Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thanks, I did an oops here. What I meant to say is schedule 1 drugs are natural plants *or* something that could be created by many from natural plants. While we couldn't grow heroin plants, we could grow poppies from which heroin is made.
Schedule 1 drugs:
Drugs / Substances listed in DEA Schedule I include:
Heroin (diacetylmorphine)
LSD (Lysergic acid diethylamide)
Marijuana (cannabis, THC)
Mescaline (Peyote)
MDMA (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine or “ecstasy”)
GHB (gamma-hydroxybutyric acid)
Ecstasy (MDMA or 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine)
Psilocybin
Methaqualone (Quaalude)
Khat (Cathinone)
Bath Salts (3,4-methylenedioxypyrovalerone or MDPV)
Thanks, I did an oops here. What I meant to say is schedule 1 drugs are natural plants *or* something that could be created by many from natural plants. While we couldn't grow heroin plants, we could grow poppies from which heroin is made.
Schedule 1 drugs are classified tldue the risk of abuse and because the have no maficinal properties. No accepted medical use and high potential for abuse, iirc.
While LSD is supposed to be synthesized form of errgot, a natural fungus, peyote is mescaline, heroin is a refined product from opium and the sap of poppies doesn't do much on its own, it take a LOT of work and chemistry to get mdma from the oil of sassafras trees.
A plant being natural has very little to do with its classification.
About a decade ago, a lawyer for cannabis legalization filed a Freedom of Information request and found out most Dems and most Reps in Congress were being paid $100K-$500K to not do anything that would harm the pill companies, and what would harm them most is cannabis legalization.
Schedule 1 just means a natural plant that can't be patented so pill companies want to keep these illegal. It has nothing to do with health danger.
The claim that it causes mental illness is false. The US Dispensatory of 1851 recommended cannabis as a good treatment for all mental health issues. That's in Licit & Illicit Drugs, Consumers Union book from early '70s x-textbook for those planning to work in a pharmacy.
The claim that it harms youths is more lies. Cannabis users tend to be anti-war, so the laws are punishment for that, since they couldn't arrest *peaceful* war protesters. That's how The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 came about, with 20 years in prison for cannabis possession.
One study said if pregnant woman smoke cannabis, there babies are 45% more likely to be alive at age 2, compared to women who don't use any drug. My theory: it may provide protection from all those shots forced on babies before age 1.
The health benefits of cannabis are mostly known to a few. Weeddepot.com shows about 65 conditions known to be treated by smoked cannabis and even tells you which of the 1,700+ strains are most likely to work for the listed conditions. Possible side effects are listed as well. Smoking it does not cause lung cancer or breathing problems. Cannabis oil is better though as it treats hundreds of conditions, about 250 proven and another 300+ conditions may be helped. Best wishes, all.
(QUOTE=Robino1;48899374]Congress is who we need to lobby to get cannabis of the drug schedule. The DEA are only enforcers of the law.
Congress gave the DEA the job of enforcing such laws.
[/quote]
Anyone who smokes cannabis is just playing with fire. Like tobacco leaves, combusted marijuana contains hundreds of hydrocarbon chemicals. Far better to use a vaporizer or ingest edibles.
And anyone who thinks that a substance with multiple biologically active compounds in it has NO side effects is just living in la la land. Like all biologically active chemicals, whether THC/CBD/terpenes is good for you personally depends on the symptom being relieved versus the consequences. It doesn't work by magic - it works because it does things chemically in the body - binding to receptors etc.
As for marijuana smoking not causing breathing problems - multiple studies have show it is a lung irritant. But common sense would tell you that. As for it not causing lung cancer - the jury is still out. There have been a number of contradictory studies. - come back in 10 years where the epidemiological data will be clear.
Anyone who smokes cannabis is just playing with fire. Like tobacco leaves, combusted marijuana contains hundreds of hydrocarbon chemicals. Far better to use a vaporizer or ingest edibles.
And anyone who thinks that a substance with multiple biologically active compounds in it has NO side effects is just living in la la land. Like all biologically active chemicals, whether THC/CBD/terpenes is good for you personally depends on the symptom being relieved versus the consequences. It doesn't work by magic - it works because it does things chemically in the body - binding to receptors etc.
As for marijuana smoking not causing breathing problems - multiple studies have show it is a lung irritant. But common sense would tell you that. As for it not causing lung cancer - the jury is still out. There have been a number of contradictory studies. - come back in 10 years where the epidemiological data will be clear.[/quote]
Why 10 years? People have been getting stoned daily since the late 1960's. The data should be very clear by now.
Anyone who smokes cannabis is just playing with fire. Like tobacco leaves, combusted marijuana contains hundreds of hydrocarbon chemicals. Far better to use a vaporizer or ingest edibles.
And anyone who thinks that a substance with multiple biologically active compounds in it has NO side effects is just living in la la land. Like all biologically active chemicals, whether THC/CBD/terpenes is good for you personally depends on the symptom being relieved versus the consequences. It doesn't work by magic - it works because it does things chemically in the body - binding to receptors etc.
