Marijuana Legalization/Decriminalization Efforts

[arus2001]

It should. If you are a humanist—as you claimed to be with a prior statement, regarding individuals letting others burn themselves out—and if you are supportive of modern medical science—as you also claimed to be, given your remark about wishing for its improvement—you would be incredibly hard-pressed to find sufficient and verifiable reason to maintain the illegal classification of marijuana.

If you dislike it due to your personal opinion, willfully disregard the medical advantages, ignore the racist reasoning behind its enactment, and are comfortable living with all of those things, so be it. I would hope, however, that you would not falsely argue in favor of humanism and science in relation to it in the future. You are fueled by personal anecdotes and misinformation, and nothing more.

Is it hard to grasp that I don't believe recreational use is the "right hands" for the stuff? We went over this way back when, as part of the ideal improvement of delivery or cure to get past the smoking it phase and at the very least eliminate the obvious outer social effects of smelling like a skunk and/or using it in public. I'm cool with medical distribution if it's a legitimate help, not because someone just wants to get high and convinces a doctor they need it--which fucking happens. So, call it a shade of legality if it makes you feel better. Otherwise, you may as well be arguing all controlled substances should be free reign, too, because the counter seems to be it's all good if used responsibly. Unfortunately, not everyone does.

[Plow]

Is it hard to grasp that I don't believe recreational use is the "right hands" for the stuff? We went over this way back when, as part of the ideal improvement of delivery or cure to get past the smoking it phase and at the very least eliminate the obvious outer social effects of smelling like a skunk and/or using it in public. I'm cool with medical distribution if it's a legitimate help, not because someone just wants to get high and convinces a doctor they need it--which fucking happens. So, call it a shade of legality if it makes you feel better. Otherwise, you may as well be arguing all controlled substances should be free reign, too, because the counter seems to be it's all good if used responsibly. Unfortunately, not everyone does.

You realize even the places that have now made it full on legal and are giving it the same treatment as alcohol still prohibit it in public, right?

You also realize there's like 1 CITY (not state) in the entire U.S. that actually allows public use of alcohol, right?

I don't think you're going to see stadiums applying for pot licenses anytime soon.

If bars want to, though, more power to em.


Oh, and one other thing you should know:

Legalization of medical in Colorado has lead to the past couple of years providing more, and more effective, advances in non-smoking marijuana consumption than literally the entire history of man prior.

[arus2001]

Oh, and one other thing you should know:

Legalization of medical in Colorado has lead to the past couple of years providing more, and more effective, advances in non-smoking marijuana consumption than literally the entire history of man prior.

Which is cool with me.

[Jefe]

Fortunately, it is—hence the increased acceptance of marijuana being used for medicinal purposes, and its growing recommendation over drastically more harmful pharmaceuticals.

Who are these institutions that according to you would rather recommend marijuana over more harmful pharmaceuticals? Is that the only option, 'harmful pharmaceuticals'? There are less ‘harmful pharmaceuticals’ than marijuana. The example I gave you (probably the easiest to obtain a card): if a person suffers from insomnia they can acquire over-the-counter medicine such as zzzquil to help them sleep. Sure, they may or may not suffer from dry mouth and diarrhea. However, to imply there’s no other option and just ‘more harmful pharmaceuticals’ is dishonest. I would argue that the APA (American Psychological Association) and NIH (National Institutes of Health) disagree with your statement.

Marijuana addiction a growing risk as society grows more tolerant

May 2011, Vol 42, No. 5

Print version: page 13
Many Americans are misinformed about marijuana, said Dr. Nora D. Volkow (credit: Lloyd Wolf)

More people support marijuana use, but they are frequently misinformed about the drug’s dangers and its addictive nature, said Nora D. Volkow, MD, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse. She spoke at a March 8 congressional briefing in Washington, D.C.

Her talk, part of the “Friends of NIDA” series co-sponsored by APA, gave congressional aides and policymakers the latest research findings on marijuana’s harms and benefits. One-third of Americans have tried marijuana at least once, Volkow said, making it the most commonly used illegal drug in the United States — and a prime target for research. NIDA estimates that about 9 percent of frequent marijuana users are dependent on the drug.

“People take marijuana for the same reason they take other drugs: They make you feel good,” Volkow said.

