Legalize Marijuana?

DGVREIMAN

unread,

Jul 4, 2002, 11:33:28 AM7/4/02

to

LEGALIZE MARIJUANA?

Doug Says:

Mr. Peace, your opinions about the benefits of marijuana
legalization are wrong. Legalization increases drug use, and
promotes gateways into alcoholism and other drugs not to mention
increases violent and organized crime by hundreds of percent.
Holland has been experimenting with legal marijuana use in Coffee
houses for years, and Switzerland attempted total legalization
for awhile. In Switzerland, the infamous Zurich "Needle Park"
where thousands of addicts would show up and kill themselves in
front of the horrified Swiss heralded the end of that experiment.
In respect to Holland, here is an interesting article on that
debacle from Congressional testimony presented below:

(The sites I used were actually downloaded from a simple search
on Marijuana. Both the Harvard and Mayo Clinic report are
listed. I do not save site addresses (unless they are hard to
find) I usually just download the text directly to the
newsgroup. I posted the entire Harvard Report some posts back.
Do a Google search for it.)

(The following report is presented in its entirety, nothing has
been changed nor altered.)

Drug Decriminalization In Holland Has Increased Crime and
Addiction Sign the
Resolution for a Federal Commission on Drug Policy

Contents | Feedback | Search | DRCNet Home Page | Join DRCNet
DRCNet Library | Schaffer Library | Miscellaneous Statements on
Drug Policy
DRUG DECRIMINALIZATION IN HOLLAND HAS INCREASED CRIME AND
ADDICTION
[Page: E499]
HON. GERALD B.H. SOLOMON OF NEW YORK
in the House of Representatives
Thursday, March 2, 1995

A Note to Readers: If you want some current information, direct
from Europe, to compare with Mr. Solomon's statements here, take
a look at DrugText Europe.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, let me commend to you the following
article written by
a distinguished doctor and chairman of the International Drug
Strategy Institute, Eric A. Voth, M.D. Dr. Voth advocates
retaining tough drug laws to guard against rising crime and
experimentation. Citing Holland as an example, the legalization
of drugs has resulted in greatly increased crime and addiction.
The only way to combat the increase of drug use in this country
is to stand firm against recent attempt by prodrug groups to mute
public awareness. These groups attempt to disguise the dangers of
drug abuse and consequently jeopardize future generations.

REPEATING HISTORY'S MISTAKES
The international drug policy debate rages regarding decisions
whether to fundamentally change drug policy toward legalization
or decriminalization of drug use, or to remain with restrictive
policies. If we examine two examples of softening of drug policy,
we will find ample reason to continue with restrictive policy.

In the mid to late 1970's during the Carter administration, drug
policy visibly softened. Several states decriminalized marijuana,
and in fact Alaska legalized marijuana. Drug policy `specialists'
in their infinite wisdom supported the flawed concept called
`responsible use' of drugs as a way that users could maintain
personal use of drugs and avoid the ravages of addiction and
physical problems.

Permissive drug policy originated with organizations like the
National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. President
Carter's drug policy advisor Peter Bourne, as well as others like
Arnold Trebach, Mathea Falco, Peter Reuter, Mark Kleiman helped
to press for the lenient policy.

Interestingly, during that time the use of marijuana and other
drugs drastically increased. Use also increased in adolescents
despite the fact that drugs never become legal or decriminalized
for that age group. The use of marijuana among high school
students in Oregon during decriminalization was double that of
the national average. National averages of marijuana use among
high school seniors increased to 50% of seniors having used in
the previous year, and 10.7% used daily.

Ultimately, parents began to object to the rampant use of drugs ,
especially marijuana, among their children. In the early 1980's
the `parents' anti-drug movement began. Because of the drastic
failure of lenient drug policies, steady pressure was exerted at
national and local levels for restrictive drug policies.

A huge national wave of high quality research, grassroots
prevention organizations, and tightening of drug laws began.

Predictably, the use of drugs among `recreational' users dropped.
High school seniors use of marijuana dropped to 23% of seniors
using within the last year and 2% using on a daily basis. The use
among hard addicts did not drop.

Strangely the cry has been sounded by some that the drug war did
not work. That outcry, however, was almost exclusively being
sounded by individuals who favored legalization or
decriminalization back in the 1970's. The same individuals who
called for soft policy in the earlier era are calling for the new
harm reduction policy today. Hidden within such policy is the
intent to gain decriminalization of drugs .

Holland has decriminalized drugs and tried harm reduction. Since
the softening of drug policy there, shootings have increased 40%,
robberies 62%, and car thefts 62%. This experiment which was
meant to decrease organized crime has resulted in an increase in
organized crime families from 3 in 1988 to 93 today. The number
of registered marijuana addicts has risen 30% and the number of
other addicts has risen 22%.

The major difference between today and the 1970's is that the
prolegalization effort is more organized and better funded. The
millionaire Richard Dennis from Chicago has given millions to the
drug legalization effort. Billionaire George Soros has given $6
million to the Drug Policy Foundation to help seek legalization
of drugs . He created the Open Society Fund which in turn funds
Mathea Falco's Drug Strategies organization. Steadily, these
groups put a happy and acceptable face on the idea of drug
legalization or decriminalization.

Their public relation campaign has softened public attitudes.
Moves such as full page ads in national newspapers suggesting
alternatives to drug policy are examples. Organized efforts at
such ideas as hemp as a fiber alternative, medical marijuana,
needle exchanges, therapeutic LSD, and others pervade the media.
The Internet is bristling with pro-drug talk groups discussing
recent drug experiences and how and where to obtain drugs. In the
face of these facts, the holdovers from the 70's drug policy
makers are still asking for lenient drug laws. A substantial
number of today's addicts started their use under the lenient
policies of the 1970's. We have had our experience with
decriminalization, and it is time that we recognize it and put
that concept to bed.

The only hope for drug policy is a concerted effort of drug
prevention which upholds the notion of no drug use, drug
interdiction, and drug treatment. If we soften our hold on an
already vexing problem, we will lose the war.

End testimony. This article is presented in full, nothing has
been changed nor altered.

Doug Grant (Tm)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peace" <Pe...@nycap.rr.com>
To: "DGGRANT" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net>
Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 3:59 AM
Subject: RE: Harvard Marijuana Report

> Wow, I really appreciate your response. I am new to newsgroups
and that is
> why I had not seen your postings about the studies referred to.
However I
> did do searches for both the mayo and Harvard studies and did
not find them
> posted in their entirety anywhere. I did find references to
other studies
> made by individuals from both though. Could you possibly direct
me to the
> studies you refer to so that I can read them myself.
> I do not smoke, but do fully support the choice of others to do
as they
> please. I personally don't drink either.
> The reason for my negativity statement was all the attitude
being thrown
> around out there and personal attacks on opinion. I do agree
that
> pro-pot'ers tend to deviate information in support of they're
cause, but so
> do the anti-marijuana folks.
> I tend to think that we would have much better studies and
information if
> it were legal. We also could direct our antidrug efforts and
tax monies
> toward far greater problems. If legalized, the "gateway" issue
would be
> decreased. The after effects of which law enforcement would
really benefit.
> Pot seems to be a key to the front door of the underworld. Made
legal this
> would be lessened to the level of beer and cigarettes, which
are equally
> "illegal" at the age at which most begin using them. If you ask
any drug
> user at almost any stage of use, most (if not all) will have
had alcohol or
> tobacco before they could have "legally" done so.
> Any way Thank you for your time and level headed answer.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DGGRANT [mailto:dgg...@worldnet.att.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 6:23 PM
> To: Peace
> Subject: Re: Harvard Marijuana Report
>
>
> I posted the evidence several times already. My statements are
> substantiated by (1) The Harvard Medical Report on Marijuana
(2)
> the Mayo Clinic medical report on Marijuana (4) Alt. Health (5)
> Web.MD and several studies recently completed that I posted
that
> referenced about a dozen other *medical* studies that provided
> the conclusion that smoking marijuana leads to alcoholism. The
> one joint per day equals the toxins found in a pack of
cigarettes
> each day is found on Web.MD, and the rest in the Harvard and
Mayo
> clinic reports.
>
> If you had an objective position on these issues, you would
have
> known about these reports. I am not for or against anything
> personally, except the truth. The advocates of marijuana use a
> variety of incredible reports to support their cause that are
not
> even deemed credible by the medical community. The opponents
> of marijuana use certified medical reports from prestigious
> medical sources to document the long term lethal effect smoking
> one marijuana joint per day has on the human body. I believe
the
> latter is the correct and credible position.
>
> In respect to having negative or positive vibes, if you knew
me,
> you would know that I have nothing but positive attitudes. I
> simply post the truth. That is not a reason to have any
negative
> feelings.
>
> Doug Grant (Tm)
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peace" <Pe...@nycap.rr.com>
> To: <dgg...@worldnet.att.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 3:01 AM
> Subject: Re: Harvard Marijuana Report
>
>
> >
> >
> > "DGVREIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> >
>
news:<Tg7U8.71495$UT.49...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>.
> ..
> > >
> > > "Josh Dougherty" <jbd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:eee564bd.0207...@posting.google.com...
> > > > "DGVREIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > >
>
news:<azhT8.59014$LC3.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
> > > ...
> > > > > "D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote
> in
> > > > > message news:3D1BB4...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught...
> > > > > > Doug, it just comes down to one thing:
> > > > > > You don't like marijuana, and you don't want it to be
> > > legaly
> > > > > available
> > > > > > to adults.
> > > > > > You're just another fucking Carrie A. Nation.
> > > > >
> > > > > Doug Says: Whoa there! The debate is about whether
> > > Marijuana is
> > > > > harmful to your health, not whether I like it or not or
> even
> > > care
> > > > > if someone wants to smoke it. If someone knows that it
> is
> > > > > harmful, and does not try to deny the truth, then goes
> ahead
> > > and
> > > > > harms himself for a high, then I simply believe such a
> > > person is
> > > > > probably nuts.
> > > > >
> > > > > Doug Grant (Tm)
> > > >
> > > > Marijuana can be harmful to one's health. Anytime one
> inhales
> > > smoke
> > > > into one's lungs, it has the potential to cause harm. It
> > > doesn't
> > > > matter whether you're smoking marijuana, tobacco, banana
> peels,
> > > > spinach or wood chips.
> > >
> > > Doug Says: Of course it matters, different products have
> > > completely different toxins, and those toxins affects human
> > > health in different ways.
> > >
> > > > Marijuana however is considerably less dangerous a drug
> than is
> > > > alcohol.
> > > > In addition to being a health hazard, alcohol, when
imbibed
> in
> > > large
> > > > doses, or sometimes even small ones, causes extreme
> anti-social
> > > and
> > > > violent behavior. It is commonly associated with being a
> causal
> > > factor
> > > > in domestic abuse, and high rates of vehicular homicide
> which
> > > place
> > > > not only the users at risk but millions of other
Americans
> > > every day.
> > > > Alcohol also systematically produces addiction/alcoholism
> in
> > > millions
> > > > of people which often ruins their lives and those of
their
> > > spouses and
> > > > children, AND it also can result in alcohol poisoning, in
> which
> > > the
> > > > drug itself can and does kill people just as surely as
can
> a
> > > heroin
> > > > overdose. None of this is true of, or anywhere near as
> sever
> > > in,
> > > > marijuana use.
> > >
> > > Doug Says: Obviously you are talking about alcohol abuse.
> One
> > > to three drinks per day maximum have been proved beneficial
> to
> > > human health. Moreover, it has been proven conclusively
that
> > > marijuana causes cancer, a host of respiratory lethal
> illnesses,
> > > heart disease, renal failure and the toxins in the
marijuana
> are
> > > 20 times more potent that a single cigarette...and this is
> all
> > > based upon smoking just one single joint per day on
average.
> So
> > > recreational marijuana smoking is more lethal than alcohol.
> > > (However many more people are more likely to become
> alcoholics
> > > due to the availability of alcohol compared to marijuana.)
> > >
> > > It has also been proved that marijuana users are more
likely
> to
> > > become alcoholics than those that abstain from
> marijuana....one
> > > more thing - one joint a day has been proved to cause
mental
> > > illness. So you can try to dismiss the dangers of smoking
> > > marijuana if you wish to your little friends, but leave the
> > > statistical facts about that lethal product to the adults
and
> > > those with some brain cells left.
> > > >
> > > Doug Grant (Tm)
> > >
> > Doug,
> > You obviously take a strong stand against Pot (marijuana),
but
> it seems to
> > me that you're rather condescending to others opinions. Not
> that I don't
> > respect your rantings and opinions, but question your
> statements made as
> > fact. I am truly quite curios where you got all of your
> information, as I
> > have kept up quite well with most findings on the issue for
the
> last 10
> > years. Please fill us in on the basis and a reference to that
> basis for the
> > following statement clipped from above: "Moreover, it has
been
> proven
> > conclusively that
> > > marijuana causes cancer, a host of respiratory lethal
> illnesses,
> > > heart disease, renal failure and the toxins in the
marijuana
> are
> > > 20 times more potent that a single cigarette...and this is
> all
> > > based upon smoking just one single joint per day on
average."
> >
> > Furthermore, please also enlighten us as to the origin of
> "Proof" for these
> > issues also: "> It has also been proved that marijuana users
> are more likely
> > to
> > > become alcoholics than those that abstain from
> marijuana....one
> > > more thing - one joint a day has been proved to cause
mental
> > > illness."
> > Thank you for your time and consideration.
> >
> > P.S. It has been "conclusively" eluded to that negative
energy
> in ones life
> > can and does lead to poorer health and more occurrences of
> illness than
> > focusing on that which is positive. Ulcers, high blood
pressure
> and other
> > conditions are commonly understood to be avoided by stress
> reduction. If you
> > feel so strongly about this issue and seem to devote quite
some
> energy to it
> > you may be much more productive with something that brings
you
> joy.
> > PEACE
> >
> >
>
>

--
De Oppresso Liber
Happy Birthday

Alec Owen

unread,

Jul 4, 2002, 12:19:10 PM7/4/02

to

Australian Institute of Criminology

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

International Responses
Switzerland
Switzerland's drug policy has a strong "harm reduction" component. In 1987,
syringes became available in pharmacies and, in 1991, a nation wide syringe
exchange and availability program that includes dispensing machines was
initiated. This program now includes syringe exchange in all prisons and
heroin distribution in one prison. Methadone treatment programs also became
increasingly available during this period.

One harm reduction approach being practiced in Switzerland, as well as the
Netherlands and Germany involves toleration by authorities of facilities
known as "injection rooms", "health rooms," "contact rooms", or other
similar references. In 1992, the Swiss government agreed to take over some
responsibilities for drug issues from the cities. In January 1994,
Switzerland began a multi-year, multi-city scientific trial to provide drugs
to long-term dependent users to assess the effects on their health, social
integration and behaviour. By 1997, crime dropped by 60%, unemployment by
50%, and significant public funds were saved due to a reduction in the costs
of criminal procedures, imprisonment and disease treatment. As a result of
these positive figures, the Swiss government extended the heroin trial.

After further success, the prescription of narcotics was formally recognised
as a form of therapy within the Swiss government's fourfold approach (law
enforcement, prevention, therapy, harm reduction). In a referendum held on
13.6.1999, the Swiss people approved this choice (54.4% yes votes).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
References
The Swiss Drug Policy: A fourfold approach with special consideration of the
medical prescription of narcotics (1999), Swiss Federal Office of Public
Health (pdf file)

Narcotics/Drug Policy page on the website of the Swiss Federal Office of
Public Health

International Narcotics Control Board (1999). Report of the International
Narcotics Board. United National Publication.

Riley, D. (1998). Drugs and drug policy in Canada: A brief review and
commentary. Prepared for the Senate of Canada; Canadian Foundation for Drug
Policy & International Harm Reduction Association.

DGVREIMAN is a complete and utter idiot.Netherlands: Dutch Lawmakers Favor
Medicinal Marijuana
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v02/n688/a09.html
Newshawk: Sledhead - Countdown to 420
Pubdate: Tue, 09 Apr 2002
Source: Daily Camera (CO)
Copyright: 2002 The Daily Camera.
Contact: open...@thedailycamera.com
Website: http://www.thedailycamera.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/103
Author: Associated Press
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)

DUTCH LAWMAKERS FAVOR MEDICINAL MARIJUANA

THE HAGUE, Netherlands - A large majority of legislators in the Dutch
parliament's lower chamber said Monday that they will support a
government-backed bill to legalize marijuana prescriptions for severely ill
patients.

The lower house is expected to vote next week on the proposal to let doctors
prescribe marijuana produced by government-regulated growers for medicinal
purposes.

The bill also needs approval by the Senate, expected later this year, before
it can take effect. If it is passed, two growers selected by the Dutch
government will become the first legal marijuana producers in Europe.

Lawmakers from the three government coalition partners and the two largest
opposition parties said Monday that they would approve the bill. The
political makeup of the Senate is similar, so the bill is likely to be
approved.

Health Ministry spokesman Bas Kuik said marijuana for medicinal purposes
will probably be available in drugstores within a year or so.

Although the sale of marijuana is illegal, Dutch authorities tolerate the
sale of small amounts in hundreds of so-called "coffee shops" that operate
openly.

