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

Skip to comments.

The real danger of cannabis
The Observer [UK] ^ | August 18, 2002 | Susan Greenfield

Posted on 08/24/2002 5:59:05 PM PDT by aculeus

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-115 next last
To: aculeus
It is not the government's job to protect people from themselves.
41 posted on 08/24/2002 7:49:33 PM PDT by Earn Your Vote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: meyer
I would reword it to read "consequence to innocent citizens". But that's just a CC (conservatively correct) way of saying what you said I suppose.

Again, wonderful post.

I appreciate the commentary. I usually avoid the threads simply because I don't always want to get into a peeing match with people with WHom I often agree on other issues.

The people that I agree with the most are my most favored opponents. They have the only lever that could change my opinion, my respect.

EBUCK

42 posted on 08/24/2002 7:50:47 PM PDT by EBUCK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: SpaceBar
Bingo! Alcohol is far more destructive. In fact, alcohol is the only drug that can be shown to have had a negative effect on society as a whole. Just look at Russia or American Indian Tribes.

The Victorians looked at the use of hemp on Indian (from India) workers, whether they should make any attempt at suppression, because of ill effects. They didn't find any and didn't attempt a prohibition.

"It is folly to legalise a drug that is known to leave users with permanent damage to their ability to reason, argues Susan Greenfield, the distinguished expert on brain processes."

We need to criminalize alcohol, obviously.

43 posted on 08/24/2002 7:57:57 PM PDT by Kermit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Joe Bonforte
There's no indication these guys are funded by pro-drug organizations

I was referring to pro-drug, not necessarily pro-drug organizations. I'm sure there are real scientists out there without an ax to grind but how will you know? As I said, I don't need a stinkin' study. I saw first and second hand what it does. I think pot should be discouraged and illegal with a fine, no prison.
44 posted on 08/24/2002 8:00:48 PM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: 4Freedom
There's no way to ascertain or monitor a correct, safe dosage. While it's relatively easy to do with alcohol.

Relatively easy, to be sure. When one has exceeded the safe dosage of alcohol, they, in order of potential, lose control of gross motor skills, vomit (if he's lucky), lose consciousness, and die. When one has exceeded the safe dosage of marijuana, they fall asleep.

45 posted on 08/24/2002 8:01:32 PM PDT by Trailerpark Badass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: 4Freedom
There's no way to ascertain or monitor a correct, safe dosage. While it's relatively easy to do with alcohol.

Now, if you're referring to the dosage that an individual might have ingested, I will agree somewhat. I think what has to be done is what used to be done with DUI's before the mad mothers got hold of things. Basically, if you looked drunk and had a good amount of alcohol in your system, you would generally be hauled in (or given a ride home in the real old days).

There's still the problem of measuring. We know that THC can be measured in the body by means of a urine test. But that isn't practical for the ordinary traffic stop. Gender issues aside, most cops do NOT want roadside urinalysis duties. If I was a cop, I'd want to be shooting bad guys, not holding a silly little jar for some apparently intoxicated motorist who is having trouble aiming. *(sorry, bad visual)* There needs to be a breathalyzer kind of thing for THC if there is to be an effective way to enforce a "level of intoxication" type of rule. This would ideally be used along with observation (and video backup) of behavior, dilated pupils, and that kind of thing. There needs to be measurable indicators to go along with visual indicators and I agree that they aren't easily available.

46 posted on 08/24/2002 8:01:44 PM PDT by meyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Jack-A-Roe; LostThread
That particular bud looks dangerous to me . . .
47 posted on 08/24/2002 8:23:51 PM PDT by BraveMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: BraveMan
If you define 'dangerous' as 'high THC content', that bud is indeed very dangerous ;)
48 posted on 08/24/2002 8:31:49 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
It is folly to legalise a drug that is known to leave users with permanent damage to their ability to reason, argues Susan Greenfield, the distinguished expert on brain processes

But, the ones who have lost their ability to reason are the drug warriors. Alcohol and tobacco are far more destructive than marijuana, yet the former are legal and the latter not. Furthermore, logical fallicies such as confusing correlation for causation and cyclic arguments are the bread and butter of the prohibitionists.

49 posted on 08/24/2002 8:32:26 PM PDT by coloradan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 4Freedom; meyer
I believe the good doctor said that wasn't possible, because with cannabis you can never be certain how much of the drug is present in a person's system from prior usage.

There's no way to ascertain or monitor a correct, safe dosage. While it's relatively easy to do with alcohol.

