Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The truth about marijuana.
Me

Posted on 11/21/2004 9:15:23 PM PST by april15Bendovr

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 281-292 next last
To: tacticalogic

But should they be manditory?? I think schools would have to have parental permission to draw blood or take any sample from a student. Big brother is here, and I don't mind him, but we have to draw the line somewhere!


221 posted on 11/23/2004 10:38:33 AM PST by the_unchosen_one
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
And, Liberaltarianism is the virus that perverts Conservatism.

The owner of this web site says he has no problem with libertarians and sees eye to eye with them on most issues.

222 posted on 11/23/2004 10:49:25 AM PST by jmc813 (J-E-T-S JETS JETS JETS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: the_unchosen_one
But should they be manditory?? I think schools would have to have parental permission to draw blood or take any sample from a student. Big brother is here, and I don't mind him, but we have to draw the line somewhere!

They're not going to draw blood, they're just going to ask them questions. I'm betting the questions will include things like "Do your parents ever spank you?", "Do your parents use drugs?", and "Are there any guns in your house?".

And you might want to check the sear pin in that mouse button.

223 posted on 11/23/2004 10:54:44 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: the_unchosen_one
Even more than drug testing government workers, I'd like to see them undergo a financial pee test.

This should include random audits of bank statements, credit cards, assets, tax returns, etc. as a condition of employment. A $400 billion underground market can buy off a lot of officials.

224 posted on 11/23/2004 10:56:13 AM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: SiVisPacemParaBellum

Zig-Zag's new 'full sheet', 8x11 papers?


225 posted on 11/23/2004 10:58:36 AM PST by ApesForEvolution (Why did I surf over to FR while I'm on vacation? Happy Holidays everyone!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

We can pay out of our tac dollars to have more federal workers do the evaluations on these children while taking them out of class, so can we have mental health screenings for government officials while getting them out of there duties as public officials?


226 posted on 11/23/2004 11:05:59 AM PST by the_unchosen_one
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

In addition to that, let's ask their parents how there were growing up if they saved money or if they had any other tendancies that could point to other problems..


227 posted on 11/23/2004 11:11:34 AM PST by the_unchosen_one
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

So would these answers be used agains the parents in a court of law? In other workds, are we asking the youth of America to rat on their parents?


228 posted on 11/23/2004 11:13:25 AM PST by the_unchosen_one
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: the_unchosen_one
So would these answers be used agains the parents in a court of law? In other workds, are we asking the youth of America to rat on their parents?

I doubt they'd hold up as sole evidence in court. Bureaucracies like state Family Services and Child Protective agencies seem to be able to act on nothing more than allegation.

229 posted on 11/23/2004 11:17:40 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: GLDNGUN
again reasoned debate, must escape your logic. Take a look back at history, when alcohol prohbition was in full force.
There was no way to control quality, quantity, or who was able to buy it. (sound familar)
By government control and regulation, on alcohol. Nobody is going blind from bad batches,
apply the same logic to MJ.

as a follow up ask any teenager which is easier for them to get MJ, or booze. 90% of the time Pot is easier to get.

as for your argument that I am a pot head and incapable of reasoned debate( I am not a pot head(, you really should stop drinking so much it is clouding your brain.
230 posted on 11/23/2004 12:14:33 PM PST by vin-one (REMEMBER the WTC !!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: april15Bendovr
I am not an advocate for the use of marijuana. It's an unhealthy habit.

Look, when you write and publish an article titled "The Truth About Marijuana," you are holding yourself out as an authority on the topic and you need to be prepared to defend the claims you make. The claim that the average THC content of marijuana on the streets in this country today is 15% is patently false. I called you on that and you got defensive and surly and cut and ran without addressing or even acknowledging the proof I presented that you were wrong. The fact of the matter is that even if you had looked into it you would not have found anything even approaching proof that the average marijuana on the street in the country is 15% THC, because there have been very few studies where representative samples of marijuana from across the country have been collected and analyzed to determine average THC content. The only long running study of that type is the government funded Marijuana Potency Monitoring Project. They've been testing samples provided by law enforcement from all over the country for thirty years or so and and the average THC content of all of the marijuana they test hasn't been anywhere close to what you claim it is.

The claim you posted has its roots in what I can only think of as a dishonest spin people like John Walters of the ONDCP are fond of employing where they mention a low THC percentage from the past like that of commercial grade marijuana from 1970's and then talk about the new "crack cocaine" of marijuana today that is up to 25% in THC content. What they are hoping for is that the masses will take from that that all of today's marijuana is that strong, even though the fact is that buried in their web pages even the ONDCP admits that the average of all marijuana being sold on the streets in this country, including the strong stuff, is actually less than 6% THC.