That good feeling is tied to the dopamine-based reward system in the brain’s nucleus accumbens region. Compounds in marijuana bind to the brain’s cannabinoid receptors, triggering dopamine release and resulting in a high. Long-term use of marijuana not only increases the amount of the drug that users need to reach the same high, it also inhibits the brain’s natural cannabinoids. As a result, over time users feel dysphoric and “off” if they haven’t recently taken marijuana. Marijuana also targets and interferes with cannabinoid receptors in areas of the brain crucial to a number of cognitive functions, especially the cerebellum (movement), hippocampus (memory) and amygdala (emotional control).

Interfering with those cognitive processes is particularly dangerous for young people’s developing brains, Volkow said, and there’s evidence to suggest using marijuana at an early age can have lifetime consequences. Twin studies show that people exposed to marijuana as young teens are more likely to become dependent on other drugs, such as cocaine and painkillers.

Volkow said the pro-marijuana lobby’s work to legalize marijuana and the growing national support for using the drug for medicinal purposes are dangerous because many teenagers now view it as a “safe” drug, despite the fact that marijuana’s health effects aren’t well-known. A recent NIDA report shows that for the first time since the late 1970s, more 12th-graders are smoking marijuana than cigarettes — and marijuana is much stronger today than it was back then, Volkow said. Fellow panelist Alan Budney, PhD, a clinical psychologist who studies addiction at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, said that it’s time to start rigorously developing an anti-marijuana campaign. Meanwhile, few studies have explored whether behavioral therapies work for marijuana addiction. Budney’s lab is developing a “contingency management” therapy that gives marijuana users incentives to quit. They’ve had success in some populations, he said, but the treatment needs to be culturally translated for more diverse populations.

source

If you truly supported scientific advances, and wisely-made decisions based on fact-gathering, you would support this. As I explained to you in that thread from 2009, prohibition is not beneficial. You're concerned with a growing crime rate, but every state that still practices alcohol prohibition has the highest percentage of related crimes and deaths (in relation to their total population), whereas those that don't are notably safer.

Further, if you believed that science should triumph over all, you would also analyze the situation adequately, discovering that your claims about addiction are untrue (as THC is not an addictive substance, unlike nicotine and alcohol), that the "gateway drug" mentality has also been dis-proven, and that the majority of incarcerated users do not go on to a life of crime, not to mention any harder crimes at all. Even those that do cannot have their cases immediately blamed on marijuana, as the correlation between initial incarceration leading to a greater likelihood of future crimes applies across the board.

Well, your first sentence is an irrelevant conclusion. To address your claim, 'THC is not addictive" but apparently something is. Notice it talks about the beneficial effects on patients with chronic pains and the such. Unlike you, I'm not championing one side:

Spoiler: show

Medicine or menace?

Psychologists' research can inform the growing debate over legalizing marijuana.

By Christopher Munsey

Monitor Staff

June 2010, Vol 41, No. 6

Print version: page 50
Medical marijuana

As efforts to make marijuana legal for medicinal use gain momentum, psychologists are studying the effects of the nation’s most popular illicit drug — and several are sounding notes of caution.

As researchers, psychologists are exploring the risks of dependence, developing more effective interventions for marijuana users who want to quit, studying withdrawal and evaluating medicinal uses of marijuana’s main active chemical, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).

That research is more relevant than ever: 14 states have already legalized marijuana for medical purposes, with voters in nine of those states approving medical marijuana by ballot initiative. A dozen more states are considering legislation this year to make marijuana available for medical use.

In California, the epicenter of what some describe as de facto legalization, voters will decide in November on whether marijuana’s recreational use should be legalized, taxed and regulated.

Meanwhile, public opinion polls continue to show growing acceptance for legalizing marijuana for personal use. An October Gallup poll found that 44 percent of adults favored legalizing marijuana, a group that’s grown between 1 percent and 2 percent every year since 2000. In six Western states, most poll respondents favored outright legalization.

Support for medicinal uses for marijuana is even stronger: According to a January ABC News/Washington Post poll, 81 percent of Americans would allow physicians to prescribe marijuana for their patients, up from 69 percent in 1997.

But as the nation debates legalization, the public should know that about 10 percent of users go on to develop marijuana dependence, says Barbara Mason, PhD, co-director of the Pearson Center for Alcoholism and Addiction Research at the Scripps Research Institute in San Diego.

“Ninety percent of individuals will be able to use it in a way they find nonproblematic in terms of dependence but 10 percent will run the risk of developing dependence, and for that, effective treatments should be available,” says Mason, the principal investigator for a National Institute on Drug Abuse-funded study of the neurobiological effects of marijuana use.

