The Beginning of the End of Ridiculous Drug Laws Thats cost us Billions

[Kassz007]

Quote from CoolTraderDude:

We're all screwed if drugs become legal.

I think the most likely scenario would be weed becoming legal, not all drugs. Weed = harmless.

Did the world go to hell in a handbag when alcohol became legal?

 

[tomdavis]

It's sugar, refined carbohydrates (bread, cookies, white pasta, etc.) and high glycemic carbs (e.g., potatoes) that kids get addicted to. To make matters worse, the beef served by fast food restaurants is grain fed (very bad), low in Omega 3 fatty acids and laced with growth hormones. We keep our kids as far away from fast-food operators as possible. Food can be an addictive drug, both for children and adults.

Quote from killthesunshine:

hapless meals are more addictive than pot, aimed squarely at kids that get hooked on beef and fries for life causing untold misery and costing billions in healthcare costs

 

[CoolTraderDude]

Quote from Kassz007:

I think the most likely scenario would be weed becoming legal, not all drugs. Weed = harmless.

Did the world go to hell in a handbag when alcohol became legal?

Weed harmless...? That is just a myth. The drug concentrates in the reproductive organs with relatively unknown effects. It is very likely that it causes birth defects and other genetic disorders. We know for a fact that it is a carcinogen and that it diminishes the ability to learn new things.

Quote from tomdavis:

It's sugar, refined carbohydrates (bread, cookies, white pasta, etc.) and high glycemic carbs (e.g., potatoes) that kids get addicted to. To make matters worse, the beef served by fast food restaurants is grain fed (very bad), low in Omega 3 fatty acids and laced with growth hormones. We keep our kids as far away from fast-food operators as possible. Food can be an addictive drug, both for children and adults.

Yeah... Take a look at the Coca-Cola Company...

Use of stimulants in formula

When launched Coca-Cola's two key ingredients were cocaine (benzoylmethyl ecgonine) and caffeine. The cocaine was derived from the coca leaf and the caffeine from kola nut, leading to the name Coca-Cola (the "K" in Kola was replaced with a "C" for marketing purposes).[28][29]
Coca — cocaine

Pemberton called for five ounces of coca leaf per gallon of syrup, a significant dose; in 1891, Candler claimed his formula (altered extensively from Pemberton's original) contained only a tenth of this amount. Coca-Cola did once contain an estimated nine milligrams of cocaine per glass, but in 1903 it was removed.[30] Coca-Cola still contains coca flavoring.

After 1904, instead of using fresh leaves, Coca-Cola started using "spent" leaves — the leftovers of the cocaine-extraction process with cocaine trace levels left over at a molecular level.[31] To this day, Coca-Cola uses as an ingredient a cocaine-free coca leaf extract prepared at a Stepan Company plant in Maywood, New Jersey.

In the United States, Stepan Company is the only manufacturing plant authorized by the Federal Government to import and process the coca plant,[32] which it obtains mainly from Peru and, to a lesser extent, Bolivia. Besides producing the coca flavoring agent for Coca-Cola, Stepan Company extracts cocaine from the coca leaves, which it sells to Mallinckrodt, a St. Louis, Missouri pharmaceutical manufacturer that is the only company in the United States licensed to purify cocaine for medicinal use.[33]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola

Which began as Coca Wine sold by John Pemberton...

Coca wine was an alcoholic beverage that combined wine and cocaine.[1] The most popular brand was Vin Mariani developed in 1863 by Corsican entrepreneur Angelo Mariani. It was a popular drink at the time.[2]

In Atlanta, John Pemberton, a pharmacist, developed his own cocktail based on Vin Mariani and called it Pemberton's French Wine Coca. It proved popular among American consumers. But in 1886, when Georgia introduced Prohibition, he had to replace the wine in his recipe with non-alcoholic syrup. The new recipe was similar to, but not the same as Coca-Cola.[2]

At the end of the 19th century, the fear of drug abuse made coca-based drinks less popular. This eventually led to the prohibition of cocaine in the United States, and the removal of cocaine from coca wine as well as Coca-Cola (though coca leaf remained).[2] The drink itself essentially became illegal when its other main drug, alcohol, was banned just a few years later under alcohol prohibition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca_wine

 

[phenomena]

Deal with it, your 50's junk science is going out the window. You can whine and cry and stomp your feet all you like, but it wont change anything. So you and your "harmful yet unknown effects" can go screw each other.

Quote from CoolTraderDude:

Weed harmless...? That is just a myth. The drug concentrates in the reproductive organs with relatively unknown effects. It is very likely that it causes birth defects and other genetic disorders. We know for a fact that it is a carcinogen and that it diminishes the ability to learn new things.



Yeah... Take a look at the Coca-Cola Company...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola

Which began as Coca Wine sold by John Pemberton...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca_wine

 

[phenomena]

All soft drugs should be legalized. For example do you know how many historical figures were regular opium users who positively influenced civilization?

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from phenomena:

... do you know how many historical figures were regular opium users who positively influenced civilization?

How many?

 

[CoolTraderDude]

Quote from phenomena:

Deal with it, your 50's junk science is going out the window. You can whine and cry and stomp your feet all you like, but it wont change anything. So you and your "harmful yet unknown effects" can go screw each other.

Actually, the effects of cannabis are well known by non-users. The problem is that cannabis use is widespread in universities so you get a lot of controversy from people defending the drug. Therefore there is no serious consensus. Personally I suspect that it may be linked to several genetic disorders... due to the fact that it concentrates in the reproductive organs. But go ahead and try to get a study founded in the current climate.

My 50's science...??? I think that you have already smoked yourself retarded judging by that comment.