When I saw that you were making the 15% claim, I thought you might be intentionally trying to mislead people, but I suspected the more likely scenario was that you fell for the spin being pushed out there on "today's new super weed." Since I suspected the latter, naturally I concluded that there was a high likelihood that you didn't do much if any background research on any of the "scientific" claims you seemed to be just parroting in your article. Instead you just did like perhaps an eighth grader writing a research paper might have done and spent a few minutes looking for articles similar to what you wanted to write and paraphrased a bit from this one and a bit from that one, without doing any in depth research, or any fact checking.

You have to admit, you barely did any research. If you did, you wouldn't have made simple mistakes like claiming that "In 2001, 12 million Americans aged 12 and older used marijuana at least once in the month prior to being surveyed by the National Institute on Drug Abuse in its 2001 Monitoring the Future Surveys." The Monitoring the Future Surveys do not survey a cross section of Americans twelve and older. They survey 8th graders, 10th graders, and 12th graders, and they do some follow up surveys on college age people. It's the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) who does the surveys on Americans twelve and older. Their annual survey is called the National Survey on Drug Use & Health (NHSDA), which up to a couple of years ago was called the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA).

You say we need to "discourage vulnerable young people from using marijuana." I agree with that sentiment. But if you really want to do that, the next time you hold yourself out as an authority on the "truth about marijuana" you need to do your homework and actually tell the truth. Young people are more clever than you think. When they see supposed authority figures making glaring mistakes and false claims about marijuana, many of them write off what that authority figure said as scare tactic propaganda and they use it to show their less astute friends that what the authority figures say about marijuana is a bunch of hooey. Then they are more likely to buy into the hooey from the opposite end of the spectrum where people are claiming that marijuana is harmless or even good for you. Whether their parents give them your article to read so they'll know the real "truth" about marijuana or if their parents just parrot your claims, the message that marijuana is not good for people and the authority figures who deliver it end up losing credibility because you didn't check your facts before you took on the responsibility of being an authority on the truth about marijuana.
231 posted on 11/23/2004 2:32:40 PM PST by TKDietz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: ApesForEvolution
Zig-Zag's new 'full sheet', 8x11 papers?

Left over from Cheech & Chong's "Big Bamboo" album. Circa 1970s. LOL.

232 posted on 11/23/2004 4:27:08 PM PST by SiVisPacemParaBellum (Peace through superior firepower!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: bahblahbah

And where would the teenager grow and dry the marijuana plants if they were living at home? If you say out in the woods on someone else's land that would still be illegal.


233 posted on 11/23/2004 8:24:25 PM PST by voteconstitutionparty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: vin-one
I see, so you want the government in the pot business, to make sure it's good quality stuff. No thanks, I don't want my government in the drug dealing business.

Why, oh, why do the POT NOW people keep comparing alcohol and pot? Is that really the best they can do? It is a completely lame argument, as it's a comparison of apples and oranges. Alcohol use was already widespread and had been since Adam left the grape juice out too long. It was a few thousand years too late to put that genie back in the (wine) bottle. Now then, pot use is nowhere near the use of alcohol use, nor is it "socially acceptable" by any decent standards. Make it legal, and many people who would have never used it before will start.

And, pleeeze, most teenagers have no problem getting their hands on booze.

The WOD will NEVER end drug abuse. I know and fully accept that as a fact of life. We don't live in a Utopia. I know this to be a fact, just as surely as I know the War on Murder, War on Theft, and War on Rape will NOT end murder, theft, and rape.

It's really quite simple. Either you have a government that supports and provides the means for drug abuse, OR you have a government that tries to limit drug abuse and its destructive effects on society. The idea that the former would even be considered is mind boggling.

234 posted on 11/23/2004 10:06:26 PM PST by GLDNGUN (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: TKDietz

  http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/intel/02058/02058.html#6

MARIJUANA
  1998 - 2001 PRICE AND POTENCY DATA
  National Average in US Dollars



  1998 1999 2000 2001
Commercial Grade
  Pound $250 - $3,200 $100 - $6,000 $100 - $4,000 $70 - $1,200
  Ounce 30 - 450 35 - 750 50 - 650 25 - 600
  THC Content 4.21% 4.19% 4.68% 4.72%
         
Sinsemilla
  Pound $850 - $6,000 $500 - $7,000 $900 - $8,000 $600 - $4,000
  Ounce 160 - 600 160 - 600 100 - 600 80 - 1,200
  THC Content 12.33% 13.38% 12.82% 9.03%
         
Source: The potency data for both commercial grade and sinsemilla marijuana are provided by the Marijuana Potency Monitoring Project, conducted by the University of Mississippi, and sponsored by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA).