A secondary analysis of the 2005 National Survey on Drug Use and Health found that among people who had used heroin in the past year, 45.4 percent met the criteria for dependence. Among those who had smoked cigarettes in the past year, 35.3 percent were dependent on nicotine, and 20.4 percent of past-year cocaine users were dependent. The analysis, included in Chapter 22 of “Psychiatry Third Edition, Volume 1” (Wiley, 2008) found that 9.7 percent of people who used cannabis met criteria for dependence. Among past-year alcohol users, 4.9 percent met criteria for dependence.

While the percentage of American users who become dependent on marijuana wouldn’t change after legalization, the absolute numbers probably would, says Columbia University neuroscience professor and marijuana researcher Margaret Haney, PhD. “Clearly, the more available something is, the more likely people will try it, and therefore a higher number will go on to develop problems with it,” she says.

But some addiction researchers, including renowned researcher G. Alan Marlatt, PhD, aren’t troubled by the trend toward legalization. In his view, many marijuana users who want to quit or cut back avoid treatment for fear of criminal repercussions.

“If it’s decriminalized ... that’s going to open the door for more people to seek help,” says Marlatt, who directs the University of Washington’s Addictive Behaviors Research Center.

As society moves toward greater acceptance of marijuana, psychologists should make sure their research results are available to people who are considering using it, particularly adolescents and young adults, says Mason. They also need to develop more effective interventions for dependent users who want to stop.

“When an individual makes that decision that they want to quit, I want to meet them with the best possible strategy,” she says.
Use and abuse on the rise

About 6 percent of Americans age 12 and older have used marijuana in the past month, according to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s 2008 National Survey on Drug Use and Health — a trend that’s held steady for the last seven years. However, the National Institute on Drug Abuse “Monitoring the Future” survey found that past-month marijuana use among high school seniors edged slightly upward over the past three years to 20.6 percent in 2009, reversing a decade-long downward trend. Although it’s a concerning trend, it’s a far cry from the peak of 37 percent in 1978. NIDA officials think use might continue to increase given the increasing percentage of high school seniors surveyed who don’t view regular marijuana use as risky.

Marijuana use is, however, risky for some: About 4.2 million people are dependent on or abuse marijuana, almost twice the number of prescription drug abusers and three times the number of cocaine abusers, says Joseph Gfroerer, director of SAMHSA’s Division of Population Surveys.

Complicating the picture is the fact that marijuana’s main psychoactive component, THC, has FDA-approved medicinal uses in a non-smoked form. People being treated for HIV smoke marijuana to deal with the nausea, anorexia, stomach upset and anxiety associated with the disease and antiretroviral therapy. Cancer patients smoke it to relieve the side effects of chemotherapy. By relieving nausea and boosting appetite, marijuana can help patients in both groups avoid severe weight loss.

New research has found more potential uses for the drug. Five clinical trials funded by the University of California’s Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research revealed that marijuana significantly decreases neuropathic pain — notoriously difficult-to-treat chronic discomfort, which can result from injuries, side effects of anti-HIV drugs and diabetes, says Igor Grant, MD, executive vice chair of the department of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego, School of Medicine.

One study funded by the center and published in the April 2008 Journal of Pain (Vol. 9, No. 6) found that both low-dose cannabis cigarettes (3.5 percent THC) and high-dose (7 percent THC) effectively reduced neuropathic pain from a variety of causes. According to NIDA, the average THC content of marijuana confiscated from the U.S. market was about 10 percent last year.

Two clinical trials examining the analgesic effects of THC on neuropathic pain will be completed by 2011, Grant says.

Overall, several of the studies showed that smoked marijuana reduced patient pain by more than 30 percent. That finding is important because in pain research, reducing pain by at least 30 percent is associated with “meaningful improvement in quality of life” for people dealing with chronic pain, according to a report Grant presented to the California Legislature in January.

Nationwide, 5 percent to 10 percent of Americans suffer some form of neuropathic pain, says Grant, so millions of people need more relief than they’re currently receiving. “This pain doesn’t respond as well to traditional pain medication, the opioid-type drugs, so what our studies showed is that cannabis has benefits with this kind of pain over and above the standard treatments patients were already receiving,” says Grant.

Center-sponsored research also found that cannabis side effects were mild, not any worse than with other medications and that they ceased once a participant stopped using marijuana. A separate, as-yet-unpublished study funded by the University of California center found that cannabis reduced muscle spasticity and pain intensity in people with multiple sclerosis beyond the relief available through conventional medication, Grant says.
Investigating medical benefits without smoking

For all of the debate over the legalization of marijuana and the drug’s possible medicinal uses, not enough is being done to study the possible benefits of the drug in its nonsmoked forms, says Haney.

In her research, Haney led a study comparing the relief offered by smoked marijuana with dronabinol, an oral form of THC, an FDA-approved treatment for nausea and disease-related weight loss.

In the study, a group of HIV patients who regularly smoked marijuana were given different concentrations of oral THC and smoked marijuana, or a placebo form of either drug. The researchers evaluated the effects THC had on diet, mood, cognitive performance and sleep.

Her volunteers were all taking at least two antiretroviral medications, and a physician was managing their HIV.

When taken at doses eight times stronger than the current recommended dose, dronabinol achieved the same effects as smoked marijuana, Haney says. Participants ate more often, gained an average of almost one pound in four days and experienced less anxiety on both forms of the drug as compared with a placebo, according to results published in the August 2007 Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (Vol. 45, No. 5).

“What we found is that both oral THC and smoked marijuana work very nicely, they both increased appetite, and both were very well tolerated and had few side effects,” she says. The results suggest that oral forms of THC, and a new form of delivery through a botanically derived oral spray called Sativex that combines cannabidiol and THC may have many as-yet-unexplored medicinal uses, Haney says.

In her view, the state-by-state drive to legalize medical marijuana and promote its smoked form as the first choice for medical needs has diverted attention from finding better ways to use synthetic THC and nonsmoked marijuana — delivery methods that don’t expose a patient to the harmful effects of smoking.

“From a scientist’s perspective, it’s been very frustrating that there hasn’t been more science behind these [legalization] policies …. There’s an awful lot of anecdote driving these policy changes,” she says.
Living dependent

For all of marijuana’s possible medical benefits, it’s an addictive drug for some people who try it, researchers say. Mason is looking at whether a nonaddictive, neuromodulating medication called gabapentin, prescribed for epilepsy and for some forms of neuropathic pain, can help people get through the initial withdrawal and avoid relapse. Results so far are promising, with less marijuana use and decreased withdrawal severity among a pilot study of 25 daily marijuana users, compared with 25 who received a placebo, she says. Both groups received behavioral therapy during treatment, but the users who took gabapentin had less severe withdrawal symptoms and were more successful at avoiding relapse longer. That’s important because finding a way to ease withdrawal symptoms and decrease relapse, while starting behavioral therapy could boost the percentage of people staying abstinent longterm, Mason says.

“There are a lot of individuals, perhaps leading lives of quiet desperation, who are really engaged in the marijuana culture and can’t find their way out of it,” Mason says.

A second study, with 150 participants given either gabapentin or a placebo, is now under way, she says.

Meanwhile, psychologists have also studied the life experiences of long-term, heavy marijuana users compared with people who briefly smoked marijuana — less than 50 times in adolescence and early adulthood. A case-control study of 108 long-term heavy cannabis users published in 2003 in Psychological Medicine (Vol. 33, No. 8) found that when compared with people who smoked marijuana briefly, matched by age and similar family backgrounds, heavy users reported lower income and lower educational achievement.

Heavy users — who reported smoking marijuana an average of 18,000 times in their lives — also rated their own quality of life much more negatively than study participants who used marijuana for only a short period of time and stopped. They had lower ratings across 10 measures, including quality of diet, overall satisfaction with self and life, and general happiness.

For users who become dependent, stopping brings a constellation of withdrawal symptoms that may lead to relapse, says Alan Budney, PhD, of the Center for Addiction Research at the University of Arkansas College of Medicine.

“In controlled outpatient studies, we observe increased irritability and anger,” says Budney. “We observe sleep difficulties, and many [people] start to report strange or unusual dreaming. Restlessness, nervousness and decreased appetite are also frequently reported.”

Inpatient withdrawal research by Haney supports Budney’s observations. Haney’s team has regular users smoke marijuana under controlled conditions. When they’re switched to marijuana free of THC (see sidebar on page 53), they experience irritability, restlessness, anxiety, sleep disturbances and changes in appetite, with food intake dropping by as much as 1,000 calories a day.

Those effects were reversed when oral THC was administered or marijuana smoking was resumed, demonstrating the pharmacologic specificity of THC, according to a study published in 2004 in Neuropsychopharmacology (Vol. 29, No. 1).

“Once you do become dependent, it’s difficult to stop,” Haney says. “People who are seeking treatment relapse at rates as high as they are for cocaine, heroin and alcohol.”

Treating marijuana dependence is especially difficult when users don’t believe they have a problem, says Gregory Brigham, PhD, a clinical psychologist at Maryhaven, a substance abuse and mental health treatment center in Columbus, Ohio.

Marijuana users often see it as fun and a key ingredient to an entire subculture, Brigham says. “With the relatively mild intoxication they experience, they’re not alarmed by the consequences of being under the influence. It’s difficult for them to make a connection between the problems in their life and the use of marijuana, and that’s different from other drugs,” he says.
Helping users quit

Despite these challenges, psychologists and other researchers have found that three types of interventions help people quit marijuana. According to a 2007 study in Addictive Behaviors (Vol. 32, No. 6), when used together, these three interventions can result in an abstinence rate of about 27 percent, as measured at 14 months from treatment:

Motivational enhancement therapy. This approach uses motivational interviewing to get a person to consider the rewards and drawbacks of marijuana use. It focuses on helping clients acknowledge how marijuana use has affected their work, school and family life. The goal is to help users see how marijuana use might conflict with their goals — such as completing college or applying for a job that requires drug testing. That realization helps many clients develop motivation to change.

Cognitive behavioral therapy. Following one to four sessions of motivational interviewing, if a client decides to quit, a therapist can help him or her develop skills to stay marijuana-free. For example, clients role-play situations where friends offer them marijuana. In a typical scenario, a friend invites them to get high. Combining a firm “no” with an explanation of “I’m not smoking pot anymore,” the client proposes an alternative activity that doesn’t involve smoking pot. The therapy includes relaxation techniques for falling asleep without using marijuana, as well as steps to alleviate depressed moods.

Contingency management. Adapted from techniques developed for people who abuse cocaine and other drugs, this intervention sets a client on a schedule of earning vouchers with a predetermined cash value that escalates in value, if urinalysis indicates abstinence, during a 14-week monitoring period. Contingency management provides a structure to abstain from marijuana through urine monitoring and, through the vouchers, an incentive to stay abstinent. One 2006 study found that combining an abstinence-based voucher program with cognitive behavioral therapy resulted in 37 percent abstinence at one year (Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 74, No. 2).

Looking to the future, even better interventions may come from boosting people’s feelings of self-efficacy, says researcher Ronald Kadden, PhD, of the University of Connecticut Health Center. Previous research has found that marijuana users who reported significant improvements in feelings of self-efficacy while using coping skills learned to curtail cravings for marijuana stayed abstinent longer, says Kadden. To capitalize on this finding, Kadden is leading a NIDA-funded study to boost marijuana-dependent participants’ self-efficacy using a more intense regimen of daily homework assignments.

“If we can enhance that in people, maybe we’ll have better outcomes,” he says.

Another area that needs further study is whether marijuana users whose cognitive abilities have been impaired by smoking large amounts daily can benefit from cognitive behavioral therapy delivered in shorter and more frequent sessions, says Karen Bolla, PhD, director of neuropsychology at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center in Baltimore.
The potential costs of legalization

Kadden’s experiences working with people who are dependent on marijuana convinces him that legalization isn’t a wise course to follow.

“We’ve got alcohol, and we’re stuck with it. We do marijuana, and it’s going to be another Pandora’s box,” he says.

A psychologist with very strong opinions on whether legalization is a wise course is A. Thomas McLellan, PhD, deputy director for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. As McLellan sees it, making marijuana more available will lead to more use, and more use will lead to greater dependence.

“Are you willing to say, ‘Let’s expand use, let’s add another intoxicant into the public?’ I don’t like the odds,” he says.

While noting that the cannabinoids found within marijuana show medicinal promise and will eventually be developed as a new class of pain reliever, smoked marijuana is not the best way to deliver those medical benefits, he says.

“Put it this way: We’ve got record unemployment, two wars, we have a bank collapse, a housing catastrophe. Oh, I know, let’s add marijuana, let’s add another intoxicant — that ought to fix things,” McLellan says.

source

A Study of how marijuana affects the brain.

Clearly marijuana is not something inoffensive like a bouquet of roses. Kohan, do you believe Nixon's ideologies/invisible hand/ghost still manage to somehow manipulate the findings/research of: American Psychological Association, National Institute of Drug Abuse, and National Institute of Health?

[Kohan]

Clearly marijuana is not something inoffensive like a bouquet of roses. Kohan, do you believe Nixon's ideologies/invisible hand/ghost still manage to somehow manipulate the findings/research of: American Psychological Association, National Institute of Drug Abuse, and National Institute of Health?

Absolutely, not to mention those who made missteps before Nixon, paving the way for his own actions.

I have gone into detail on BG previously about the problems that NIDA presents; I will not do that again here. Instead, this will be a much more summarized version of that, which only cites one source.

In 2004, Congressman Mark Souder introduced the Safe and Effective Drug Act, calling for a "meta-analysis of existing medical marijuana data." It was criticized for being limited to smoked cannabis (rather than vaporizers and other methods of ingestion) and not requiring any new research.

[...]

NIDA literature and National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) research frequently contradict each other. For instance, in the 1980s and 1990s, NIMH researchers found that dopamine plays only a marginal role in marijuana's psychoactive effects. Years later, however, NIDA educational materials continued to warn of the danger of dopamine-related marijuana addiction. NIDA appears to be backing off of these dopamine claims, adding disclaimers to its teaching packets that the interaction of THC with the reward system is not fully understood.

The NIDA also funded the research of John W. Huffman who first synthetized many novel cannabinoids. This compounds are now being sold all around the world as pure compounds or mixed with herbals known as spices. The fact that NIDA has allowed and paid for the synthesis of these new cannabinoids without recommending human consumption research is a topic of concern, especially since some of these JWH substances were recently put into Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act via emergency legislation.

[...]

NIDA has a government granted monopoly on the production of medical marijuana for research purposes. In the past, the institute has refused to supply marijuana to researchers who had obtained all other necessary federal permits. Medical marijuana researchers and activists claim that NIDA, which is not supposed to be a regulatory organization, does not have the authority to effectively regulate who does and doesn't get to do research with medical marijuana.

In short: NIDA, by nature, exists to perpetuate the negative perception of substances like THC, and due to regulation and monopoly, severely stymies the amount of legitimate, impartial research that can be done. Due to its bias, the organization contradicts itself when its best interests will be served, yet is extremely difficult to legitimately challenge.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa..._on_Drug_Abuse

Virtually everything within the PDF that you linked is irrelevant in the context of this discussion, and the reasons are four-fold:

One: The only studies that specifically relate to marijuana use are about those who heavily abuse the substance, and no one is condoning abuse, so this refutes nothing.

Two: Addictive personalities do not equal addictive substances.

Three: As in the above point, correlation does not equal causation; therefore, associating marijuana use and inhalant use, marijuana use and depression, etc., is merely that: association, not anything that has been proven through substantial research. These are the sensationalist entries in the PDF—"filler," if you will.

Four: As mentioned previously, it is within NIDA's interest to restrict the research of others, therefore making it incredibly difficult to conduct impartial research, which is against the interests of science, not for it.

Moving on, your mentioning the APA is a non-starter, as it's simply an article according to a statement made by NIDA that was published on the APA's website. Anything else that may be found therein explains that people can become addicted to marijuana, but we have also covered that it is not related to THC being an addictive substance itself, and that removing marijuana from the equation will not repair those addictive personalities—actual therapy is required.

The National Institute of Health's reports are similarly non-starters, as they are also about abuse, and as mentioned, no one condones that.

Considering, I am not sure what you are trying to prove, if anything, beyond the fact that the federal government has maintained a federal classification established without substantial reason, and that abuse is a bad thing.

If that is what your post was meant to say, it's already been said.

[notorious bum]

Well, this isn't "news" exactly, but a good lil op-ed on the harsh reality that the Obama admin don't care 'bout potheads, namely the suppliers. Keep fightin the good fight, I guess.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/op...=tw-share&_r=0

[Gwynplaine]

It is good that the approval of these two proposals has now catapulted marijuana legalization and policy changes into the spotlight. It's becoming less and less able to be ignored.

[Aurara]

It is good that the approval of these two proposals has now catapulted marijuana legalization and policy changes into the spotlight. It's becoming less and less able to be ignored.

Now that two states have managed to legalize cannabis for recreational use, more states are likely to try and pass legalization, but I'm holding my breath until I know that the feds aren't gonna swoop in and shut everything down.

[Hatedregret]

The biggest trouble has always been getting it in the news/spotlight. I was quite amazed it got so much attention at all much less being passed. A huge step in the right direction.

[Kohan]

The biggest trouble has always been getting it in the news/spotlight. I was quite amazed it got so much attention at all much less being passed. A huge step in the right direction.

Agreed.

I said it shortly after we discovered that Obama had been re-elected, but besides that, these successfully passed marijuana propositions have made me incredibly proud of the United States. The advancements for gay rights are far more significant on a world-changing scale, but this as well is nonetheless righting a wrong. I am very pleased.

[Yabby]

The biggest trouble has always been getting it in the news/spotlight. I was quite amazed it got so much attention at all much less being passed. A huge step in the right direction.

This is very true. Last election i was watching the vote in California and kept my fingers crossed, but it failed. Because of the presidential election this year, if you didn't live in CO or WA you didn't hear much, if anything about this. I found out that night when a friend on FB hit me up with a link to the ballot for CO and i about shit myself.

[noblemountain]

Had a chat with some old Army buddies who live in CO now and they are all very excited about the new laws. They moved there when CO passed medicinal use as it's the only thing they've found that helps with their PTSD without interfering in their lives to the point that they're zombies. I am thinking of moving as well now...my life has deteriorated to the point of almost constant depression. I just wish that my job wasn't in this hellhole of a state. TN should have a few months of cival war to weed out the idiots. If I could do what I do in a better state...I would have already though. I may just end up moving to southeast asia and working with wild elephants instead of being in this state much longer.

[Jefe]

Absolutely, not to mention those who made missteps before Nixon, paving the way for his own actions.

I have gone into detail on BG previously about the problems that NIDA presents; I will not do that again here. Instead, this will be a much more summarized version of that, which only cites one source.



In short: NIDA, by nature, exists to perpetuate the negative perception of substances like THC, and due to regulation and monopoly, severely stymies the amount of legitimate, impartial research that can be done. Due to its bias, the organization contradicts itself when its best interests will be served, yet is extremely difficult to legitimately challenge.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa..._on_Drug_Abuse

Nixon's invisible hand, NIDA's monopoly, and "Medical marijuana researchers" and activists' claims are irrelevant. Why? Because the sole purpose of the research is to find the detrimental effects, that's it. It's not about its medical benefits or aphrodisiac properties. Is it bias? Absolutely. Does that make marijuana any less adverse to folks? Absolutely not.

Virtually everything within the PDF that you linked is irrelevant in the context of this discussion, and the reasons are four-fold:

One: The only studies that specifically relate to marijuana use are about those who heavily abuse the substance, and no one is condoning abuse, so this refutes nothing.

How would you define a 'heavy user'? There are some studies that define a 'heavy user' as smoking once a week. For example, the previous article is about a study that took place in New Zealand. It involved teens who smoked marijuana and the effects on their brain.

Two: Addictive personalities do not equal addictive substances.

Irrelevant. You can make the same claim about other drugs. Yes, some individuals are not as vulnerable as others. This claim doesn't address the fact that studies from all over the world indicate marijuana is addictive. If anything, you're grasping at straws.

Three: As in the above point, correlation does not equal causation; therefore, associating marijuana use and inhalant use, marijuana use and depression, etc., is merely that: association, not anything that has been proven through substantial research. These are the sensationalist entries in the PDF—"filler," if you will.

I'd post more links but you'll just brush them off w/ your last two gnorantio elenchi.

Four: As mentioned previously, it is within NIDA's interest to restrict the research of others, therefore making it incredibly difficult to conduct impartial research, which is against the interests of science, not for it.

Moving on, your mentioning the APA is a non-starter, as it's simply an article according to a statement made by NIDA that was published on the APA's website. Anything else that may be found therein explains that people can become addicted to marijuana, but we have also covered that it is not related to THC being an addictive substance itself, and that removing marijuana from the equation will not repair those addictive personalities—actual therapy is required.

The National Institute of Health's reports are similarly non-starters, as they are also about abuse, and as mentioned, no one condones that.

Considering, I am not sure what you are trying to prove, if anything, beyond the fact that the federal government has maintained a federal classification established without substantial reason, and that abuse is a bad thing.

If that is what your post was meant to say, it's already been said.

There are a couple of hundred articles, peer reviewed medical journals, etc. on the APA website. Others from: Laboratorio de Canabinoides. Departamento de Fisiología, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, UNAM. Laboratorio de Genómica Cognitiva, Departamento de Psicología Experimental, Facultad de Psicología, UNAM. Laboratorio de Neurofisiología Integrativa. Departamento de Fisiología, Facultad de Medicina, UNAM. Cambridge university. Thousands of entries from the National Center for Biotechnology Information. Studies on chimpanzees, rats, etc. etc. But you will never accept them, you will do anything and ignore anything that attacks your precious weed.

Do I care if peeps smoke weed? Nope... unless it endangers me. But don't claim it doesn't cause anything because is natural and a gift from Gaia.

[Plow]

Nixon's invisible hand, NIDA's monopoly, and "Medical marijuana researchers" and activists' claims are irrelevant. Why? Because the sole purpose of the research is to find the detrimental effects, that's it. It's not about its medical benefits or aphrodisiac properties. Is it bias? Absolutely. Does that make marijuana any less adverse to folks? Absolutely not.



