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.
If they would just open their eyes they would see safer streets in places like Denver! They are so blinded by bias and prejudice they can't even see reality.
Not reflective on anything more than your own words, the assertion that the streets are now safer in Denver based on legalization, undermines the foundation of your overall premise.
The poster claimed that marijuana is not addictive. No one stated specifically physical or emotional addiction. It is for my cousin. No suddenly you're all saying "well it's not the same as this or this"... well perhaps you should have specified sooner. All I know is my cousin is addicted to marijuana, when he tried to stop he suffered withdrawal symptoms, and he cannot bring himself to completely quit. End of story.
Perhaps you should be more careful with your words next time if you want to start picking at mine.
What utter nonsense.
Pot is not addictive. In a very TINY minority, some people get whiny and cranky about giving it up - on the same level as chocolate, coffee and other caffeinated beverages, chewing gum, ice cream, - ANY substance can be misused by people on this level, and this does not make for actual addiction.
Try that with meth. Or heroin. Or opium. Or tobacco. THOSE are addictive. Pot is not, however much your cousin whined about not getting his daily bowl.
Did he have convulsions? No. DT's? No. Did he throw up and get chills and fever? No.
A headache and whining about wanting a toke are NOT withdrawal symptoms.
Pot is not addictive. In a very TINY minority, some people get whiny and cranky about giving it up - on the same level as chocolate, coffee and other caffeinated beverages, chewing gum, ice cream, - ANY substance can be misused by people on this level, and this does not make for actual addiction.
Try that with meth. Or heroin. Or opium. Or tobacco. THOSE are addictive. Pot is not, however much your cousin whined about not getting his daily bowl.
Did he have convulsions? No. DT's? No. Did he throw up and get chills and fever? No.
A headache and whining about wanting a toke are NOT withdrawal symptoms.
Whatever you want to tell yourself.
BTW - anybody who finds they cannot stop eating, drinking, or doing something is addicted to it. Addiction doesn't have to be to hardcore drugs, it can be to anything someone has taken to be routine in their lives, that that person has become dependent on. Someone can become addicted to doing something that doesn't even involve a substance. There are shopping addicts, sex addicts, food addicts. People who just can't stop eating, regardless of what the food contains. Is THIS all "utter nonsense," too?
The word "addiction" has negative connotations for pot users and pro-legalization people because it makes you think of a heroin addict and how they react when they can't get heroin, how aggressive and pathetically desperate they get, and how sick they get. In reality, someone who smokes weed every day, and has for three years, then suddenly stops and experiences headaches, irritability, and cravings IS addicted to it (like my cousin). They are addicted to the feeling it gives them. People who drink coffee every day and suddenly stop and get severe headaches (happened to my mom) ARE addicted to caffeine. These addictions are real. It is not "utter nonsense."
You just don't like what I have to say. You don't like my anecdote. Tough - it's a true story. My cousin is addicted to marijuana. Don't like it, too bad.
Except I never once said we should outlaw weed, so what are you going on about?
ONCE AGAIN for those who cannot read, the poster I responded to claimed that pot is not addictive, I (correctly) said it is.
This is a conversation about the war on pot. You have made repeated posts about the "addictive" quality of pot, implying that it is dangerous because "people struggle to stop using it".
That is simply untrue at any meaningful level.
Repeatedly stating "BUT IT'S ADDICTIVE" when that is not truly the case is just more Chicken Little screeching.
This is a conversation about the war on pot. You have made repeated posts about the "addictive" quality of pot, implying that it is dangerous because "people struggle to stop using it".
That is simply untrue at any meaningful level.
Repeatedly stating "BUT IT'S ADDICTIVE" when that is not truly the case is just more Chicken Little screeching.
You are being disingenuous. At best.
I have not implied any such thing. Someone claimed marijiana is not addictive (and did not specify physically or psychologically), I said it is. I have not once insinuated it is dangerous or should not be legalized. I was simply correcting a wrong statement. However you interpret it is your problem. I had many reputation points for that initial post, and another poster (who seems to be very pro-marijuana) even plainly stated I was correct and even shared multiple articles about it.
The difference between someone like me on the front line and someone like you is I have the opportunity.. always have.. to make a real difference in my neighborhoods...
Sure.. Im staunchly anti drug.. why not.. I see that they destroy everything good about human beings. People that flee life into a pipe are defective damaged individuals. If their life was full and satisfying through service.. religion.. healthy relationships.. healthy living.. satisfaction with one's self,,, they wouldnt need the false sanctuary of a drug
From self worth and motivation.. to being harmful to the body
Im not against proper use of medical marijuana.. except that most of the uses are bogus
Im against recreational marijuana in any public space or any public forum use.. under the influence.. whatever.. I could give a crap what you do behind your closed door in the privacy of your home
People need to stop whining about how everyone gets arrested for pot.. BUNK.. total bunk.. we dont even cite for it anymore... at least not unless the person was a total butttard...
Hot off the press,, try to follow along.. and try to use some evidence instead of what potheads learn on pot sites...
Medical Marijuana: Where's the Evidence?
Sue Hughes
July 06, 2015
Medical Marijuana Laws Don't Encourage Teen Use
World's First Medical Cannabis Registry Launched
AAN: Still Too Early to Green-Light Medical Marijuana
Related Drugs & Diseases
Brain Imaging in Multiple Sclerosis
Multiple Sclerosis
Neuro-Ophthalmologic Manifestations of Multiple Sclerosis
With many US states now having laws in place to facilitate access to medical marijuana for a variety of medical conditions, two new reviews have highlighted the lack of evidence to support its use in most indications.
An editorial also raises questions about the legal implications for doctors prescribing such products.
The reviews, published in the June 23/30 issue of JAMA, note that 23 states and the District of Columbia have enacted laws to allow prescription of medical marijuana for certain medical conditions.
Reviewing the medical literature on medical marijuana, the two papers come to similar conclusions — that some evidence supports the use of marijuana for nausea and vomiting related to chemotherapy, specific pain syndromes, and spasticity from multiple sclerosis. But for most other indications such as hepatitis C, Crohn's disease, Parkinson's disease, or Tourette's syndrome, they found that the evidence supporting its use is of poor quality.
A third paper in the same issue of JAMA highlights the large variability in specific cannabinoids in various medical marijuana products and finds that contents did not conform to what was advertised on the labelling.
In an accompanying editorial, Deepak Cyril D'Souza, MBBS, and Mohini Ranganathan, MD, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, note that for most of the conditions that qualify for medical marijuana use, the evidence fails to meet US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) standards.
They call for government support to conduct high-quality trials. Until such trials are available, they suggest it may be prudent to wait before widely adopting use of marijuana. "Perhaps it is time to place the horse back in front of the cart," they conclude.
Legal implications Unclear
The editorialists point out that for physicians, the legal implications of certifying patients for medical marijuana remain unclear given the differences between the views of state vs federal government.
They emphasize that the prescription, supply, or sale of marijuana is illegal by federal law, and it is not known to what extent a physician who certifies a patient for medical marijuana may be liable for negative outcomes, and whether malpractice insurance will cover any liability.
In one of the review papers, Kevin P. Hill, MD, McLean Hospital, Belmont, Massachusetts, examined 28 randomized clinical trials of cannabinoids in various indications.
He notes that there are two cannabinoids (dronabinol and nabilone), which are FDA approved for nausea and appetite stimulation.
Apart from these two indications, Dr. Hill found that use of marijuana for chronic pain, neuropathic pain, and spasticity due to multiple sclerosis is supported by high-quality evidence.
Six trials that included 325 patients examined chronic pain, 6 trials that included 396 patients investigated neuropathic pain, and 12 trials that included 1600 patients focused on multiple sclerosis. Several of these trials had positive results, suggesting that marijuana or cannabinoids may be efficacious for these indications.
The other review paper, by a team led by Penny F. Whiting, PhD, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom, evaluated 79 trials of cannabinoids in a total of 6462 participants. Indications included nausea and vomiting due to chemotherapy, appetite stimulation in HIV/AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity due to multiple sclerosis or paraplegia, depression, anxiety disorder, sleep disorder, psychosis, glaucoma, or Tourette's syndrome.
There was better evidence of efficacy in nausea and vomiting (with 47% of patients showing a complete response vs 20% placebo in 3 trials), pain (with 37% of patients reporting a reduction vs 31% on placebo in 8 trials), and spasticity (with an average reduction in the Ashworth spasticity scale of –0.36 in 7 trials).
Both reviews report an increased risk for short-term adverse effects, including dizziness, dry mouth, nausea, fatigue, somnolence, euphoria, vomiting, disorientation, drowsiness, confusion, loss of balance, hallucination, addiction, and worsening of psychiatric illnesses, such as anxiety and mood disorders.
(Editors note---- that sounds like fun to go through... not)
Inaccurate Labeling
For the dosing paper, a team led by Ryan Vandrey, PhD, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland, report that of 75 products purchased (47 different brands), 17% were accurately labeled, 23% were underlabeled, and 60% were overlabeled with respect to tetrahydrocannabinol content.
"Edible cannabis products from 3 major metropolitan areas, though unregulated, failed to meet basic label accuracy standards for pharmaceuticals," the authors write. "Because medical cannabis is recommended for specific health conditions, regulation and quality assurance are needed," they conclude.
In their editorial, Dr D'Souza and Dr Ranganathan note inconsistencies in how medical conditions are qualified for medical marijuana use within a state and between states. For example, in Connecticut, psoriasis and sickle cell disease but not Tourette's syndrome qualify, even though the supporting evidence for all three conditions is uniformly of very low quality. Similarly, post-traumatic stress disorder is approved as a qualifying condition in some, but not all, US states.
They also point out that marijuana is a complex of more than 400 compounds, including up to 70 cannabinoids that have individual or interactive effects, and that the composition of cannabis preparations can vary substantially.
The editorialists advise that because of the risk for psychosis with marijuana, there needs to be explicit contraindications for use in patients with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or substance dependence, along with measures to minimize their access to it. They suggest that follow-up programs should be introduced to monitor long-term outcomes in patients taking medical marijuana.
(Editors note.. great.. make whacky people more whacky..just what we need)
Given that cannabinoid exposure during critical periods of brain development is associated with long-lasting changes in behavior and cognition, they say careful consideration is needed to determine at what age exposure to medical marijuana is justifiable.
(Editors note... did you note "LONG LASTING" sparky?.. as in forever.. stink weed isnt harmless.. no drug is)
JAMA. 2015;313:2474-2483, 2456-2473, 2491-2493, 2431-2432. Hill review paper Whiting review paper Dose study Editorial
The bolded parts of your post actually make your argument even more ridiculous.
Marijuana is addictive in the same way that everything is addictive to people with addictive personalities. There are people addicted to video games, to sex, to jumping out of airplanes and there are even people addicted to pain. That does not mean that it is an addictive substance in and of itself in the way that heroin or meth or alcohol are, and that is an important distinction.
The best thing about this news article is look at desperate they are becoming! This old news too. They started this non sense back in February. Some places just caved others have not.
Note they also did not loose any court cases. Some owners caved because their business model such as the bonding company. They don't make the kind of cash off these clients (>5%) to support litigation. They get scared and run.
Landlord and accountant did too. Sound familiar? It was the last grasps of the failure we call the Radical (religious) right and bush administration. Where the DEA sent letters to landlords etc. By then though it was too late though. If I am not mistaken less than a third would try and evict their tenant. Even less so did the Feds actually go after anyone even after performing the raids.
And good luck getting a ignorant enough jury to find a guilty verdict. A judge might still try to bar the defendants from claiming it was legal in their state, but the jury can still find the defendants not guilty. Which is what's already been occurring.
*** Now for those on this board saying the Fed are gonna clamp down and win this. Not so. So now I am going to spank you publicly for your ignorance.
If history teaches us one thing the feds failed miserably under AG ******** President Bush. California basically started their dispensary model under that administration back in 2003. They raided and they raided but as soon as one came down two more popped up. The state gave almost no help by the time Bush was out. And by the time he left three things had occurred:
1) There was 2k plus dispensaries despite a continuous federal clamp down. They rose in numbers while the Federal Government kept throwing money at stopping them. Rendering them impotent to your prohibition cause.
2) The DEA made it priority to only go after pot shops that were clearly either cartel/gang affiliated (there were plenty) or involved in the moving of Cannabis out of the state. Making it an easier to prosecute federal crime. I do agree with this policy too.
3) California's favorite cash crop grew to average $3 billion to $7 Billion during those 8 years.
Keep in mind this was just one state! A state that simply had med card system with no tourists allowed policy. They are not even legal yet. And in 2014 California pot business is estimated worth $14 billion. In a defacto legal state. Not to mention there are now 4 legal states plus the District of Columbia our capital. For total of Five.
So your whole point is we will get some Radical Right President with at least a Senate Majority and whoosh all the legal states are going to go away. Good luck with that. Being 4 states are "legal" and by the time 2016 comes around your looking at the following possible legal states Ohio, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, Arizona, Vermont, Hawaii, Missouri, and of course California. for a total of 9 more states. If just 5 pass legalization that makes one/fifth of country that defies federal law.
So let these relics of Regan administration like Safe Streets Chairman James Wootton, do so. I relish in the fact that thanks to people like me their way of life and traditions are dying. Being defeated and picked apart year after year. Issue after issue. They have made us the enemy and had a huge lead in public opinion over the years and despite all of this we are winning. More people are waking up.
Then again to most people this issue isn't over pot it's about control.
Either it's the Progressives saying we cannot smoke cigarettes, drink sugary sodas or have a right to own guns. Or the Radical (religious) right claiming we cannot smoke pot, allow queers to get married, or worried some woman who they don't even know has an abortion or not. There is a long standing mass mental illness in this country with frustrated people who lead petty lives and the W***es out in Washington cater to them because they whine the loudest. As polls and change dictate we just want them all to S--T--F-U!
Love your last 2 statements!
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.