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:8XWyuOiNC1kJ:www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/intel/01001-intellbrief.pdf+BC+Bud+The+U.S.+Drug+Enforcement+Administration+Intelligence+Division+December+Report+2000&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

1
Introduction
Marijuana and other cannabis
products are the most widely
abused and readily available illicit
drugs in Canada. Canadian law
enforcement intelligence indicates
that marijuana traffickers there
increasingly are cultivating
cannabis indoors. Such indoor
grow operations have become an
enormous and lucrative illicit
industry, producing a potent form of
marijuana that has come to be
commonly known as “BC Bud.”
Canadian officials estimate that
cannabis cultivation in British
Columbia is a billion-dollar industry and that traffickers smuggle a significant portion of the Canadian
harvest into the United States.
Indoor Cannabis Cultivation Rises in Canada
Canadian growers produce cannabis plants with powerful buds, often using sophisticated hydroponic
cultivation techniques. While the term “BC Bud” literally refers to the bud of the female cannabis plant
grown in British Columbia, the term has become synonymous in the popular media for high-potency
Canadian-grown marijuana. Such marijuana has a THC
1
content ranging from 15 percent to as much as
25 percent, far more potent than the naturally grown cannabis plants of the 1970s, which had a THC
content of only 2 percent.
Marijuana traffickers in Canada employ the most current methods of growing cannabis. Growers isolate
and clone selected female plants for sinsemilla production, and they use high-tech equipment to
electronically regulate temperature, light, and nutrients in hydroponic greenhouses that enable them to
grow up to six marijuana crops per year. According to the Canadian Government, a cannabis grower
operating a 50-plant hydroponic operation that harvests three crops of 15-percent potency can realize an
annual profit of Can$225,000.


235 posted on 11/23/2004 10:44:28 PM PST by april15Bendovr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: jocon307
This naturally growing ingredient in the marijuanna plant is a mechanism of defense for the plant against insects. THC so disorients the insect that they will starve to death and fail to reproduce. The chemical altering reactions that occur in the insect nervous system, occurs in humans. We may never know the exact nature of the brain chemestry from THC. If the insect is an indicator, it would be wise to use majuianna for its intended purpose: insect control.
236 posted on 11/23/2004 11:15:47 PM PST by jonrick46
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: april15Bendovr
I'm not sure what that was all about. I've seen Canadian government data that contradicts the 15 to 25% claim finding average potency in Canada in reality considerably lower than that. But all of this is irrelevant. We aren't talking about "BC Bud." We are talking about the average potency of marijuana found on the streets in this country today (Most of which by the way is cheap Mexican marijuana, not the potent expensive stuff. That's why the average potency in 2001 for all types of marijuana wasn't closer to the 9.03% average of sinsemilla, but instead was so close to the 4.72% average for commercial grade marijuana.) The average potency of all seized marijuana tested according to the Marijuana Potency Monitoring Project was 5.02% in 2001. Your 15% claim was about three times the actual average.

We've gone over this enough. Just know that in reality the vast majority of the marijuana on the street in this country today isn't the incredibly strong stuff. And whether it is 15% or stronger or just 4.72%, it will get you high as a kite if you smoke enough of it. You just have to smoke more of the weaker stuff to get to that point. Three to five puffs of the regular commercial grade stuff will do the same as one or two puffs of the stronger stuff. And I can tell you from experience from my younger days in the late seventies and eighties, there was really strong pot available back then too. From all accounts I've heard people were getting as high as they wanted to be with the stuff they were smoking before that too. They may have had to smoke a little bit more to reach whatever level of buzz they were looking for, but they were getting just as high as people get today.

I think the difference between the marijuana out there today and that people were smoking twenty or thirty years ago is mostly hype anyway. Obviously today's pot isn't all 15 or 20% THC like some of the powers that be seem to want to trick people into believing. And I doubt there is even as much difference as the actual numbers suggest between the pot people were smoking 30 years ago. They were seizing far less marijuana in the seventies and testing far fewer samples back then. Law enforcement tactics were not nearly as aggressive or sophisticated as they are today. Back then they were probably busting mostly the chuckle-heads that stand on street corners selling crappy pot to tourists out in the open. These days the narcs are out in force infiltrating all strata of drug markets, busting people left and right and coercing many of these people into becoming informants who get them in deeper and deeper into the drug underworlds.

