Study: Yes, Pot Can Kill People (with Morbidities)

[Virgil Showlion]

Mar 9, 2014 19:29:37 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I find it hard to believe there are some people who just won't let this go.  The man's birth was announced in the newspapers.  The hospital in which he was born has had the same name since the early 1930s.  The president was born in Hawaii to an American mother and a Kenyan father.  This "birther" nonsense is ludicrous!

That's why I used it as a "Why won't it die?" analogy.

[djAdvocate]

Mar 5, 2014 10:17:12 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

Mar 5, 2014 2:26:14 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

"Cannabinoids" refers to a large class of molecules which includes several neurotransmitters (e.g. anandamide) produced naturally in the human body. They're called "cannabinoids" because they activate cannabinoid receptors, and the receptors are called "cannabinoid receptors" because THC was the first molecule officially discovered to activate them.

Hence, although cannabis possesses a wide range of medicinal properties that God undoubtedly knew man would make use of, saying that man is "designed for it" is a bit like saying that man is designed for apples, peaches, and plums. We can only speculate how much the design of one influenced the design of another.

Ah yes, respect.  That's exactly it my man.  As you pointed out, water can kill you. 

more assuredly than pot. 

[mmhmm]

Mar 9, 2014 21:00:06 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Mar 9, 2014 19:29:37 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I find it hard to believe there are some people who just won't let this go.  The man's birth was announced in the newspapers.  The hospital in which he was born has had the same name since the early 1930s.  The president was born in Hawaii to an American mother and a Kenyan father.  This "birther" nonsense is ludicrous!

That's why I used it as a "Why won't it die?" analogy.

No kidding!  Maybe it needs to be shot?  Something's gotta kill it!

[steff]

no no no no just NO!  Don't ruin my buzz by talking about Obama's birth certificate.    it's the pot thread! 

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

Pot is used in far less abundance than regular tobacco - think of all the diseases/deaths caused over-the-counter smokes -lung cancer, Emphysema, COPD, etc from "regular" cigarettes - etc - which is more chronic and used by the general population than marijuana.

I'm not saying I'm advocating it - I just find some people's arguments against it so biased - when you compare it to the extent of damage - or DEATH caused by regular tobacco use.

[djAdvocate]

Mar 10, 2014 0:47:34 GMT -5 ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ said:

Pot is used in far less abundance than regular tobacco - think of all the diseases/deaths caused over-the-counter smokes -lung cancer, Emphysema, COPD, etc from "regular" cigarettes - etc - which is more chronic and used by the general population than marijuana.

I'm not saying I'm advocating it - I just find some people's arguments against it so biased - when you compare it to the extent of damage - or DEATH caused by regular tobacco use.

tobacco use has negative effects even when used in the same quantity as pot is.

the FDA has found that there is no safe level of use, which is why 2nd hand smoke laws exist.

i can assure you that my only bias is being rational.  there is no RATIONAL reason that pot should be illegal when the legal alternatives do far more harm, and are far more addictive.

[Virgil Showlion]

there is no RATIONAL reason that pot should be illegal when the legal alternatives do far more harm, and are far more addictive

Certainly there is. Social acceptability of prohibition.

Knowing the societal costs of alcohol and tobacco, some segments of the population would ideally prohibit their use. But of course alcohol prohibition failed in the past, and tobacco prohibition (even assuming it was successful) would require a long and costly battle, uprooting established businesses in the process.

By contrast, marijuana is already banned. And depending on which authorities you talk to, that ban is reasonably effective. Hence the segment of the population that would ideally see all three drugs banned has no desire to change that status quo, even if that means marijuana is legally on different footing than booze and tobacco.

Now... I know you swear up and down that pot prohibition hurts more than it helps, and that prohibiting drugs of any kind is immoral and antithetical to freedom, but these are your subjective opinions. They do not define what is rational. More specifically, there exist rational viewpoints that favour drug prohibition. What remains is the issue of consistency: Can "not seeking a ban on alcohol and tobacco" be consistent with "not seeking to end the ban on marijuana"? For the reasons given above, I say 'yes'. Ergo, a consistent, rational platform on which to support the status quo.

I'm not saying that all (or even most) opponents of legal marijuana use this platform, but it does exist.

For the record (to prevent a post eruption from Mt. DJ), I happen to agree with you that marijuana prohibition has passed the point where the costs outweigh the good. But I also know many wise, reasonable individuals who argue persuasively that this isn't the case, and I have no solid means of proving them wrong. Bans are effective with many people. The added risks and hassles and stigma can certainly be enough to tilt the scales in people's minds. The laws provide the state with legal recourse to intercede in people's lives (hopefully for the better). Finally, a ban is a society's official way of saying "this behaviour is not acceptable; do not do it". It mitigates the social pervasiveness of a behaviour, even if only in public.

