Posted on 01/30/2020 8:14:28 AM PST by dangus
This sounds like Seth McFarlane's version of God to me.
Nailed it.
ifinnegan: Yes. And getting in the habit of getting high with pot makes it easy to move on to getting high on opiates, which most people would find more comforting than pot.
A Navy Vet: It's the rare case that someone who starts on Pot doesn't want the highs and lows of the other drugs. Mark my words...the States/Cities that are allowing legal Marijuana WILL experience more drug problems and associated criminal activity.
Regardless of your anecdotes, the DEA said in 2016 that pot is not a gateway drug.
From: Marijuana to remain illegal under federal law, DEA says:
On other points, the DEA report noted marijuana has a "high potential" for abuse and can result in psychological dependence. It said around 19 million individuals in the U.S. used marijuana monthly in 2012 and that contemporaneous studies showed around 4.3 million individuals met diagnostic criteria for marijuana dependence.
It did not find, however, that marijuana is a "gateway drug."
"Little evidence supports the hypothesis that initiation of marijuana use leads to an abuse disorder with other illicit substances," the report said.
The LD50 of THC is about 1/10 that of alcohol.
While it is difficult to consume an LD50 by smoking marijuana, it is very possible by some of the other forms of consuming THC, like vaping. Vaping of THC, moreover, is linked to the recent spat of vaping deaths.
We also cannot overlook the brain damage caused by THC, especially in younger users (less than 25-30 years old). This is a serious concern, as those who are brain damaged are likely to be burdens on society for a long time.
This harkens back to the wonderful FR War on Drugs threads from 20+ years ago. Give the Reefer Madness Patrol some credit, I guess, for longevity.
Evidence?
Nice find!
“States with Legal Marijuana See 25 Percent Fewer Prescription Painkiller Deaths” - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3197446/posts
I find it odd that nobody ever mentioned cigarettes. It normalizes the very notion of “smoking” something....seems like a small step from smoking plant A to plant B.
Zerohedge is a junk site:
Recreational arijuana is decriminalized, but still illegal in Portugal. Medical marijuana was legalized only in 2018.
The explosion in AIDS cases occurred AFTER a 1987 program to give free, clean needles and condoms away.
Although they declined again, the murder rate in Portugal increased more than 50% after decriminalization, although this included many, more powerful drugs.
Addiction centers, established chiefly in the 1980s and 1990s, have seen a 60% increase rate in addictions since legalization (2001).
HIV infections among drug users declined 17% since decriminalization (2001), but 90% overall.
Drug use has increased more than 55% since 2001.
Portugal doesn’t prove drug decriminalization is a bad idea, but the evidence claimed by ZeroHedge is fake news; the real news is far from unambigious.
>> the DEA said in 2016 that pot is not a gateway drug. <<
Yay, Obama! That DEA administrator who said that was Comey’s chief of staff. He is now a Trump-bashing regular contributor to the Rachel Maddow show on MSNBC. He came on only towards the end of 2015, so that report was probably started before him.
He was preceeded by Michelle Leonhart (administrator, 2010-Oct., 2016), who ceased enforcement proceedings against drug diversions of opiates. We all know how well that turned out! In March 2015, it was revealed DEA agents were participating in drug cartel-funded sex parties with prostitutes. She resigned 7 months later. She nominally opposed Obama’s claims that marijuana was not a gateway drug, but sharply curtailed enforcement action, allowing the proliferation of decriminalization laws.
>> I find it odd that nobody ever mentioned cigarettes. It normalizes the very notion of “smoking” something....seems like a small step from smoking plant A to plant B. <<
I find it odd that the Swamp is so concerned with attacking tobacco (which is good to attack), but ignore marihuana so completely that they failed for months to connect the dots that nicotine vapers who died were almost all using marijuana in their vapers.
Marijuana lacks nicotine, which makes tobacco so addictive. But nicotine isn’t what kills tobacco users. There are over 700 cancer-causing substances in tobacco, and it seems absurd to suppose that more than a few of them are in tobacco but not marijuana, Importantly, nitrosamines, an important carcinogen, IS in tobacco, but not marijuana. But carcinogenic polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are found in marijuana in levels similar to tobacco, as are almost 60 other carcinogens.
You ARE probably considerably less likely to die of cancer if you stick to marijuana, rather than tobacco. (Most pot users I’ve known smoke both, but I have known several who did stick to marijuana.) But these hippies who act as if they’re being “all-natural” while they suck on marijuana exhaust make me roll my eyes.
>> I find it odd that nobody ever mentioned cigarettes. It normalizes the very notion of “smoking” something....seems like a small step from smoking plant A to plant B. <<
I find it odd that the Swamp is so concerned with attacking tobacco (which is good to attack), but ignore marihuana so completely that they failed for months to connect the dots that nicotine vapers who died were almost all using marijuana in their vapers.
Marijuana lacks nicotine, which makes tobacco so addictive. But nicotine isn’t what kills tobacco users. There are over 700 cancer-causing substances in tobacco, and it seems absurd to suppose that more than a few of them are in tobacco but not marijuana, Importantly, nitrosamines, an important carcinogen, IS in tobacco, but not marijuana. But carcinogenic polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are found in marijuana in levels similar to tobacco, as are almost 60 other carcinogens.
You ARE probably considerably less likely to die of cancer if you stick to marijuana, rather than tobacco. (Most pot users I’ve known smoke both, but I have known several who did stick to marijuana.) But these hippies who act as if they’re being “all-natural” while they suck on marijuana exhaust make me roll my eyes.
the quote you provide does not say what you state above.
How does the quote differ? "Little evidence supports the hypothesis that initiation of marijuana use leads to an abuse disorder with other illicit substances," the report said.
Yay, Obama! That DEA administrator who said that was Comey’s chief of staff. He is now a Trump-bashing regular contributor to the Rachel Maddow show
Irrelevant ad hominem; the report (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/08/12/2016-17960/denial-of-petition-to-initiate-proceedings-to-reschedule-marijuana) cites plenty of scientific evidence for that statement.
“How does the quote differ?”
Exactly. You don’t understand.
“Little evidence supports the hypothesis that initiation of marijuana use leads to an abuse disorder with other illicit substances,” the report said.
Compared to your:
“the DEA said in 2016 that pot is not a gateway drug.”
You’ve turned it in to a confirmed negative, which was not even inferred in the DEA statement.
The DEA would have stated “there is evidence that refutes the hypothesis that initiation of marijuana use leads to an abuse disorder with other illicit substances” if they held that position.
But they did not.
They stated there is evidence but it is little - ie not much.
You turned it around to say they asserted an explicit finding refuting the hypothesis. They did not.
I’m sure there are studies that refute it and studies that support it.
I’m curious, how would you design a study to address and answer the hypothesis that initiation of marijuana use leads to an abuse disorder with other illicit substances?
Fair point - Dan should have said there is little evidence to support the hypothesis of unicorns, rather than saying that unicorns don't exist.
“Fair point - Dan should have said there is little evidence to support the hypothesis of unicorns, rather than saying that unicorns don’t exist.”
So you think there is evidence for unicorns?
Otherwise you’d say no evidence, not little evidence.
I'm sure we could find someone who claims to have seen one - which would be sparse and anecdotal evidence but not none.
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.