so that's why I don't have any drugs. I'd have to talk to people, meet druggies, get a whole drug connection thing going.
Too tiresome. I'll stick with beer though that just makes you fat eventually and I'll probably try to cut down. Even one per day is too much though I loves me some stout.

==============

All I'm saying is that "I've read up on the effects" should be stricken from your list of reasons that you haven't tried pot.

Yeah no shit. I respect his reasons for not wanting to deal with that stuff, but he can't claim he knows about it or he's some kind of expert when he's never done it.

Drugs aren't the kinds of things you can be explained. You HAVE to try it before you know what the hell you're talking about.
Like being drunk I suppose. Though he says he's done his fair share of drinking, so I assume that means he knows what being drunk is like.

At 10/19/08 10:55 PM, Elfer wrote: There's quite a difference between recreational use or experimentation, and making a habit of something. All I'm saying is that "I've read up on the effects" should be stricken from your list of reasons that you haven't tried pot.

Alright, I can see that.

Decriminalized? Yes.
Legalized? No.

Sorry LEAP must have changed their URL here is their new onehttp://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php

At 10/19/08 11:43 PM, altanese-mistress wrote: Decriminalized? Yes.
Legalized? No.

I'm not entirely sure I see the difference.

At 10/20/08 01:11 AM, dySWN wrote:

At 10/19/08 11:43 PM, altanese-mistress wrote: Decriminalized? Yes.
Legalized? No.

I'm not entirely sure I see the difference.

Decriminalized means no criminal penalty typically with misdemeanor amounts

At 10/20/08 01:21 AM, kraor024 wrote:

At 10/20/08 01:11 AM, dySWN wrote:

At 10/19/08 11:43 PM, altanese-mistress wrote: Decriminalized? Yes.
Legalized? No.

I'm not entirely sure I see the difference.

Decriminalized means no criminal penalty typically with misdemeanor amounts

That's going to vary wildly from state to state, and what constitutes a misdemeanor amount changes from time to time. Here in Nevada, it used to be that a single seed was a felony; nowadays, a few grams will just net you a misdemeanor.

This sucks from both standpoints. Its not legal so you cant have it, but at the same time theres no real penalty for breaking the law prohibiting it.

At 10/20/08 01:11 AM, dySWN wrote: I'm not entirely sure I see the difference.

If it's legal, that means you can do it, no punishment.
Decriminalized means it's not a criminal offence. No jailtime.

At 10/20/08 01:26 AM, springheeledjack wrote: This sucks from both standpoints. Its not legal so you cant have it, but at the same time theres no real penalty for breaking the law prohibiting it.

I think jailtime is a 'real penalty'

But you said decriminalized, so that means no jailtime. While not making it legal still gets it taken away, its only an inconvenience. So, again ,sucks from both standpoints.

At 10/20/08 01:47 AM, springheeledjack wrote: But you said decriminalized, so that means no jailtime.

Sorry, I didn't realize it was directed towards decriminalization.

While not making it legal still gets it taken away, its only an inconvenience. So, again ,sucks from both standpoints.

No, there's more to it. Even though you don't go to jail, you can still get fined right up the ass, the arrest goes on your record, they take it away (like you mentioned), etc, etc.

point conceded

Lets look at the facts on the issue
deaths caused by marijuana:0
Percentage of marijuana related arrests in the US:44%
money spent on drug war annually: 49billion
money spent to house 1 prisoner for 1 year: $20000

Drug laws& policies
Federal grant money can not go to anyone convicted of possession of a controlled substance(any other crime is alright though)
It is a federal felony to possess a firearm while in possession of any amount of a controlled substance.
Many states have tax stamp acts on marijuana, the supreme court has ruled that these laws do not go against the 5th amendment(though they clearly do)
Hemp aka Cannabis L. Sativa is outlawed on the fed. level as well as in most states (you can apply for a fed permit but no one has been granted one)

Weird facts
According toTIME42% of Americans have tried pot(that's lower than I would have thought)
George Washington grew Cannabis Sativa Indica (marijuana) there is also documentation that he had the male plants pulled from his fieldlinklink
According to Hem; American History revisitedSmoking marijuana may have been very common in the colonial US
According to Wikipedia12% of aAmericans smoked marijuana in the year 2005

At 10/20/08 03:39 AM, kraor024 wrote: Lets look at the facts on the issue
deaths caused by marijuana:0
Percentage of marijuana related arrests in the US:44%
money spent on drug war annually: 49billion
money spent to house 1 prisoner for 1 year: $20000

EHHHHHH.