[swamp]

There are instances of otherwise healthy teens collapsing during athletic events as a result of previously undiagnosed cardiac issues.

I think we should ban sports.

[Virgil Showlion]

Mar 10, 2014 13:14:51 GMT -5 swamp said:

There are instances of otherwise healthy teens collapsing during athletic events as a result of previously undiagnosed cardiac issues.

I think we should ban sports.

I'll tell you what: You procure a peer reviewed article where the researchers conclude that persons with condition X should stay away from exercise, and I'll be sure to pass it along to anyone I know who suffers from condition X.

[swamp]

Mar 10, 2014 13:50:55 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Mar 10, 2014 13:14:51 GMT -5 swamp said:

There are instances of otherwise healthy teens collapsing during athletic events as a result of previously undiagnosed cardiac issues.

I think we should ban sports.

I'll tell you what: You procure a peer reviewed article where the researchers conclude that persons with condition X should stay away from exercise, and I'll be sure to pass it along to anyone I know who suffers from condition X.

why would I do that? 

[Virgil Showlion]

Mar 10, 2014 14:10:04 GMT -5 swamp said:

Mar 10, 2014 13:50:55 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I'll tell you what: You procure a peer reviewed article where the researchers conclude that persons with condition X should stay away from exercise, and I'll be sure to pass it along to anyone I know who suffers from condition X.

why would I do that? 

Because you're decrying the health hazards posed by exercise, and procuring such an article seems to me to be a reasonable standard for supporting your claims.

After all, if the benefit-to-risk profile of exercise is no better than that of toking up, you should have no problem finding doctors who claim exercise isn't worth the risk.

[swamp]

Mar 10, 2014 14:24:34 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Mar 10, 2014 14:10:04 GMT -5 swamp said:

why would I do that? 

Because you're decrying the health hazards posed by exercise, and procuring such an article seems to me to be a reasonable standard for supporting your claims.

After all, if the benefit-to-risk profile of exercise is no better than that of toking up, you should have no problem finding doctors who claim exercise isn't worth the risk.

No, I was being sarcastic.

[djAdvocate]

Mar 10, 2014 13:04:47 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

there is no RATIONAL reason that pot should be illegal when the legal alternatives do far more harm, and are far more addictive

Certainly there is. Social acceptability of prohibition.

the fact that people believe things which are utterly without any evidence puts them at odds with the fact-based universe.  if they derive rational conclusions that are built upon those false claims, i don't see why i should give it any more merit than if they were not using rationality.

[djAdvocate]

Mar 10, 2014 13:04:47 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Knowing the societal costs of alcohol and tobacco, some segments of the population would ideally prohibit their use. But of course alcohol prohibition failed in the past, and tobacco prohibition (even assuming it was successful) would require a long and costly battle, uprooting established businesses in the process.

actually, we are well on our way to rational tobacco prohibition: a prohibition based on the fact that it has no medical value and very high medical risks (let's never mind the parkinsons treatment- that is based on tobacco derivatives not on smoking).

if we were to use that same standard for ALL drugs, many or most would be legal.

[djAdvocate]

Mar 10, 2014 13:04:47 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Now... I know you swear up and down that pot prohibition hurts more than it helps,

given the relatively benign nature of the drug, it is difficult to see any rational excuse for criminalizing it's use.

and that prohibiting drugs of any kind is immoral and antithetical to freedom, but these are your subjective opinions.

that sounded very dismissive.  but i supposed that your position that drug use is immoral is also a "subjective opinion"

if we can get past trivializing morality in a sort of freshman relativistic way, we can see whether or not either moral position survives a universal test.  let's start with yours: that all mind altering substances should be illegal.  the basis for this claim is well understood, at least by me- but let's consider the consequences of it: criminalizing all drug use, no matter how trivial.  you seem to have no problem legislation personal morality, so this is quite consistent with your beliefs.  however, i have no desire to live in a society where personal morality is legislated, and most Americans feel the same way.  perhaps you will have better luck in Canada. 

For the record (to prevent a post eruption from Mt. DJ),

i don't erupt, dude.  i simply repeat the same assertions over and over again.  you might have an emotional reaction to that, but that doesn't mean that i have any presenting the facts.  although i do appreciate having a mountain named after me.

I happen to agree with you that marijuana prohibition has passed the point where the costs outweigh the good. But I also know many wise, reasonable individuals who argue persuasively that this isn't the case, and I have no solid means of proving them wrong. Bans are effective with many people. The added risks and hassles and stigma can certainly be enough to tilt the scales in people's minds. The laws provide the state with legal recourse to intercede in people's lives (hopefully for the better). Finally, a ban is a society's official way of saying "this behaviour is not acceptable; do not do it". It mitigates the social pervasiveness of a behaviour, even if only in public.

yeah, because that worked so well for alcohol, after all.