The smoking of cannabis is the most harmful method of consumption, as the inhalation of smoke from organic materials can cause various health problems.[71]

By comparison, studies on the vaporization of cannabis found that subjects were "only 40% as likely to report respiratory symptoms as users who do not vaporize, even when age, sex, cigarette use, and amount of cannabis consumed are controlled."[72] Another study found vaporizers to be "a safe and effective cannabinoid delivery system."[73][74]
Cannabis is ranked one of the least harmful drugs by a study published in the UK medical journal, The Lancet.[75]

While a study in New Zealand of 79 lung-cancer patients suggested daily cannabis smokers have a 5.7 times higher risk of lung cancer than non-users,[76] another study of 2252 people in Los Angeles failed to find a correlation between the smoking of cannabis and lung, head or neck cancers.[77] Some studies have also found that moderate cannabis use may protect against head and neck cancers,[78] as well as lung cancer.[79] Some studies have shown that cannabidiol may also be useful in treating breast cancer.[80] These effects have been attributed to the well documented anti-tumoral properties of cannabinoids, specifically tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol.

Cannabis use has been assessed by several studies to be correlated with the development of anxiety, psychosis, and depression.[81][82] A 2007 meta-analysis estimated that cannabis use is statistically associated, in a dose-dependent manner, to an increased risk in the development of psychotic disorders, including schizophrenia.[83] No causal mechanism has been proven, however, and the meaning of the correlation and its direction is a subject of debate that has not been resolved in the scientific community. Some studies assess that the causality is more likely to involve a path from cannabis use to psychotic symptoms rather than a path from psychotic symptoms to cannabis use,[84] while other studies assess the opposite direction of the causality, or hold cannabis to only form parts of a "causal constellation", while not inflicting mental health problems that would not have occurred in the absence of the cannabis use.[85][86]

Though cannabis use has at times been associated with stroke, there is no firmly established link, and potential mechanisms are unknown.[87] Similarly, there is no established relationship between cannabis use and heart disease, including exacerbation of cases of existing heart disease.[88] Though some fMRI studies have shown changes in neurological function in long term heavy cannabis users, no long term behavioral effects after abstinence have been linked to these changes.[89]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana#Effects


What I find funny about drug users is that they smoke dope and rage against all of the corporations. Yet when someone points out that a large corporation like Coca-Cola actually started out dealing cocaine to the masses they quickly tell me to take my 50's science and go screw myself.

Such a lack of consistency in their arguments.

 

[indahook]

Quote from CoolTraderDude:




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana#Effects

Thanks for the pro-pot link!


study of 2252 people in Los Angeles failed to find a correlation between the smoking of cannabis and lung, head or neck cancers.

Some studies have also found that moderate cannabis use may protect against head and neck cancers,[78] as well as lung cancer.


Some studies have shown that cannabidiol may also be useful in treating breast cancer.


Though cannabis use has at times been associated with stroke, there is no firmly established link, and potential mechanisms are unknown.[87] Similarly, there is no established relationship between cannabis use and heart disease, including exacerbation of cases of existing heart disease.[88] Though some fMRI studies have shown changes in neurological function in long term heavy cannabis users, no long term behavioral effects after abstinence have been linked to these changes.[89]


Some claim that trying cannabis increases the probability that users will eventually use "harder" drugs. This hypothesis has been one of the central pillars of anti-cannabis drug policy in the United States,[95] though the validity and implications of these hypotheses are highly debated.[96] Studies have shown that tobacco smoking is a better predictor of concurrent illicit hard drug use than smoking cannabis.[97]

 

[phenomena]

I am a non user. I haven't used marijuana in about 7-8 years, and didn't much care for it when I did experiment with it. That doesn't mean that I can't positively identify it as being harmless, much less so than alcohol at least...

Oh well, I guess you can appeal to your canabis defense conspiracies all you like, but it wont change the facts...

Quote from CoolTraderDude:

Actually, the effects of cannabis are well known by non-users. The problem is that cannabis use is widespread in universities so you get a lot of controversy from people defending the drug. Therefore there is no serious consensus. Personally I suspect that it may be linked to several genetic disorders... due to the fact that it concentrates in the reproductive organs. But go ahead and try to get a study founded in the current climate.

My 50's science...??? I think that you have already smoked yourself retarded judging by that comment.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana#Effects


What I find funny about drug users is that they smoke dope and rage against all of the corporations. Yet when someone points out that a large corporation like Coca-Cola actually started out dealing cocaine to the masses they quickly tell me to take my 50's science and go screw myself.

Such a lack of consistency in their arguments.

 

[CoolTraderDude]

Quote from indahook:

Thanks for the pro-pot link!


study of 2252 people in Los Angeles failed to find a correlation between the smoking of cannabis and lung, head or neck cancers.

Some studies have also found that moderate cannabis use may protect against head and neck cancers,[78] as well as lung cancer.


Some studies have shown that cannabidiol may also be useful in treating breast cancer.


Though cannabis use has at times been associated with stroke, there is no firmly established link, and potential mechanisms are unknown.[87] Similarly, there is no established relationship between cannabis use and heart disease, including exacerbation of cases of existing heart disease.[88] Though some fMRI studies have shown changes in neurological function in long term heavy cannabis users, no long term behavioral effects after abstinence have been linked to these changes.[89]

It isn't pro-pot... It is simply showing that there is controversy... I already explained to you why that is.

Do you really think that smoking a weed with THC (a relatively complex molecule) is safe or good for you? It alters your mental state... NOOOO... Nothing to worry about there...

I like how pot users rage against "mind control" by the so called "man"... While actually smoking something that is literally changing their conscience chemically...!

I wonder what the reaction would be if the government forced everyone to smoke pot in order to keep everyone docile!