That's there's no deaths attributed to it simply isn't true.

http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/deat h/cannabis-age.htm
http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/viewr esource.asp?resourceID=145#cause

People die from beathing. There's simply nothing that doesn't killing someone.

It seems pretty evident SOME people have died from it...but an extremely small number.

At 10/19/08 11:43 PM, altanese-mistress wrote: Decriminalized? Yes.
Legalized? No.

so why in the hell do you not support its legalization? you havent exactly provided a reason why it shouldnt be made legal.

EHHHHHH.

That's there's no deaths attributed to it simply isn't true.


People die from beathing. There's simply nothing that doesn't killing someone.

It seems pretty evident SOME people have died from it...but an extremely small number.

Okay some people may have allergic reactions or this chat may be total propaganda I don't know where it came from, I do know that no one has ever overdosed from marijuana

hmmm im not sure about this to people who drink it marijuana can be legalised to them.
but I don't drink it (i'm more into wine) so im not sure.

At 10/20/08 03:51 AM, WolvenBear wrote: http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/deat h/cannabis-age.htm

This page doesn't even define what a "marijuana induced death" is. Furthermore, the site contains this page, which is a critical examination of the claims of marijuana induced deaths.

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/viewr esource.asp?resourceID=145#cause

This page only lists marijuana as a "secondary suspect" with zero cases of it being the primary cause. I guess there would occasionally be someone who dies of respiratory arrest, but that's liable to happen with anything that's on fire.

In any case, there's no recorded incidents of deaths caused by things like marijuana toxicity, and there's never been a good link to any significant long-term health effects.

At 10/20/08 03:51 AM, springheeledjack wrote: so why in the hell do you not support its legalization? you havent exactly provided a reason why it shouldnt be made legal.

For one, it would open up the floodgates. Suddenly you'd have people wanting shrooms legalized. So it would be a slippery slope.
For two, it's impossible to tax it all, and jailtime only wastes money, but fines can be a good way to make money from it.
For three, like it or not, marijuana IS a gateway drug. You're more likely to try harder, more dangerous, drugs.
For four, you are infinitely more likely to do something legal than something illegal, wether a criminal offense or not.

At 10/20/08 08:05 AM, altanese-mistress wrote: For one, it would open up the floodgates. Suddenly you'd have people wanting shrooms legalized. So it would be a slippery slope.

No evidence to suggest this, legalization of previously illegal drugs has no resulted in it before, why would it now?

For two, it's impossible to tax it all, and jailtime only wastes money, but fines can be a good way to make money from it.

Not true, if it were legal, business would cash in on it just like they do on tobacco. Big businesses would be able to rake in profits like mad while still charging less then the average dealer, therefore driving them out of business and destroying a black market. Then once it's in the hands of the businesses it would easily be taxable (See:prohibition or alcohol)

For three, like it or not, marijuana IS a gateway drug. You're more likely to try harder, more dangerous, drugs.

Again, no evidence to suggest this. The facts actually work against this claim. The first drug a person usually takes is
A)Nicotine
B)Alcohol

Since these are both more addictive with a higher tolerance factor then marijuana they would fit into the gateway drug theory even better.

Secondly we arrest nearly 900,000 marijuana users a year for marijuana possession alone. If it was a gateway drug, why aren't all these people also in possession of harder drugs?

Well because they simply don't do them.

For four, you are infinitely more likely to do something legal than something illegal, wether a criminal offense or not.

This was already refuted on page 2, legalization of marijuana in the past has seen little to no increase in usage amongst the citizens.

At 10/20/08 01:26 AM, dySWN wrote:
That's going to vary wildly from state to state, and what constitutes a misdemeanor amount changes from time to time. Here in Nevada, it used to be that a single seed was a felony; nowadays, a few grams will just net you a misdemeanor.

States shouldn't exist anyway.

It promotes factions.

Which destroy countries.

How do you feel about it based on the fact that we could make a shit load of money if it were to be regulated? Since the war on drugs has been determined a failure over and over again.

For one, it would open up the floodgates. Suddenly you'd have people wanting shrooms legalized. So it would be a slippery slope.
No. In Amsterdam weed is legal yet LSD is not. LSD is a dangerous substance and as such it is classified as a harder drug. For two, it's impossible to tax it all, and jailtime only wastes money, but fines can be a good way to make money from it.
Again, Amsterdam. Weed is taxed there. Those fines to make money wouldnt be necessary if the war on drugs were not being funded. For three, like it or not, marijuana IS a gateway drug. You're more likely to try harder, more dangerous, drugs.
IF for ANY reason marijuana were to be considered a gateway drug, it would be because people currently have to go to DRUG DEALERS to get it. DRUG DEALERS happen to sell other things than weed.

At 10/20/08 03:25 PM, springheeledjack wrote: No. In Amsterdam weed is legal yet LSD is not. LSD is a dangerous substance and as such it is classified as a harder drug.

Actually it's only decriminalised in the Netherlands; only a finite number of establishments were licensed to sell it and they haven't given any out in some time. In short each time one closes it's gone forever.

Oh and why do you class LSD as a dangerous substance out of interest? I have never encountered anything that supports this.

:Again, Amsterdam. Weed is taxed there. Those fines to make money wouldnt be necessary if the war on drugs were not being funded.

Well from a governmental perspective more capital is not something to refuse. That said the Netherlands makes a tidy sum from its 'Coffee Shops' in taxes so really one could substitute the other.

IF for ANY reason marijuana were to be considered a gateway drug, it would be because people currently have to go to DRUG DEALERS to get it. DRUG DEALERS happen to sell other things than weed.

This is quite true though the fact remains that many users remain purely faithful to old Jane; one would almost think that access to drugs does not neccesitate their use...

While on the subject of the Netherlands however I've much spleen to vent, I shall never forgive them for their entirely spineless decision to criminalise 'shrooms. I once looked to them as an example of a semi-mature policy towards substance abuse but no longer.

At 10/20/08 09:25 AM, Rideo wrote: No evidence to suggest this, legalization of previously illegal drugs has no resulted in it before, why would it now?

We live in an age of mass media, that's why. More people would demand more liberties with drugs from various outlets.

Not true, if it were legal, business would cash in on it just like they do on tobacco. Big businesses would be able to rake in profits like mad while still charging less then the average dealer, therefore driving them out of business and destroying a black market. Then once it's in the hands of the businesses it would easily be taxable (See:prohibition or alcohol)

Growing tobacco and distilling alcohol is time consuming and difficult. Marijuana? Anyone could grow it in their closet if they wanted. So why would they go through proper channels to get the weed when it's far easier and cheaper to grow their own or buy it from illegal dealers?

Again, no evidence to suggest this.

Chances are if you see someone addicted to meth or crack or the like, they did weed before. My own parents did weed and moved on to harder drugs.

The facts actually work against this claim. The first drug a person usually takes is
A)Nicotine
B)Alcohol

I never said I was for those substances being legal.

Since these are both more addictive with a higher tolerance factor then marijuana they would fit into the gateway drug theory even better.

Actually, I totally agree with you there.

Secondly we arrest nearly 900,000 marijuana users a year for marijuana possession alone. If it was a gateway drug, why aren't all these people also in possession of harder drugs?

Not all people do, but you are -more likely- to try a harder drug. Not many people start out with meth and acid and crack and dust.

This was already refuted on page 2, legalization of marijuana in the past has seen little to no increase in usage amongst the citizens.

Most people who refuse marijuana do so because it is illegal. Most people also don't rob banks because it is illegal. Most people don't murder, steal, rape, assault, and more simply because it is illegal. If there was suddenly anarchy ,I know for a fact that the world would break down and what were once crimes would be commonplace.

I posted this in another thread, but I feel Marijuana has no reason to stay illegal much longer.

If any illegal drug were to be legalized, it should be Marijuana. The medicinal purposes and usefulness of the stalk is extensive.

Marijuana treats a broad range of symptoms from insomnia and sleep apnea, to minor pains, sports injuries and chronic fatigue. Many don't know that it can also be used to lose weight, as it speeds up your metabolism.(It's just so hard to resist those munchies. ;P) Marijuana can be used to treat eating disorders such as anorexia, and also restore the appetite to nauseated chemo patients. The list goes on...

The stalk of the Marijuana plant is made of long, sturdy fibers that can be sewn into textiles, ropes, and even hemp fuel.

As for recreational use of Marijuana, the risks are few. Brain cells are not killed they are just disabled temporarily. In opposition to alcohol, which kills brain cells, Mj is much safer. The only long-term risks are those involved with the lungs. Marijuana is no more harmful than cigarettes, and can be vaporized into a smoke-free form. Vaporization removes all carcinogenic substances and releases only pure THC molecules-- thus, eliminating the tar buildup and risk of cancers and many other lung fears.

The only reason that it is still illegal is because the FDA is making profits off legal prescription drugs that will treat the same symptoms, and keep you moving from drug to drug for the rest of your life. If you can grow it at home, they aren't making profit.

Decriminalization is on the way, and likely soon after, legalization-- I'm holding my breath.

At 10/20/08 04:04 PM, Pontificate wrote:

At 10/20/08 03:25 PM, springheeledjack wrote:

Actually it's only decriminalised in the Netherlands; only a finite number of establishments were licensed to sell it and they haven't given any out in some time. In short each time one closes it's gone forever.

Oh and why do you class LSD as a dangerous substance out of interest? I have never encountered anything that supports this.

This is quite true though the fact remains that many users remain purely faithful to old Jane; one would almost think that access to drugs does not neccesitate their use...

While on the subject of the Netherlands however I've much spleen to vent, I shall never forgive them for their entirely spineless decision to criminalise 'shrooms. I once looked to them as an example of a semi-mature policy towards substance abuse but no longer.

I consider LSD dangerous because it is in fact very possible to overdose on it and extended use can land you in a permanent psychosis. I didnt know it had been moved to decriminalised status in the netherlands, what the fuck is the world coming to? And you are correct, access to drugs does not nessecitate their use, but it does provide access to them and some people are dumb enough to use coke, crack, heroin, meth, and various other pills and powders, or the same melted down to be shot up with needles.

At 10/20/08 06:41 PM, springheeledjack wrote: I consider LSD dangerous because it is in fact very possible to overdose on it and extended use can land you in a permanent psychosis.

It isn't possible to overdose on LSD; or rather it is but you would have to set out to commit suicide to take that much and the costs involved would be astronomical. Also extended use does not lead to psychosis but using it can trigger underlying problems, much like any mind altering substance. It's contraindicatied to so much as drink coffee if you have a history of mental illness.

LSD is a remarkably safe drug that is active at such low levels that it very rarely adulterated with anything (unlike a lot of other substances, a fact which makes taking anything a game of russian roulette) as if it were present there wouldn't be enough to affect one. Furthermore the vast majority of the drug is out of the system in twenty minutes.

I didnt know it had been moved to decriminalised status in the netherlands, what the fuck is the world coming to? And you are correct, access to drugs does not nessecitate their use, but it does provide access to them and some people are dumb enough to use coke, crack, heroin, meth, and various other pills and powders, or the same melted down to be shot up with needles.

LSD hasn't been decriminalised (though it ought to be), I was referring to cannabis. You incorrectly asserted that it was legalised when it wasn't, merely decriminalised. Anyway the people you describe foolish enough to do such a thing are the sort who will do it whatever; the vast majority will not start taking drugs simply because they're legal (albeit with regulations) and so to claim that drug use will increase with an end to the prohibition is foolish. Statistics show that the number of addicts have both risen and fallen during the entire period with no downward trend, clearly it isn't stopping people from doing anything but seek an honest living or help.