At best, the society has some interest in determining if someone is intoxicated - on mj or booze or whatever. But to ascertain and monitor safe dosages of mj is stupid. They don't do this with alcohol, in fact the product (alcohol) is distributed in all kinds of different size packags -- pints and kegs of beer, or single cocktails and fifths of liquor. People who use alcohol determine for themselves their appropriate dosage. Some people cannot handle their booze and end up binging and feeling sick the next day. Those who don't feel sick the next day are likely to develop serious problems if they continue episodes of binge drinking. The dosage for mj would be found the same way - through individual preference and use. Some people will want to smoke a lot of mj, while others will find one or two puffs all they need or want.

The assertion Greenfield makes regarding the length of time mj stays in your system, and so affects the ability to accurately guage dosage, is highly questionable. The thc itself is broken down by the body and the effects of the drugs wear off. What remains in the body are the metabolites that worked to break down the thc in the body. THC breaks down quickly (within hours of ingestion), but the related metabolites take much longer (weeks) to be removed from the body because they are fat soluble. Alcohol on the other hand is water soluble, so alcohol and it's related metabolites do not last in the body as long.

Ms. Greenfield claims to be an expert in the field of neuroscience but she appears to be lacking in the "science" part of her field. It's hard to believe she is a scientist because she makes assertions under the guise of science that are based upon her beliefs. Sure, a scientist can "believe" in his/her cause and in the hypotheses they are testing. However, this woman proposes a form of studying her claims that mj causes brain damage, but then immediately dismisses such an effort as unfeasable. In other words, she sets up a straw man to knock down. She says (let me paraphrase): we should study the problem this way, but since we can't, we'll never know, but I believe this is the way it is. While she is passionate about her views, her passion does not make up for her flimsy theory regarding the effects of mj on the brain. Research into the affects of mj on brain function would be better served if it were conducted by psychologists. Ms. Greenfield poses an interesting theory, but until she isolates the physiological mechanism behind the mj induced brain transformation, she's just blowin' smoke. This article is meant to dissuade people who consider themselves logical, scientific thinkers from supporting mj legalization. Anyone with a scientific background and familiarization with the issues should read through this article to exactly what it is - propaganda.

50 posted on 08/24/2002 8:54:58 PM PDT by citizenK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: citizenK
What is the LD50 for MJ?

What is the LD50 for alcohol?
51 posted on 08/24/2002 9:09:11 PM PDT by the_daug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: the_daug
I don't know the amount for mj - haven't they killed some monkeys by injecting them with straight THC? But as far has human consumption goes - you'd have to smoke an awful lot to come close to death. Someone trying to smoke as much as they can would exhaust their lung capacity (i.e., their lungs would hurt too much from excessive smoke) before they came even close to death. The average stomach is probably not big enough to get a lethal dose by eating it.

As for alcohol - less than a fifth of liquor can kill someone of average size if they consume it all at once. Alcohol is regularly sold in quantities that could kill you if you drank if too fast.

52 posted on 08/24/2002 9:36:48 PM PDT by citizenK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Jack-A-Roe
This Bud's for you.....
53 posted on 08/24/2002 9:40:54 PM PDT by Bamaconservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Earn Your Vote
It is not the government's job to protect people from themselves.

Agree!

54 posted on 08/24/2002 9:48:28 PM PDT by secretagent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: citizenK
I hven't smoked for ten years BTW I rememder reading about trying to estblish LD50 for THC using rabbits the equivlent dose for number of joints was astronomical. The rabbits went commotosed for a few days and then woke up.
55 posted on 08/24/2002 9:50:20 PM PDT by the_daug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: the_daug
I found a web page - Accute Affects of Marijuana (Delta 9 THC). - describing some LD tests and a bunch of other info about mj. From the Shaffer Library of Drug Policy (whoever those people are).

Here's an excerpt from the bottom of the page:

"...behavior revealed that under the influence of marihuana, users tend to become more conservative in the decision making.

bold emphasis mine of course, lol

56 posted on 08/24/2002 10:38:33 PM PDT by citizenK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: citizenK
Yeah and they drive slower too.
57 posted on 08/24/2002 11:09:44 PM PDT by joeyman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: citizenK
"...behavior revealed that under the influence of marihuana, users tend to become more conservative in the decision making.

So, pot smoking makes one more conservative?

Legalize it NOW!

58 posted on 08/25/2002 2:03:28 AM PDT by NorthernRight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: beekeeper
bttt
59 posted on 08/25/2002 3:59:56 AM PDT by KeyWest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
Susan.........is this thinking an example of your brain OFF DRUGS?

Well, all of your good intentions acknowledged, this is mostly a large pile of steaming BULL !!!!

60 posted on 08/25/2002 4:21:39 AM PDT by ChasingFletch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-115 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