I'm a criminal defense attorney and I know a lot of these guys and their methods. They can get anything they want today and are very interested in finding the sources for the high quality expensive bud out there. Busting people with less than several pounds of cheap Mexican is too easy for the task force guys and it doesn't win them as many pats on the back as locating even a smaller quantity of the hydro weed. (Besides the guys with the expensive pot usually have more assets law enforcement can seize.) They focus mainly on that and the hard drugs while the patrolmen working the highway with the dogs and the electronic sniffers and their density meters and fiber optic scopes for looking in gas tanks and false compartments find the huge loads of Mexican brick weed and the occasional big load of ice or coke (or cash). We're in a small town but our local drug task force and highway interdiction officers are so flush with cash from government grants and asset forfeiture proceeds that they are extremely well trained, well staffed, and well equipped. Things were a lot different 30 years ago.
237 posted on 11/24/2004 1:40:34 AM PST by TKDietz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: TKDietz

Here is an AP report about driving while high.

Millions In U.S. Do Drugs, Drive
WASHINGTON, Sept. 16, 2003
An estimated 11 million Americans, including nearly one in five 21-year-olds, have driven while under the influence of illegal drugs, the government says.

The numbers announced Tuesday were especially high for college students. Eighteen percent of students surveyed said they drove while on drugs last year, compared with 14 percent of their peers who weren't in college.

John Walters, director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, said the statistics show a failure to convince drivers that drugs impair driving as much as alcohol does. His office is kicking off an ad campaign titled "Steer Clear of Pot" to warn teens about driving while smoking marijuana.

"Marijuana is not the soft drug. Marijuana is not the casual rite of passage," Walters said at a news conference. "We have been sending the wrong message."

Walters said marijuana can affect concentration, perception, coordination and reaction time for up to 24 hours after smoking it.

Citing a separate study, the Office of National Drug Control Policy reports approximately one in six high school seniors in the U.S. admitted to driving under the influence of marijuana.

And 41 percent of teens surveyed by Students Against Drunk Driving (SADD) and Liberty Mutual said they were not concerned about driving after using drugs.

In an effort to raise public awareness of the problem of drugged driving, television advertisements will run during September and October, to impress upon teens the dangers of driving under the influence of marijuana.

Nineteen-year-old Theodore Stevens of New Jersey told reporters that he believed smoking pot and driving wasn't dangerous despite getting into four accidents in three years. He says he's lucky none of those incidents caused serious injuries.

"Sometimes I believed it increased my driving performance," said Stevens, who has been in drug treatment for four months after being charged with possession of marijuana, cocaine and heroin. Stevens began smoking pot when he was 14.

The report, compiled by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, used 2002 data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health. The survey questioned 68,000 people. Researchers then extrapolated the percentages to the population as a whole. A federal statistician said the margin of error was plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

For 21-year-olds, the rate of those who reported driving under the influence of drugs was 18 percent, the highest of any age group. That dropped off to 14.5 percent for 22-year-olds. Unemployed adults age 26 to 49 also had a high frequency of driving while drugged — 9.3 percent, compared with 5.1 percent for drivers employed full time.

Among racial or ethnic groups, American Indians reported the highest rate of driving while drugged, at 6.3 percent compared with 5 percent of whites, 4.5 percent of blacks, 3.7 percent of Hispanics, 3.1 percent of Pacific Islanders and 1.3 percent of Asians.

Dr. Jeffrey Runge, head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, said there were approximately 38,000 crashes last year involving drivers impaired by marijuana. But Runge said he didn't know how many fatal accidents were caused by drugged drivers. State data collection is spotty, Runge said, and many drivers who are driving while drugged are also drinking.

"While we don't have fixed data, impairment is impairment," he said.


238 posted on 11/24/2004 7:13:13 AM PST by april15Bendovr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: april15Bendovr

You're never going to make your case in the face of objective criticism by avoiding the questions and changing the subject.


239 posted on 11/24/2004 7:23:29 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: TKDietz

http://www.marijuana-anonymous.org/Pages/detox.html


Detoxing from Marijuana





What is Detoxing?

Detoxing is the way in which your body gets rid of the toxins accumulated from years of using. It happens the first few days or weeks after getting clean and/or sober. It is also the very beginning of getting used to dealing with reality and real feelings with no numbing agent.

Can there be physical effects from quitting marijuana?