As for marijuana smoking not causing breathing problems - multiple studies have show it is a lung irritant. But common sense would tell you that. As for it not causing lung cancer - the jury is still out. There have been a number of contradictory studies. - come back in 10 years where the epidemiological data will be clear.
Why 10 years? People have been getting stoned daily since the late 1960's. The data should be very clear by now.
Other countries, especially Israel, have been doing studies for years and recognize cannabis as a medicine.
As you say, people have been using cannabis for as long as time and still no deaths as a direct result of cannabis, that's pretty telling.
It's a shame that there is such a disconnect here in the USA where we have more and more evidence that the plant is less dangerous than booze, has proven medical benefits, science is behind the plant yet the DEA is the one that keeps it on a list with no value and more dangerous than Meth.
As you say, people have been using cannabis for as long as time and still no deaths as a direct result of cannabis, that's pretty telling.
It's a shame that there is such a disconnect here in the USA where we have more and more evidence that the plant is less dangerous than booze, has proven medical benefits, science is behind the plant yet the DEA is the one that keeps it on a list with no value and more dangerous than Meth.
Obama knew this. But he just wasn't the right guy to get the ball rolling. The analogy is only Nixon, who was the most anti-communist politician throughout his career, could open the door to China. George McGovern couldn't have done it.
Trump couldn't care less about this issue. But unfortunately, he made Jeff Hayseed Sessions the AG because Hayseed was one of his big supporters from the beginning. And I doubt Hillary Clinton would have made this an issue either.
The time is coming. Most people under 65 have smoked pot or had friends who smoked pot back in the day. When Bill Clinton lied and said he tried it but didn't inhale, he said that for a reason. In 1992 the vast majority of voters had never smoked pot, and were anti-pot.
Anyone who smokes cannabis is just playing with fire. Like tobacco leaves, combusted marijuana contains hundreds of hydrocarbon chemicals. Far better to use a vaporizer or ingest edibles.
I agree that using a vaporizer is better to use than burning. While combustion delivers the THC as fast as vaping, smoke from combustion also includes ash particles and some fine organic dust particles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bg7
And anyone who thinks that a substance with multiple biologically active compounds in it has NO side effects is just living in la la land. Like all biologically active chemicals, whether THC/CBD/terpenes is good for you personally depends on the symptom being relieved versus the consequences. It doesn't work by magic - it works because it does things chemically in the body - binding to receptors etc.
I don't think too many people don't consider there are some side effects. Obviously, getting a high feeling is a side effect. The benefits vs risks applies to any kind of medication, including over-the-counter meds, vitamins, and various herbal supplements. In most cases, I think it's fair to say the benefits of cannabis outweigh the risks. Even if cannabis amounted to nothing more than a placebo, if a person is helped from it, then that would be a factor to take into consideration. There are some exceptions for some people though. To use cannabis or not, should be a personal choice, especially if a PCP agrees that it might be helpful.
In addition to vaping or ingesting edibles, there are also salves, lotions, oils, etc., which are not ingested but are used as topicals applied to the skin. Even topicals with high THC and low CBD, topicals don't get a person high but are pretty effective at reducing muscular pain or pain due to arthritis.
Why 10 years? People have been getting stoned daily since the late 1960's. The data should be very clear by now.
Longer than that. It's present popularity was certainly given a modern boost in the sixties, but its been in use around the world for perhaps 12,000 years, possibly longer. Although not as old, an ancient tomb in China was discovered about 3 years ago that showed marijuana plants had been arranged across the body of a middle-aged man about 2400 to 2800 years ago. Burned cannabis seeds have been found in Siberia dating back to about 3000 BCE, which would mean about 5000 years ago. Ancient Cannabis 'Burial Shroud' Discovered in Desert Oasis https://www.livescience.com/48337-ma...led-world.html
Why 10 years? People have been getting stoned daily since the late 1960's. The data should be very clear by now.[/quote]
Because it requires large numbers of marijuana-only smoking among multiple population demographics. They are enough confounding variables already. Legalization in a subset of states has led to increased use which should provide the numbers. Plus it needs enough studies to do a meta-analysis.
Not that there isn't already some suggestion in the scientific literature.
Immuno-pathological studies of marijuana smokers who died of certain types of lung cancer suggests but is not at a level of proof (or disproof). Epidemiological data is not large enough yet to know.
People actually have to do the studies. Chronic vs occasional, pure combusted vs. mixed, there are many considerations. The largest of which is that the studies haven't been done in in large scale. Now, the opportunity has arisen.
The link between cigarette smoking and multiple different types of cancers, even though tobacco had been consumed for a few centuries, was not shown until researchers suspected there was an issue and started doing the studies. Even then, it took time to show. You don't make scientific conclusions just by anecdote.
Last edited by bg7; 08-21-2017 at 02:09 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