How would you define a 'heavy user'? There are some studies that define a 'heavy user' as smoking once a week. For example, the previous article is about a study that took place in New Zealand. It involved teens who smoked marijuana and the effects on their brain.



Irrelevant. You can make the same claim about other drugs. Yes, some individuals are not as vulnerable as others. This claim doesn't address the fact that studies from all over the world indicate marijuana is addictive. If anything, you're grasping at straws.



I'd post more links but you'll just brush them off w/ your last two gnorantio elenchi.



There are a couple of hundred articles, peer reviewed medical journals, etc. on the APA website. Others from: Laboratorio de Canabinoides. Departamento de Fisiología, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, UNAM. Laboratorio de Genómica Cognitiva, Departamento de Psicología Experimental, Facultad de Psicología, UNAM. Laboratorio de Neurofisiología Integrativa. Departamento de Fisiología, Facultad de Medicina, UNAM. Cambridge university. Thousands of entries from the National Center for Biotechnology Information. Studies on chimpanzees, rats, etc. etc. But you will never accept them, you will do anything and ignore anything that attacks your precious weed.

Do I care if peeps smoke weed? Nope... unless it endangers me. But don't claim it doesn't cause anything because is natural and a gift from Gaia.

That entire article you linked is stating repeatedly that pot is clearly causing all these problems and blah blah.

And then it ends with:

While the researchers found an association between heavy, long-term marijuana smoking and declines in IQ, they did not prove that the marijuana caused the declines.

So... they did a 25 year study and didn't prove shit, but that doesn't stop them from saying it's true.

Pretty impressive scientific support you've got there.

[Plow]

Oh, and btw, I've been smoking almost daily since I was 13 or 14.

My IQ test results are nearly exactly the same as when I was 8, with a very slight improvement that's most likely due to practice with the tests, i.e. figuring out what they're looking for.

Now, that obviously doesn't prove anything, but I'm going to go ahead and state as a scientific fact that pot increases your IQ.

Spoiler: show

Just like your article does in its opening statement.

Teens who start smoking marijuana regularly experience what appear to be permanent declines in their IQs and other aspects of mental function, new research finds.

[Gadritan]

Do I care if peeps smoke weed? Nope... unless it endangers me.

Right. That's why you're on a crusade on some forums.

Shut the fuck up.

[quannum]

concern trolling

[Kohan]

Nixon's invisible hand, NIDA's monopoly, and "Medical marijuana researchers" and activists' claims are irrelevant. Why? Because the sole purpose of the research is to find the detrimental effects, that's it.

What you've said is breathtakingly incorrect, as Nixon's decision and NIDA's monopoly severely stymy the latter. If impartial studies cannot be conducted, that is problematic.

Do I care if peeps smoke weed? Nope... unless it endangers me. But don't claim it doesn't cause anything because is natural and a gift from Gaia.

Fortunately, I'm not doing that. I have always judged marijuana comparatively, and have stated as much.

As before, I'm not sure what you're trying to prove that hasn't already been discussed here or elsewhere. You aren't refuting anything successfully, as you're proclaiming that studies have proven marijuana's addictiveness, yet you know nothing about the related chemicals and their influence on the brain. Do you even understand cannabinoid receptors, or know about endocannabinoids? What about the physiological effects in comparison to the psychological ones produced by different strains? Are you familiar with the relevance of different strains? Did you know those existed?

This type of haphazard posting leads me to believe that you're merely Googling things and slapping together whatever you believe supports your stance, whereas I've been heavily researching and supporting this cause for many years. I prefer to educate, not to berate, but what you're posting in response is ill-researched at best, and befuddling at worst.

If you are determined to believe it's a devastating substance while relying upon biased resources that you claim should be irrefutable, and insist that you're "refuting" claims I haven't made, I'm not quite sure what to say.

[Jefe]

(...)
So... they did a 25 year study and didn't prove shit, but that doesn't stop them from saying it's true.

Pretty impressive scientific support you've got there.

Plow, that was for IQ testing. If you had bothered to read my initial statement property, you would have known it was to address Kohan's point about what a "heavy user" meant.

[Plow]

Plow, that was for IQ testing. If you had bothered to read my initial statement property, you would have known it was to address Kohan's point about what a "heavy user" meant.

oh, my bad, I guess I mistook your post with a bigass list of places that have studied weed, and your conclusion that weed is bad, to imply that you believed the studies you were talking about

so what you're arguing is that quantity of research matters, quality doesn't, therefore pot is bad

got it