In spite of numerous years of being told that there are no physiological effects from marijuana addiction, many of our recovering members have had definite withdrawal symptoms. Whether the causes are physical or psychological, the results are physical. Others have just had emotional and mental changes as they stop using their drug of choice. There is no way of telling before quitting who will be physically uncomfortable and who will not. Most members have only minor physical discomfort if any at all. This pamphlet is for those who are having trouble and wonder what's happening to them.

Why do some effects last so long?

Unlike most other drugs, including alcohol, THC (the active chemical in marijuana) is stored in the fat cells and therefore takes longer to fully clear the body than with any other common drug. This means that some parts of the body still retain THC even after a couple of months, rather than just the couple of days or weeks for water soluble drugs.

Can this affect a drug test?

The experiences of some members have shown that if you quit marijuana and expect to take a drug test you should not go on a crash diet at the same time. Fasting, or a crash diet, can release the THC into the bloodstream very rapidly and can give a positive reading. This has happened to several of our members, but each time only with crash diets and major weight loss, not with just eating less than usual.

What are some of the more common symptoms?

By far the most common symptom of withdrawal is insomnia. This can last from a few nights of practically no sleep at all, up to a few months of occasional sleeplessness. The next most common symptom is depression (that is, if you're not euphoric), and next are nightmares and vivid dreams. Marijuana use tends to dampen the dreaming mechanism, so that when you do get clean the dreams come back with a crash. They can be vivid color, highly emotional dreams or nightmares, even waking up then coming back to the same dream. The very vivid, every-night dreams usually don't start for about a week or so. They last for about a month at most and then taper off. "Using" dreams (dreams involving the use of marijuana) are very common, and although they're not as vivid or emotional as at first, they last for years and are just considered a normal part of recovery.

The fourth most common symptom is anger. This can range from a slow burning rage to constant irritability to sudden bursts of anger when least expected: anger at the world, anger at loved ones, anger at oneself, anger at being an addict and having to get clean. Emotional jags are very common, with emotions bouncing back and forth between depression, anger, and euphoria. Occasionally experienced is a feeling of fear or anxiety, a loss of the sense of humor, decreased sex drive, or increased sex drive. Most all of these symptoms fade to normal emotions by three months. Loss of concentration for the first week or month is also very common and this sometimes affects the ability to learn for a very short while.

What about physical symptoms?

The most common physical symptom is headaches. For those who have them, they can last for a few weeks up to a couple of months, with the first few days being very intense. The next most common physical symptom is night sweats, sometimes to the point of having to change night clothes. They can last from a few nights to a month or so. Sweating is one of the body's natural ways of getting rid of toxins. Hand sweats are very common and are often accompanied by an unpleasant smell from the hands. Body odor is enough in many instances to require extra showers or baths. Coughing up phlegm is another way the body cleans itself. This can last for a few weeks to well over six months.

One third of the addicts who responded to a questionnaire on detoxing said they had eating problems for the first few days and some for up to six weeks. Their main symptoms were loss of appetite, sometimes enough to lose weight temporarily, digestion problems or cramps after eating, and nausea, occasionally enough to vomit (only for a day or two). Most of the eating problems were totally gone before the end of a month.

The next most common physical symptoms experienced were tremors or shaking and dizziness. Less frequently experienced were kidney pains, impotency, hormone changes or imbalances, low immunity or chronic fatigue, and some minor eye problems that resolved at around two months. There have been cases of addicts having more severe detox symptoms, however this is rare. For intense discomfort, see a doctor, preferably one who is experienced with detoxing.

How can I reduce discomfort?

For some of the milder detoxing symptoms, a few home remedies have proven to be useful:

* Hot soaking baths can help the emotions as well as the body.
* Drink plenty of water and clear liquids, just like for the flu.
* Cranberry juice has been used effectively for years by recovery houses to help purify and cleanse the body.
* Really excessive sweating can deplete the body of potassium, a necessary mineral. A few foods high in potassium are: melons, bananas, citrus fruits, green leafy vegetables, and tomatoes.
* Eliminate fat from the diet until digestion is better.
* Greatly reduce or eliminate caffeine until the sleep pattern is more normal or the shakes are gone.
* The old fashioned remedy for insomnia, a glass of warm milk before bedtime, helps some people.
* Exercise not only helps depression and other unpleasant emotions, it helps the body speed up the healing process.


Conference Approved Literature

©1992 Marijuana Anonymous
All Rights Reserved
P-04
6/96


240 posted on 11/24/2004 7:23:37 AM PST by april15Bendovr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 281-292 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson