Cannabis drug 'fights pain without high'

BBC On Line ^ | Wednesday, 21 August, 2002 | Unsigned

[MrLeRoy]

Oh, I've heard of freedom. It's that precious commodity that conservatives take with great respect and responsibility

Except when they're trampling it, as with the immoral, irrational, and unconstitutional War On Some Drugs.

and liberdopians use as an excuse to destroy society

How does drug use "destroy society" in any way that is government's business?

by feeding their selfishness.

As I have already stated in this thread, I use no drugs, including the deadly addictive legal drugs tobacco and alcohol---so how is it "selfish" for me to support others' freedoms?

[MrLeRoy]

Same points to the peanut gallery.

[ECM]

I'm fairly sure they're not going to simply let you grow it in your back yard, legalization or not.

And did anybody notice the ;) at the end of that post?

[ECM]

I'm fairly sure they're not going to simply let you grow it in your back yard, legalization or not.

And did anybody notice the ;) at the end of that post?

[A CA Guy]

Marijuana that is grown in volcanic soil has a high concentration of mercury. The danger in this is that the lungs absorb eighty-five percent of the mercury vapors which are then distributed to the brain and other organs by the blood stream (McCarthy 16). Exposure to high amounts of mercury, such as the amounts that are inhaled with marijuana use can cause anxiety, insomnia, loss of memory, delirium with hallucinations, suicidal melancholia, and even manic-depressive psychoses (Garner, Siegel, Siegel 619).
Garnier, Lindley and B.Z. Siegel and S.M. Siegel. "Mercury in Marijuana." BioScience. October 1988: 619-623

[MrLeRoy]

I'm fairly sure they're not going to simply let you grow it in your back yard, legalization or not.

Why not? You can legally make your own beer or wine.

[ECM]

Because if they legalize, they will, at least initially, regulate the snot out of it and I can almost guarantee that means no personal growing.

Just watch.

(and let me stress the INITIALLY part, till people get used to the idea of it)

[CJ Wolf]

FYI, You are putting a 1988 hypothesis used solely on antidrug sites vs 1996 lab data which ruled it invalid.

Got anything current on the mercury absorption capabilities of these type plants? If not, you need a new dog to hunt with.

[1_American]

Beer and wine affects a person for only a day or two (hangover). Devil weed stays in the body indefinitely. Anyone who uses or has used pot have had their vision of reality drastically distorted / perverted by just a little "experimentation". Most of these people don't even realize that their thought processes have been severely and permanently distorted. The first sign of this distortion is a rabid display of denial towards anyone who might question their use of MJ or the unmistakable and devastating effects from it. They say ... "oh MJ is a harmless drug" ... while at the same time exhibiting obvious signs of the insipid twisted sense of reality that MJ usage visits upon them. They will say ... "I am a productive member of society and smoke MJ" when in reality ... they probably could have gone many times farther and many time faster done the road to success had they not PERMANENTLY hobbled their minds with the devil weed. Why do you think they say it's mind altering.

[MrLeRoy]

Devil weed stays in the body indefinitely.

So does any fat-soluble substance---so what?

Anyone who uses or has used pot have had their vision of reality drastically distorted / perverted by just a little "experimentation".

Provide evidence for your claim.

They will say ... "I am a productive member of society and smoke MJ" when in reality ... they probably could have gone many times farther and many time faster done the road to success had they not PERMANENTLY hobbled their minds with the devil weed.

Even supposing this were true---and you've provided no evidence---what business is that of yours or the government's?

[Don Joe]

"how dare you call me pro-abortion?"

Wow, talk about personalizing something, sheesh! I make a general comment about the way Libertarians come across, and you come storming in as if I'd just accused your mother of being a heterosexual or something.

"How 'bout I call you pro-nambla, nancy-boy?"

How about you try calling me that to my face, butch?

Piss off.

[Psycho_Bunny]

Interesting. I won't get stoned if I'm having any sort of pain because getting high has always intensified it.

The article never mentions THC....I wonder if they're removing that compound from the medicine?

[A2J]

Except when they're trampling it, as with the immoral, irrational, and unconstitutional War On Some Drugs.

While I agree that there have been few (extremely few) abuses in this "war," I also believe it hasn't been fought right, as in allowing the states to govern themselves. If the citizens of a state decides to legalize a particular drug, then so be it, the decision was made where it should have been made: with the people of that state.

But to say that the intent of a society to control a behavior that certainly damages the permanence of that society through the destruction of individuals and families (which is what society is built upon) is "immoral" borders on the maniacal and is symptomatic of one whose brains have been affected by drugs.

How does drug use "destroy society" in any way that is government's business?

See above.

As I have already stated in this thread, I use no drugs, including the deadly addictive legal drugs tobacco and alcohol---so how is it "selfish" for me to support others' freedoms?

To support a behavior that is completely built upon selfishness and one that produces a sub-culture that feeds it, is to aid and abet lifestyles that are destructive to society and simply opens the door to other behaviors that do the same.

[MrLeRoy]

the intent of a society to control a behavior that certainly damages the permanence of that society through the destruction of individuals and families (which is what society is built upon)

Marijuana has none of those effects (or at least substantially less than alcohol---what's your position on banning that deadly addictive drug, by the way?). The "hard" drugs have no more than one million users, far too few to "destroy society"---and there's no reason to think that number would drastically increase with legalization.

The War On Some Drugs, by sharp contrast, poses all the societal threats that convinced a supermajority of Americans to end alcohol Prohibition: imprisonment of productive citizens, deaths from impurities and ODs, the enriching of organized crime, and the corruption of the justice system by those enriched criminals.