There are also plans to put marijuana on the national health care plan, but
initially the drug will only be free under special health insurance
programs.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Refer to http://www.drugwarfacts.org/druguse.pdf to discover that
Drug use in the USA is a much more severe problem than it is in the
Netherlands.
No theory is advanced as to why this should be so but drug policy in each of
these countries is
much different and could well be the reason for the dramatic difference.
In the USA pimps regularly get young girls hooked so that they will become
useful additions to their income. This cannot happen in countries like
Sweden, Switzerland and Holland
where addicts are not dependant upon drug huslers,.
DGVREIMAN is still a a complete and utter idiot.His eyesight and reason have
been severely
impacted by the small print in his bible.

Mae'n coc oen.

A Owen

"DGVREIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message

news:cVZU8.76642$UT.52...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

dmtsymphony

unread,

Jul 4, 2002, 2:38:06 PM7/4/02

to

Besides, why would you want to let the government regulate your lifestyle?
If an adult wants to smoke weed, why should they not be able to?
Give me one good reason why I, as a thirty year old, should need permission
from my hypocritical government to smoke the oh-so-dangerous weed, when they
are more than happy to tax me on my booze, and smokes, and pharmaceutical
drugs.
And don't give me any of your "it's for the kids" bullshit.An American kid can
go buy crack on the street easier than he can find weed, so that is not a good
enough reason.
Let's face it, it's meddling right wing fanatics, who want to legislate
morality at every possible turn, because they have it in their twisted mind,
that this is what it means to be a "good christian" or "good american"
And all that shit about the health costs that pot smokers cause will be
legitimate ONLY when those same fanatics agree that the pollution that the big
corporate factories belch out into millions of peoples lungs each day, and into
the creeks and rivers, has got to go too.
Priorities.....

The U.S. and it's drug laws are archaic.More similiar to Malaysia or Indonesia
than any European country.In fact, the U.S. has alot in common with the people
it is at "war" with.Just like the Taliban, who imposed their will on the
Afghans without tolerating resistance - the Bush administration is
systematically dismantling rights and freedoms that the Americans have taken
for granted for years.And once they are gone........

Thomas Pain

unread,

Jul 4, 2002, 3:52:05 PM7/4/02

to

DGVREIMAN wrote:
>

> Permissive drug policy originated with organizations like the
> National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.

No you moron, it begins with the US Constitution.

DGVREIMAN

unread,

Jul 4, 2002, 8:39:05 PM7/4/02

to

See below:

"Alec Owen" <ao...@phaedrav.com> wrote in message
news:3d247529$1...@audacity.velocet.net...
> Australian Institute of Criminology
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
-------------

> to long-term dependent users to assess the effects on their
health, social
> integration and behaviour. By 1997, crime dropped by 60%,
unemployment by
> 50%, and significant public funds were saved due to a reduction
in the costs
> of criminal procedures, imprisonment and disease treatment. As
a result of
> these positive figures, the Swiss government extended the
heroin trial.
>
> After further success, the prescription of narcotics was
formally recognised
> as a form of therapy within the Swiss government's fourfold
approach (law
> enforcement, prevention, therapy, harm reduction). In a
referendum held on
> 13.6.1999, the Swiss people approved this choice (54.4% yes
votes).

Doug Says:

The above crime claims contradicts directly the sworn testimony
in front of the US Congress. Strange. But then the drug pushers
have several sources of questionable credibility. None of the
references contained links. The rest applied to what the Swiss
did in their prisons, hardly applicable.
>
Moreover, the Harvard Medical Report directly addressed using
marijuana for health purposes. The Harvard report stated its
conclusion would be that smoking marijuana would excerbate the
health problems, not aleivate nor help them.

> ---------------------------------------------------------------

>

> Refer to http://www.drugwarfacts.org/druguse.pdf to discover
that
> Drug use in the USA is a much more severe problem than it is in
the
> Netherlands.
> No theory is advanced as to why this should be so but drug
policy in each of
> these countries is
> much different and could well be the reason for the dramatic
difference.
> In the USA pimps regularly get young girls hooked so that they
will become
> useful additions to their income. This cannot happen in
countries like
> Sweden, Switzerland and Holland
> where addicts are not dependant upon drug huslers,.
> DGVREIMAN is still a a complete and utter idiot.His eyesight
and reason have
> been severely
> impacted by the small print in his bible.
>
> Mae'n coc oen.
>
> A Owen

Doug Says: It would appear the idiot is the one that is pushing
using marijuana, not me. Also, approving marijuana for health
perscriptions under specific draconian conditions is not "Holland
approves Marijuana" like this idiot is disinginously trying to
claim. In respect to his hillarious claims about reducing crime,
here is the excerpt of sworn testimony in front of the US
Congress (printed in its entirity above):

unread,

Jul 5, 2002, 11:21:47 AM7/5/02

to

DGVREIMAN wrote:
>
> "D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in
> message news:3D24F3...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught...
> > Gerald Solomon was and is a complete fucking ASSHOLE. NO
> CREDIBILITY.
> > Words like "permissiive" + "lenient" = "FUCKWIT."
> > Doug is just a moralizing fuckwit, a modern Carrie A. Nation.
>
> Doug Says: Typical Druggie.

Typical moralizing asshole.

> Harvard is a Fuckwit, Mayo Clinic
> is a Fuckwit, Healthnews is a Fuckwit, US Congress is a Fuckwit,
> WebMD is a Fuckwit, and anyone that dares to post the results of
> these studies and testimony is also a "Fuckwit."
>
> Now I wonder what this imbecile has been smoking?

Nothing, asshole.

Alec Owen

unread,

Jul 5, 2002, 12:05:03 PM7/5/02

to

"D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message

news:3D24F3...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught...

> Gerald Solomon was and is a complete fucking ASSHOLE. NO CREDIBILITY.
> Words like "permissiive" + "lenient" = "FUCKWIT."
> Doug is just a moralizing fuckwit, a modern Carrie A. Nation.

He completly lacks credibility. Everyword he writes is to satisfy his
political and religious agenda. I don't know why we should bother.
I don't think he is too bright.
A Owen

DGVREIMAN

unread,

Jul 5, 2002, 2:10:41 PM7/5/02

to

"Alec Owen" <ao...@phaedrav.com> wrote in message

news:3d25...@audacity.velocet.net...

> Doug Says: Owen posted nonsense pertaining to legalizing
marijuana exclusively by prescription by medical doctors. That
has nothing to do with the debate. The issue is whether drugs
should be legalized in general. The statistics presented to
congress are accurate, and obviously had nothing to do with
politics.

Doug Grant (Tm)

D.G. Porter

unread,

Jul 5, 2002, 2:57:51 PM7/5/02

to

I still don't understand what it is about these rightwing nutbags when
it comes to marijuana. My folks were raised on that old "Reefer
Madenss" 1930s crap and they clung to it like a religion even when facts
refuting those premises came out. They did so because to question the
myths was somehow "giving in" to the whole "hippie/protester/druggie"
thing. But that was freakin' 30 years ago! What's the excuse for these
present-day morons?? Or is that whole "anti-hippie/protester/druggie"
mindset still a potent force? Is that what it's still all about??

§K¥ Wå£K€®

unread,

Jul 5, 2002, 3:53:13 PM7/5/02

to

boggles the mind how so many not only accept the mindwashing, but the
cling to it as if it were a security blanket, or a life raft saving
them from the raging seas of evil pot smokers.

DGVREIMAN

unread,

Jul 5, 2002, 4:26:16 PM7/5/02

to

"D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in

message news:3D25EB...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught...

Doug Says: What it is about is reports like the Harvard Medical
Report, and the Mayo Clinic Report, and many like them, coming
out and explaining the health hazards of smoking marijuana.

Prior to recently there were not enough subjects that smoked
marijuana long enough to complete a statistically sound study.
However, today, based upon the results of several exhaustive and
statistically sound studies, the lethal effects of smoking
marijuana have been presented by some of the best and most
prestigious medical institutions in the world. And what is even
worse, all of these Medical Institutions suggest that more
studies need to be completed as they believe what they have found
is just the tip of the lethal iceberg.

These medical studies, and my posting them are not politically
motivated. I simply posted the truth in response to a Drake
claim that marijuana is not harmful. When I posted the Harvard
report, then apparently aliases started to fly, and a few
politically minded proponents of marijuana appeared out the
woodwork to try and "howl down" these prestigious reports with
lies, distortions, deceptions and ridiculous counter reports from
an "Assistant Professor of Sociology from Queens College."

The facts are the facts, and what I presented is the truth. When
I am right, I do not back down, and I never quit. Further, I
have found several other reports that are similar to the Harvard
and Mayo Clinic report that I have yet to publish. However, if
the debate continues then I expect to post them.

The evidence is overwhelming....smoking marijuana will kill you
much faster than smoking cigarettes, and marijuana creates mental
distress and memory loss in *each* person that uses it.
Marijuana has been proven as a gateway into other drugs,
including alcoholism. Further, legalizing marijuana has
increased addiction of all drugs substantially in Holland, and
has increased crime by about 300%. I am sure however, that due
to legalizing marijuana Holland has increased its tourism. No
doubt it has lined the pockets of those that benefit from such
illicit activities at the expense of the Netherlands people in
the process. I also suspect this is the motivation for the
legalization proponents in the United States. They hope to make
some money on the misfortune and stupidity of those they can con
into believing that smoking marijuana is not harmful to human
health.

What I have also noticed however, is that many that post
pro-terrorist propaganda are also proponents of deceptions and
lies in respect to marijuana use. We know the terrorists are
trying to find new ways to generate income since many of their
"charities" and other criminal activities have been discovered
and shut down. Perhaps this explains the level of deception the
pro marijuana group is using.

Legalization of marijuana reminds me of authorizing casinos in
population areas. Initially the tax profits from the casinos
bolster the Politician's pork budgets, but eventually the
residual cost of increased crime, suicide and other casino
related dangers and costs end up costing the population center $3
for every $1 the casino provides in tax dollars. Yet the
politicians would need to raise taxes from the population to
offset the money they are receiving from the casinos. The
politicians are trapped with political suicide (raising taxes) or
living with the monster they created. I believe the same will
happen if marijuana is ever legalized.

The comprehensive conclusions from those famous medical
institutions are much more credible than one dufus duggie saying
"hey, dude, duh, what's duh, at dat fuss, duh, I ben smoking duh
nigh on 20 years, gulpm, duh, and ainbt nothing wrong wit me
duh." Like we see in most of the posts between the pot and TP's.

Doug Grant (Tm)

Rick Wilson

unread,

Jul 5, 2002, 4:26:59 PM7/5/02

to

"D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message news:3D25EB...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught...

The same "just say no", three-martini-lunch hypocrites who were
around 20 (and even 30) years ago are again in power. And the
scam works the same way: http://www.peele.net/debate/award.html

1. Government "drug czars" such as Bush's John Walters
(http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/Dowbenko051601/dowbenko051601.html)
are in the pockets of alcohol and other lobbyists who actively seek to
undermine state referendums liberalizing the use of marijuana for
medical purposes.

2. Some members of certain institutions such as the Harvard Medical
School release "reports" such as this most recent piece of trash Doug
keeps whining about in exchange for government funding.

Nice little scheme, eh? And morons like Doug just eat it up.

RickW

D.G. Porter

unread,

Jul 5, 2002, 4:42:29 PM7/5/02

to

But WHY does it keep going on??
We spent $1 million in '98 on the Institute of Medicine report, and that
one is all but forgotten. I don't know what the 1969 report cost, but
it was similarly swept under the rug. We've had a complete generational
turnover but the stupidity still rules. The people who as teens were
scared shitless by "Reefer Madness" are dying off but their kids, who
probably as not smoked some reefer, are dutifully following in their
path.
WHY do people need to cling to this bullshit?? It makes no sense at
all.

Rick Wilson

unread,

Jul 5, 2002, 5:32:24 PM7/5/02

to

"D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message news:3D2604...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught...

> But WHY does it keep going on??
> We spent $1 million in '98 on the Institute of Medicine report, and that
> one is all but forgotten. I don't know what the 1969 report cost, but
> it was similarly swept under the rug. We've had a complete generational
> turnover but the stupidity still rules. The people who as teens were
> scared shitless by "Reefer Madness" are dying off but their kids, who
> probably as not smoked some reefer, are dutifully following in their
> path.
> WHY do people need to cling to this bullshit?? It makes no sense at
> all.

The alcohol lobby is one of the most powerful in this country. Even so,
26 states and Wash. D.C. now have some kind of liberalized marijuana
laws on their books, with more being added every year. It won't be
long before the federal government follows, maybe 5-10 years.

RickW

§K¥ Wå£K€®

unread,

Jul 5, 2002, 5:38:29 PM7/5/02

to

On Fri, 05 Jul 2002 20:26:16 GMT, "DGVREIMAN"
<dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>
>Doug Says: What it is about is reports like the Harvard Medical
>Report, and the Mayo Clinic Report, and many like them, coming
>out and explaining the health hazards of smoking marijuana.

bzzzzzzz tchk, weeezzzzzz fizzle beep...
malfunction, malfunction, malfunction

can.not.divert.from.programmed.course.

bzzzzz tchk, zzzzzzz......kaboom!!!

Alec Owen

unread,

Jul 5, 2002, 7:24:35 PM7/5/02

to

"DGVREIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message

news:BilV8.79450$UT.54...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

Why would they do that? Everyone knows that once you take marijuana
you are on the road that eventuially leads to crack and heroin. It must be
true; members
of the religious right and the US Congress say so quite clearly.

Owen also said om that issue ( and you neglected to mention ) You are so
transparent
I could find your heart if you had one. You don't appear to have much in the
way of guts.

Not made up. All the information about the Swiss experience and
the Dutch experience
is from web sites that anyone may access. Information from US
legislators is
just about as reliable as the information from Messrs Anderson,
Enron etc
etc etc etc. US legislators are the best that money can buy.Not
only are
they all doing extreme harm to the investors in this country
but they are
wasting public money
and doing nothing to control the widespread use of drugs and
the consequent
cost to the US
taxzpayers at all levels all in the interests of religion,
votes and making
a few insiders, both financial and political, rich.

You are such an easy target I shouldn't bother but I can't resist.

A Owen
.

Alec Owen

unread,

Jul 5, 2002, 7:26:34 PM7/5/02

to

"D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in message

news:3D25EB...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught...

No it's about votes from the religious right and the fear of losing control
of Congress in November.
That is what it is all about.

A Owen

Alec Owen

unread,

Jul 5, 2002, 7:31:18 PM7/5/02

to

"§K¥ Wå£K?®" <asky...@rebeloutpost.org> wrote in message
news:m7ubiusvamjtq422n...@4ax.com...

Lovely. I wish I'd said that. I probably will, later.
My poison is rye whisky; a toiny, toiny bit me bhoy each day.
Ye need to drink it. Ye can *not* smoke it.

A Owen.

Alec Owen

unread,

Jul 5, 2002, 10:37:32 PM7/5/02

to

"DGVREIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message

unread,

Jul 6, 2002, 12:29:01 AM7/6/02

to

"Alec Owen" <ao...@phaedrav.com> wrote in message

news:3d26...@audacity.velocet.net...

Doug Says: Strange, I have not seen that study? It seems Alec
you have been caught lying again.

Doug Says: HAHAHHA if anyone with a brain read what you said
above, they would be laughing as hard as I am right now. The
only easy thing you have ever done in your life is crank up a
joint....the rest of your wild hysterical ravings above sound
like they are coming from a 6th grade bullshit merchant. Your
discounting of the reports of all the prestigious medical
schools, and the US Government, as biased and crooked sounds like
you have been off your meds for awhile. You need to tell your
attendant in the morning to up your meds at least five fold.
Your idiotic diatribe says nothing, proves nothing other than you
are an idiot.

The way the pro druggies/terrorist discount conclusions from the
most prestigious universities in the world that substantiate the
fact smoking marijuana is lethal, is with a harangue of diatribe
and fabricated nonsense against those institutions. No proof, no
substantiation, nothing more howls, yelps, whines and bluster.
That is standard operating procedure from these idiots.

Doug Grant (Tm)

> A Owen
> .
>
>

DGVREIMAN

unread,

Jul 6, 2002, 12:30:52 AM7/6/02

to

"Alec Owen" <ao...@phaedrav.com> wrote in message

news:3d262ae2$1...@audacity.velocet.net...

Doug Says: Now these idiots are blaming the "religious right"
for the Harvard Medical School report and the Mayo Clinic report
that proves smoking marijuana is lethal. Next they will try to
divert the blame to the Republicans, and the war against
terrorism, and another tangent they can think of. Truth is the
proof is in. Smoking marijuana is lethal.

Doug Grant (Tm)

DGVREIMAN

unread,

Jul 6, 2002, 12:33:31 AM7/6/02

to

"Alec Owen" <ao...@phaedrav.com> wrote in message

news:3d262bfe$1...@audacity.velocet.net...

Doug Says: I suspect Alec does more than drink Rye Whiskey. It
would take a pot head and the mental illness smoking marijuana
produces to make such a complete and utter ass out of himself in
public. But then no one said these druggies were smart. Harvard
Medical School and the Mayo Clinic, and other very prestigious
universities have all concluded that smoking marijuana is lethal.
That is what this idiot and his druggie friends are howling
about....someone has taken away their bone.

Doug Grant (Tm)

DGVREIMAN

unread,

Jul 6, 2002, 12:54:25 AM7/6/02

to

"Alec Owen" <ao...@phaedrav.com> wrote in message

news:3d2657a4$1...@audacity.velocet.net...

> A Owen
>
Doug Says: Druggie propaganda cannot hold up against the
conclusion of the most prestigious Medical Universities and Mayo
Clinics in the United States. The verdict is in...smoking
marijuana is lethal. Learn to live with it guys. The truth will
not go away, I will make sure of that.

Doug Grant (Tm)

DGVREIMAN

unread,

Jul 6, 2002, 12:59:36 AM7/6/02

to

"Alec Owen" <ao...@phaedrav.com> wrote in message

news:3d265965$1...@audacity.velocet.net...

>
> "> > are in the pockets of alcohol and other lobbyists who
actively seek to
> > undermine state referendums liberalizing the use of marijuana
for
> > medical purposes.
> >
> > 2. Some members of certain institutions such as the Harvard
Medical
> > School release "reports" such as this most recent piece of
trash Doug
> > keeps whining about in exchange for government funding.
> >

Doug Says: This is hilarious! Harvard university has not taken
dime one for marijuana research from the US Government, nor has
the Mayo Clinic. I find it amazing all these druggies can do to
try and refute the most prestigious Medical Universities and
Clinics in the world is accuse them of completely compromising
their entire reputations by producing fraudulent results so they
can get some tiny Government grant. Hell, Harvard needs
Government money about as bad a Bill Gates, and the Mayo Clinic
is above reproach. Both of these entities have concluded that
smoking marijuana is lethal to humans. These conclusions are
truthful, and the druggies cannot stand them. Hence the lies,
distortions and child like whines coming from them.

Doug Grant (Tm)

DGVREIMAN

unread,

Jul 6, 2002, 1:00:40 AM7/6/02

to

Snip druggie hype:

DGVREIMAN

unread,

Jul 6, 2002, 1:11:02 AM7/6/02

to

"Alec Owen" <ao...@phaedrav.com> wrote in message

news:3d266337$1...@audacity.velocet.net...

> Annual Causes of Death in the United States
>
>
>
>
> Tobacco 430,7001
> Alcohol 110,6402
> Adverse Reactions to Prescription Drugs 32,0003
> Suicide 30,5754
> Homicide 18,2725
> All Licit & Illicit Drug-Induced Deaths 16,9266
> Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Such As Aspirin 7,6007
> Marijuana 0 See note 8 below

Doug Says: So you are saying that all of those that died did
not smoke marijuana? That is not what the Harvard report says.
If marijuana produces the same or worse toxins that cigarettes
produce, then obviously, even a moron can understand that
marijuana will kill faster than cigarettes. So how many of those
cigarette deaths were really caused by marijuana? What Harvard
found is an abnormal amount of cancer is found in marijuana
smokers...ABNORMAL AMOUNT OF CANCER FOUND IN MARIJUANA SMOKERS!
I repeated that so you might understand the obvious
conclusion....BTW, cancer kills humans, duh.

Moreover, when the death certificate is completed, it NEVER says
death by cigarettes you imbecile. The statistics you presented
are drawn by association. Since all marijuana smokers ingest
other drugs, alcohol and usually smoke tobacco, there has not
been a national statistic created for exclusively marijuana
smokers. But I think that is one great idea....I think I will
pass it on.

Doug Grant (Tm)

Alec Owen

unread,

Jul 6, 2002, 11:27:11 PM7/6/02

to

> >
> > My poison is rye whisky; a toiny, toiny bit me bhoy each day.
> > Ye need to drink it. Ye can *not* smoke it.
> >
> > A Owen.
> >
> >
> Doug Says: I suspect Alec does more than drink Rye Whiskey. It
> would take a pot head and the mental illness smoking marijuana
> produces to make such a complete and utter ass out of himself in
> public. But then no one said these druggies were smart. Harvard
> Medical School and the Mayo Clinic, and other very prestigious
> universities have all concluded that smoking marijuana is lethal.
> That is what this idiot and his druggie friends are howling
> about....someone has taken away their bone.

> Doug Grant (Tm)

My word we really made Duggie angry didn't we?
I don't believe anyone would say what follows but you did:

" Harvard Medical School and the Mayo Clinic, and other very prestigious
universities have all concluded that smoking marijuana is lethal".

Duggie, universities and medical schools, no matter how prestigious,do not
say things nor propound eternal truths.
People say things and frequently disagree with each other
and never claim to speak for the entire university.
You are confusing institutions which practice the liberal arts
with the Communist Party or the Roman Catholic Church
which, as you must know, being an adherent of the latter will brook no
departure
from the party line, the catechism or Das Kapital.
I am afraid that the basic tenets of a liberal democracy
have not yet been integrated into your thinking.
You show many signs of Socialistic thinking.
There are many valid comparisons between Catholicism
and Socialism. They both think they and only they know all the answers.
I think that may be your problem.

Duggie, I am going to try very hard to give you the information you need
so please read the following and perhaps you might click on the
sites I include. I am and have always been against the use of
mind altering substances (except for an occasional cocktail) for
myself. But I am a taxpayer and a thoughtful citizen free of
any religious or political encumbrances.
You may think otherwise but stating it does nothing to
to support your case. I am sorry that I think you are an imbecile but
I just cannot draw any other conclusion from the garbage you write.
Of course you have friend in the police force or the prison system
and maybe a different
policy on drugs would leave many of them unemployed.
Tough on them but good for the tax payer.
Is there a sound reason for you obtuse attitude on the question?

Read on:
Max Frankel in the New York Times

Read the entire thing (yes you Duggie, although I suspect that you never
read anything which contradicts a fondly held notion) at
http://paranoia.lycaeum.org/war.on.drugs/debate/call.it.war
The better newspapers are portraying the drug quagmire the way they once
portrayed the quagmire in Viet Nam. Dispatches from the front line cops
risking life and limb to drag users and dealers, but just as many stalk
the streets the next night. The brass that's bragging about progress and
calling for still more troops, weapons, prisons, and money must be
smoking something.
If the newspapers, magazines and TV networks would agree that there 's a war
on, maybe they would report a monthly "bag count"- the number of
kilo-size packs of cocaine or heroin seized by t Federal, state, and
local raiders in urban hideaways, remote marinas and canine stomachs.
They could point out that the bag count, much like the Vietnam body
count, is a meaningless index of progress in the was; no matter how
impressive the seizure, the flow of the bags in the underground drug
channels continues relentlessly."

Another of your problems may be that you, bless you, are a very patriotic
American.
Simpson said it better than I could.
Excerpt:
"The U.S. is a self-absorbed superpower, not different in attitude from
other dominant countries throughout history. Dominant countries assume they
got to be dominant because of their inherently superior way of doing things,
and further assume that the world would be a better place if everyone else
did things their way.

The only difference in the U.S. case is that the country has thought that
way since the first settlers arrived to build a "city on a hill." From the
beginning, Americans thought of their country as the world's "last, best
hope."

It used to bug the hell out of Canadian First World War veterans when they
heard Americans claim they had "won the war," when so many other countries,
including Canada, had bled so profusely before the first Yank arrived in
France.

These days, there's a worrisome blend of traditional U.S. braggadocio with a
determination to go it alone on foreign policy. You're with 'em or agin 'em.
Well, we're with them -- most of the time, under certain circumstances,
depending on the context, because, as a Canadian politician once said, they
are our best friends whether we like it or not".
J Simpson
When it comes to drug policy too, we say
to hell with the experience of Holland or Switzerland and other countries,
we know best always have done always will do. Because we are Americans,
doncha know?
US drug policy has failed miserably? Sure it has. But it's ours and not some
foreigners so we are sticking with it.

Read it all:

jsim...@globeandmail.ca
http://paranoia.lycaeum.org/war.on.drugs/debate/12.reasons

The above is much too long to print here.
Click on it Duggie.
Excerpt:
The theoretical and statistical links between drugs and crime are well
established. In a 2 1/2-year study of Detroit crime, Lester P. Silverman,
former associate director of the National Academy of Sciences' Assembly of
Behavior and Social Sciences, found that a 10 percent increase in the price
of heroin alone "produced an increase of 3.1 percent total property crimes
in poor nonwhite neighborhoods." Armed robbery jumped 6.4 percent and
simple assault by 5.6 percent throughout the city.
http://paranoia.lycaeum.org/war.on.drugs/debate/who.approves

Also:Rotterdam, mar 15 (ips) - the often criticised liberal Dutch
policy of combating drug abuse by reducing its harmful effects
rather than trying to stamp out its use, may be the right approach
after all, health officials admitted here monday.

''the harm reduction approach has gradually received acceptance
and respectability,'' said marcus grant of the world health
organisation's programme on substance abuse (psa).

he was among several health officials attending the opening of a
four-day fourth international conference on the reduction of drug
related harm, who stressed the importance of a drugs policy aimed
at harm reduction rather than the illusion of complete eradication
of drug use.

''this implies a realistic and pragmatic approach to the drug
problem,'' said dutch state secretary for welfare, health and
culture, Hans Simons, referring to the Dutch strategy -- often
called the public health approach -- of combating drug trafficking
while providing care for drug users.

You want prestige. You've got it,Pal.
World Health Organisation. Pretty prestigious eh?

Also read Friedman, Nobel Prize Winner.
How's that for prestige, Duggie.
"The drug war is lost"
Interview with the American Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman on
the legalization of the illicit drug market

Der Spiegel, 14/1992

Spiegel: The United States puts out 12 billion dollars a year on its
all-out war on drugs, but victory seems farther away than ever. Why is
that?

Friedman: Why is it that the socialist government of the Soviet Union
was a disaster, and the GDR just as unsuccessful?

S: We actually wanted to talk about the American drug-politik...

F: ...that carries all signs of a socialist program.

Duggie, do you see the connection, you Lefty, you.
Continue with Friedman:

If a private program
falls apart, brings losses, then there's lots of people losing lots of
money.
Therefore they have a great interest in ending such a program before it
leads
to ruin. However a government, whose program fails, must neither admit
failure nor pay out of its own pocket.

S: Is the anti-drug program, therefore, always going to escalate?

F: The reaction to failed government programs is always the same:
People say it must be made only a little bit different, a little bit
bigger, a little bit more expensive.

S: Since when have we seen this tendency?

F: The War on Drugs was began with Richard Nixon in 1969. That project
failed, but was put on the back burner for the next 17 years. The War
on Drugs was started up again by Ronald Reagan. He expanded it, especially
in Florida, but he couldn't win, either. Then came Mr. Bush, who declared
total war and appointed with much fanfare a drug czar named William Bennet.

There's more at:
http://paranoia.lycaeum.org/war.on.drugs/debate/friedman.interview

A Owen
'Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an
individual than the use of the drug itself.' -- President Jimmy Carter, Aug.
2, 1977
Message from Father Doyle:
Low Self Esteem Support Group will meet Thursday at 7 PM.
Please use the back door.

Alec Owen

unread,

Jul 6, 2002, 11:51:18 PM7/6/02

to

"DGVREIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message

news:mVtV8.80278$UT.54...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

These are liberal arts institutions and they do not speak. Some who teach
there may
voice opinions but others there may disagree. They do not like the Roman
Catholic Church or the
Communist party claim to propound universal truths. Can't you get that
through your
thick religion besotted skull? I have already sent you a list of the
numbers of Americans who died from various causes. Marijuana was at the
bottom with a zero.
I didn't make it up. It is from a US government website. Pretty prestigious,
eh?

A Owen

Why would they lie? Why would
> these prestigious entities risk their reputations simply to lie
> about the effects of smoking marijuana on the human body?

Duggie, would you lie? Here's a site for you.
See Grinspoon's article below.
http://www.marijuana-uses.com/

>> Doug Grant (Tm)

I have already spent too much time on you but finally read Lester Grinspoon
of Harvard Medical School:

You and I
(Not me Duggie, you maybe)
are among the more than 70 million Americans who have used cannabis -- and
possibly among the more than ten million who use it regularly. We know that
people smoke marijuana not because they are driven by uncontrollable "Reefer
Madness" craving, as some propaganda would lead us to believe, but because
they have learned its value from experience. Yet almost all of the research,
writing, political activity, and legislation devoted to marijuana has been
concerned only with the question of whether it is harmful and how much harm
it does. The only exception is the growing medical marijuana movement, but
as encouraging as that movement is, it represents only one category of
marijuana use. The rest are sometimes grouped under the general heading of
"recreational", but that is hardly an adequate description of, say,
marijuana's capacity to catalyze ideas and insights, heighten the
appreciation of music and art, or deepen emotional and sexual intimacy.

These kinds of marijuana experiences, which I like to call "enhancement",
are often misunderstood and under-appreciated -- not only by non-users, but
even by some users, especially young people who are interested mainly in
promoting sociability and fun. Most of marijuana's powers of enhancement are
not as immediately available as its capacity to lift mood or improve
appetite and the taste of food. Some learning may be required, and one way
to learn is through other people's experience. Some colleagues

By colleagues, Duggie, he means others at this prestigious school (which you
claim called Marijuana lethal.
Again schools do not talk people talk) People like Grinspoon and his
collegues..

and I hope to promote this kind of learning by assembling an anthology of
accounts of cannabis enhancement experiences. It is our hope that these
stories will ultimately provide the basis for a book. Toward that end, we
seek to identify contributors who are willing to share their knowledge of
the uses of cannabis.

Accounts judged to be useful will be posted on this website as they are
received. If and when the collection is of a quality and quantity which
would justify publication as an anthology, a book proposal will be written.

A little about me. I am on the faculty (emeritus) of the Harvard Medical
School in the Department of Psychiatry. I have been studying cannabis since
1967 and have published two books on the subject. In 1971 Marihuana
Reconsidered was published by Harvard University Press. Marihuana. the
Forbidden Medicine, coauthored with James B. Bakalar, was published in 1993
by Yale University Press; the revised and expanded edition appeared in 1997.
Other books include The Speed Culture: The Use and Abuse of Amphetamines in
America, Cocaine: A Drug and its Social Evolution, Psychedelic Drugs
Reconsidered, and Psychedelic Reflections. I have posted as the first essay
on the web site "To Smoke or Not to Smoke: A Cannabis Odyssey", an essay
about my personal involvement with this issue. I identify myself as a
cannabis user, but contributors who wish to remain anonymous can; some may
want to use a pseudonym.

Most contributors will know what they want to write and how to go about it.
However, for those who are in doubt, I suggest you read a few of the essays
to get a sense of some of the ways these ideas can be presented. I hope you
will be interested in submitting a contribution.

Cordially,
Lester Grinspoon, M.D.

I think you've been knackered Duggie. Hoisted on your own petard.

A Owen

Hocus Pocus

unread,

Jul 6, 2002, 11:34:19 PM7/6/02

to

What has marijuana got to do with alt.security.terrorism?

By the way, what is the Mayo Clinic? Doesn't your hashish get a bit
greasy if you smear it was mayonaise? Or does it just add to the flavor?

SteveL

unread,

Jul 7, 2002, 1:11:54 PM7/7/02

to

> Both the Harvard and Mayo Clinic report are
>listed.

Turns out the "Harvard Medical Report" is garbage, Doug. You've been
misrepresenting it.

Doug has been very keen to push this as a Holy Writ, an argument from
authority because it comes from Harvard.

It is actually the work of project teams of law students and others.,

"Each of the following sites represents a group effort undertaken and
executed during the three weeks of the Winter Evidence Course. These
sites represent a combination of original work and integration of work
done by others. Please explore and enjoy. "

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/evidence99/

Just one of these projects is a discussion on marijuana.

Doug's quote was just one of a selection of articles (both pro and
anti) submitted for this project.

If you go straight to the overview page and read all the articles in
context, this will be enlightening. They are mostly positive, and even
Doug's "anti" article talks in the language of uncertainty.

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/evidence99/marijuana/index.html

Doug's article is right along side this one, which offers a positive
view:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/evidence99/marijuana/Health_2.html

****************
Doug's evaded, insulted and ignored alternative references written by
qualified people, all because they don't carry the weight of his
precious "Harvard Medical Report" (which is in fact no such thing and
that isn't even the title), which he's re-posted verbatum nearly every
time someone responded to him. He scoffed at the interpretation of a
Professor of Pharmacology at NYU, and dismissed similar from PhDs, and
even MDs - all because they weren't "medical doctors" from Harvard
like the authors of this report.

Not only are the authors of this report *not* doctors, they aren't
even qualified scientists, or qualifed anything.

Turns out he's been giving interpretation by *law students* more
credence than scientists and doctors.

Nice one Doug.

The mayo clinic report is pretty mild compared to what Doug claims for
it, certainly about the mental illness Doug claims it causes:

"Schizophrenia. Frequent use of marijuana may promote a recurrence of
schizophrenia in people who are vulnerable to this condition."

Doug claimed Marijuana *causes* these things, and scoffed when others
reiterated that it can occasionally adversely effect already mentally
ill people.

Doug says that One Joint=One pack of cigarettes. That wasn't even
mentioned in the "Harvard Medical Report" except that it claims joints
contain 4 times as much tar, and Mayoclinic.com disagrees with him
too. It says three times as much tar, but concedes that levels of
hemoglobin contaminated with carbon monoxide may reach higher levels
than with tobacco. But this is temporary.

Doug used WebMD as one of favorites too. Turns out they can't make up
their mind about the alleged harmful effects of marijuana any more
than anyone else, apart from Doug.

http://my.webmd.com/content/article/1691.50149

http://my.webmd.com/content/article/1691.50142

With any normal person this would force a rethink.

He won't budge an inch.

DGVREIMAN

unread,

Jul 7, 2002, 3:39:52 PM7/7/02

to

"SteveL" <Ste...@stevelon.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:uD_V8.76797$vq.35...@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...

> > Both the Harvard and Mayo Clinic report are
> >listed.
>
> Turns out the "Harvard Medical Report" is garbage, Doug. You've
been
> misrepresenting it.
>
> Doug has been very keen to push this as a Holy Writ, an
argument from
> authority because it comes from Harvard.
>
> It is actually the work of project teams of law students and
others.,

Doug Says: Steve, either you are a complete idiot, or you do not
know how to read. I checked out your link. The lawyers simply
used the Harvard Report as a basis for argument, they did not
produce it. Further, that report can be found directly on the
Harvard Link...so cut the bull Steve.

Doug Grant (Tm)

SteveL

unread,

Jul 7, 2002, 4:06:07 PM7/7/02

to

On Sun, 07 Jul 2002 19:39:52 GMT, "DGVREIMAN"
<dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>
>Doug Says: Steve, either you are a complete idiot, or you do not
>know how to read. I checked out your link. The lawyers simply
>used the Harvard Report as a basis for argument, they did not
>produce it.

Show us where it says that.

I can show where it says:
"Each of the following sites represents a group effort undertaken and
executed during the three weeks of the Winter Evidence Course. These
sites represent a combination of original work and integration of work
done by others."

And
"Created by: Bodies of Evidence 1999"

"Bodies of evidence" being the project group that produced the set of
articles.

Stop bullshitting.

> Further, that report can be found directly on the
>Harvard Link...so cut the bull Steve.

Then quote the URL, or *you* cut the bull.

And it better not be:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/evidence99/marijuana/Health_1.html

In the meantime here are some more links to Harvard that show
marijuana in a radically different light to you. If you search the
main Harvard site really hard you'll find some that agree with you,
but since the real center of this debate/pissing contest is
disagreement with your *certainty* that marijuana is "lethal", it
isn't really going to prove much except that the whole topic is
controversial and definitely undecided.

http://www.harvard-magazine.com/archive/01ma/ma01_dept_health.html

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/evidence99/marijuana/Societal_Pro.html

http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~thcdpr/

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2001/10.11/marijuana.html

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1998/03.19/WaronDrugsaFail.html

DGVREIMAN

unread,

Jul 7, 2002, 5:19:03 PM7/7/02

to

"SteveL" <Ste...@stevelon.demon.co.uk> wrote in message

news:Pa1W8.78686$vq.36...@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...

> On Sun, 07 Jul 2002 19:39:52 GMT, "DGVREIMAN"
> <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Doug Says: Steve, either you are a complete idiot, or you do
not
> >know how to read. I checked out your link. The lawyers
simply
> >used the Harvard Report as a basis for argument, they did not
> >produce it.
>
> Show us where it says that.
>
> I can show where it says:
> "Each of the following sites represents a group effort
undertaken and
> executed during the three weeks of the Winter Evidence Course.
These
> sites represent a combination of original work and integration
of work
> done by others."

Doug Says: Steve, you just answered your own question
"integration of work done by others." They USED reports in their
arguments. Lawyers are not medical doctors you moron! They do
not complete medical statistical analysis, complete diagnosis and
draw conclusions on medical issues. Lawyers, are lawyers, not
doctors. Lawyers did not generate nor write the Harvard Medical
School report Steve.....you have been smoking that shit wayyyyyy
too long to make such a preposterous and ridiculous claim.

> And
> "Created by: Bodies of Evidence 1999"
>
> "Bodies of evidence" being the project group that produced the
set of
> articles.
>

Doug Says: Steve, please. You are starting to sound desperate.
"Bodies of Evidence" in legal terms means evidence gathered from
various sources. The Harvard Medical Report is a body of
evidence.

> Stop bullshitting.
>
>
> > Further, that report can be found directly on the
> >Harvard Link...so cut the bull Steve.
>
>
> Then quote the URL, or *you* cut the bull.
>
> And it better not be:
> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/evidence99/marijuana/Health_1.html

Doug Says: Why not? That link produces the Harvard Medical
Report, as it was used by the law school in evidence. They
presented that report as "evidence" you moron! That is the best
link to use. Not only do you have the report, but you also have
the Harvard Law School using that report as a Body of Evidence to
prove their arguments. I can think of none other that could be
better. Moreover, the Harvard Medical Report lists links and
references at the bottom of the reprort that it suggest all that
read the report visit.

>
> In the meantime here are some more links to Harvard that show
> marijuana in a radically different light to you. If you search
the
> main Harvard site really hard you'll find some that agree with
you,
> but since the real center of this debate/pissing contest is
> disagreement with your *certainty* that marijuana is "lethal",
it
> isn't really going to prove much except that the whole topic is
> controversial and definitely undecided.

Doug Says: The center of the debate is when I said that
marijuana is *harmful* to humans in my response to Drake, and you
appeared claiming that was not true. Moreover, your links only
prove my point.
>
>
http://www.harvard-magazine.com/archive/01ma/ma01_dept_health.htm
l

Doug Says: This is hilarious! The above article was not even
written by a doctor, and was just published in a Harvard
Magazine. It neither represents the opinion of Harvard
University nor even a medical doctor! Steve, you are so
dishonest you are starting to make a complete fool out of
yourself.
>
>
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/evidence99/marijuana/Societal_Pro.ht
ml

Doug Says: The above link reflects the opinon of:

Marijuana is a very useful and effective medicine: it is one of
the least toxic substances, it is highly versatile, and it is
very inexpensive. In fact, according to Lester Dr. Grinspoon,
Associate professor of Psychiatry at the Harvard Medical School
and author of Marihuana: The Forbidden Medicine, the question is
not "is it useful?" but rather, "why is the government so
resistant to making it available to people who need the
medicine?"

Obviously, once again Steve has posted an article about using
marijuana as a medicine in very extreme cases as some evidence
that smoking marijuana is not lethal to humans. Preposterous.
Also note the "opinion" is coming from an "Associate professor of
Psychiatry " - now we have seen it all. First Steve posts an
article by an "Assistant Professor of Sociology" and now an
article by an "Associate Professor of Psychiatry" Are either one
of these guys even full professors? Nope. Are either one
medical doctors? Nope. So why is poor Steve using such nonsense
to try and discredit conclusions drawn by medical experts from
Harvard and the Mayo clinic? Because Steve has been smoking his
own wares for way too long...that's why.

>
> http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~thcdpr/
>
> http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2001/10.11/marijuana.html
>
>
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1998/03.19/WaronDrugsaFail.ht
ml

The rest of Steve's links are along the same lines as typical
pro marijuana propaganda. No substance and not verified by any
qualified medical doctors. Also how do these pro-marijuana
propaganda sites compare with the Harvard Medical Report on
Marijuana and the Mayo Clinic, and even althealth.com report,
WebMD and even the Australian Drug Foundation? All of those
prestigious MEDICAL reports agree with me....marijuana smoking is
lethal to humans. Period. End of Story.
Doug Grant (Tm)

SteveL

unread,

Jul 7, 2002, 5:31:48 PM7/7/02

to

On Sun, 07 Jul 2002 21:19:03 GMT, "DGVREIMAN"
<dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>

>Doug Says: Steve, you just answered your own question
>"integration of work done by others."

I knew you were going to say that. Show me where the "real" Harvard
medical report is. Otherwise you've got law students compiling,
interpreting and editing drug research. And if Professors of
Pharmacology aren't qualified to do so then law students sure ain't.

Show me the URL.

> They USED reports in their
>arguments.

Show me the URL.

> Lawyers are not medical doctors you moron! They do
>not complete medical statistical analysis, complete diagnosis and
>draw conclusions on medical issues. Lawyers, are lawyers, not
>doctors. Lawyers did not generate nor write the Harvard Medical
>School report Steve.....you have been smoking that shit wayyyyyy
>too long to make such a preposterous and ridiculous claim.

>
>
>> And
>> "Created by: Bodies of Evidence 1999"
>>
>> "Bodies of evidence" being the project group that produced the
>set of
>> articles.
>>
>Doug Says: Steve, please. You are starting to sound desperate.
>"Bodies of Evidence" in legal terms means evidence gathered from
>various sources. The Harvard Medical Report is a body of
>evidence.

Liar.

Student Projects and Group Sites
>>>>>(Group Names in Parentheses) <<<<

Each of the following sites represents a group effort undertaken and
executed during the three weeks of the Winter Evidence Course. These
sites represent a combination of original work and integration of work

done by others. Please explore and enjoy.

A Civil Action: The Woburn Story
The Woburn Story: Telling Stories, Winning Verdicts (The Winter of
Our Discontent)
The Woburn Case: A Tale of Woe, Certainly. A Toxic Tort? Maybe Not.
(UnCivil Action)
Berkowitz: Quest for Tenure
Litigating Online/Fighting "Creeping Copyright" (The Eldred v. Reno
Litigation Tem)
MKUltra
Chile: The Case of Augusto Pinochet
The Gillian Guess Site (Sex, Lies, and Audiotape)
Sophocles' Electra: We Swear It Has Something to Do With Evidence
(The Justice League of America)
The People v. Clytemnestra (NWO)
Maroon Sovereignty Project (CyberJam)
>>>>>> "Medical Marihuana: Cure or Catastrophe?" (Bodies of Evidence) <<<<<<
>>> "Impeachment" (Bodies of Evidence) <<<<

>> Stop bullshitting.
>>
>>
>> > Further, that report can be found directly on the
>> >Harvard Link...so cut the bull Steve.
>>
>>
>> Then quote the URL, or *you* cut the bull.
>>
>> And it better not be:
>> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/evidence99/marijuana/Health_1.html
>
>Doug Says: Why not? That link produces the Harvard Medical
>Report, as it was used by the law school in evidence. They
>presented that report as "evidence" you moron! That is the best
>link to use. Not only do you have the report, but you also have
>the Harvard Law School using that report as a Body of Evidence to
>prove their arguments. I can think of none other that could be
>better. Moreover, the Harvard Medical Report lists links and
>references at the bottom of the reprort that it suggest all that
>read the report visit.

Absolute balls, Doug. It's a report produced by some law students for
a school project, not the prestigious report you claimed it was.

< snip even worse lying and logical fallacies by Doug>

Hey, Doug An assistant professor of Psychiatry is a medical doctor,
and is far more qualifed than law students to interpret scienific
data.

Bye Doug. Hope can sleep with that cesspit you call a mind.

SteveL

unread,

Jul 7, 2002, 5:58:44 PM7/7/02

to

On Sun, 07 Jul 2002 21:19:03 GMT, "DGVREIMAN"
<dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

Missed this zinger:

>The rest of Steve's links are along the same lines as typical
>pro marijuana propaganda.

From Harvard, Doug.

> No substance and not verified by any
>qualified medical doctors.

Neither was your "Harvard Medical Report"

> Also how do these pro-marijuana
>propaganda sites

(posted at Harvard)
> compare with the

(discredited)

> Harvard Medical Report on
>Marijuana

LOL you have no shame, Doug.

>and the Mayo Clinic, and even althealth.com report,
>WebMD

All of which contain "pro" articles as well.

> and even the Australian Drug Foundation? All of those
>prestigious MEDICAL reports agree with me...
>.marijuana smoking is

No. Maybe might can be at at extreme stretch shown sometimes in-vitro
but not in-vivo etc. etc.

>lethal to humans. Period. End of Story.

Bye Doug. Enjoy your alcohol related premature senility.

DGVREIMAN

unread,

Jul 8, 2002, 2:24:59 PM7/8/02

to

"SteveL" <Ste...@stevelon.demon.co.uk> wrote in message

news:Pa1W8.78686$vq.36...@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...

Steve: Do you really realize what you are saying? You are
claiming that lawyers wrote the information presented, YET THE
SITE ITSELF LISTS THE VERY NAMES OF DOCTORS THAT WROTE THE REPORT
THE LAWYERS WERE USING AS EVIDENCE! Please go to the site, and
this time stop smoking that shit before you read it! The report
is founded upon other reports from various sources, I said that
the very first time I posted it and I even posted the sources the
site lists. For Instance, the first Reference is Doctor Donald
P. Tashkin, M.D., now does that guy sound like a "lawyer" to you?
HAHAHAHAHAHA. What an imbecile you are! HAHAHAHAHAHA.

In respect to your other sites, they have none if little to do
with this issue. (1) Is marijuana lethal to humans, and (2)
whether it should be generally legalized (not just for medical
purposes.)

Please stay on topic, and stop embarrassing yourself with
misrepresentations that lawyers are doing medical research.
Whew!

Also, your search is on the Harvard Gazette, they publish
hundreds of articles the Medical School does not agree with. ALL
of the medical research I can find demonstrates precisely the
effects on human health marijuana produces. If you have some
that contradict these findings, then you need to post their
excerpts and sources. So far, I have not seen one germane report
from any Medical Doctor of Medicine that you have posted. Yet
the majority of my posts were from Medical Doctors. Try and
understand the difference.

Doug Grant (Tm)

DGVREIMAN

unread,

Jul 8, 2002, 3:09:19 PM7/8/02

to

"SteveL" <Ste...@stevelon.demon.co.uk> wrote in message

news:8r2W8.79175$vq.36...@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...

Doug Says: Steve, the report lists the medical sources right in
the report! It was researched and ALL conclusions are
referenced, and they ALL were completed by Doctors, and the
report was released by Harvard.

I assure you Steve, LAWYERS did not do the medical research or
draw the medical conclusions! Once again references for those
medical conclusions are listed right in the report. Find me one
reference to any lawyer doing any medical research or concluding
anything different from what the medical research site states.
Don't bother, you cannot.

This report is everything I said it was and you know it. The
fact that Harvard Lawyers used this report as evidence only adds
to its credibility, not reduces it.

Doug Grant (Tm)

SteveL

unread,

Jul 8, 2002, 12:16:40 PM7/8/02

to

On Mon, 8 Jul 2002 11:24:59 -0700, "DGVREIMAN" <dre...@velocitus.net>
wrote:

>
>Steve: Do you really realize what you are saying? You are
>claiming that lawyers wrote the information presented, YET THE
>SITE ITSELF LISTS THE VERY NAMES OF DOCTORS THAT WROTE THE REPORT
>THE LAWYERS WERE USING AS EVIDENCE! Please go to the site, and
>this time stop smoking that shit before you read it! The report
>is founded upon other reports from various sources, I said that
>the very first time I posted it and I even posted the sources the
>site lists. For Instance, the first Reference is Doctor Donald
>P. Tashkin, M.D., now does that guy sound like a "lawyer" to you?
>HAHAHAHAHAHA. What an imbecile you are! HAHAHAHAHAHA.

Tashkin is not from Harvard (he's from UCLA) and did not write the
"Harvard medical report". He did the original oft-quoted research that
the law students read, *interpreted*, and referenced. In fact nearly
*everyone* pro and anti refers to Tashkins research. Tashkin's work
has been interpreted by many, many qualified people, including some
whose references others have posted - and been rejected by you because

they weren't "medical doctors" from Harvard like the authors of this

report supposedly were..

The point is, Doug. You've used the supposed authorship of this report
as an argument from authority to reject the supposedly "lesser"
interpretations of Tashkins work that were actually written by far
more qualified people. These "rejected" interpretations were from
Pharmacology Professors, PhDs, MDs, and not law students.

I say again, Tashkin was a *source* read and interpreted by the
"Bodies of Evidence" law student team. He did not write one word of
the report.

Tashkin himself goes almost overboard with careful phrases like
"preliminary results", "caution required", "other research has not
found this". "Results found in-vitro have not been duplicated
clinically" etc. Much less certain than the Harvard article, and
*vastly* less certain than *you* are.

Tashkin himself denies that one joint = one pack of cigarettes.

Tashkin himself claims a joint has been known to cure an asthma
attack.

Tashkin's work recommends caution until *much* more clinical (not
in-vitro, or animal) research can be done.

Quote from Dr Tashkin:
"evidence regarding the potential long-term
pulmonary consequences of regular marijuana smoking is mixed. Several
studies conducted during the past decade on whole animals and isolated
cell systems exposed to marijuana smoke, as well as some clinical
observations, suggest that marijuana can be harmful to the lung.
Conversely, human studies carried out abroad have failed to find any
evidence of respiratory dysfunction or disease in long-term heavy
users of marijuana"

So with that in mind how about reading these again, this time in
knowledge that these interpretations of Tashkin's work are better
qualified than the law students who wrote the "Harvard Medical Report"

MARIJUANA HEALTH MYTHS by Dale Gieringer, Ph.D., Coordinator,
California NORML
http://paranoia.lycaeum.org/marijuana/facts/mj-health-mythology.html#myth3

Myth: One joint equals one pack of (or 16, or maybe just 4) cigarettes
Some critics exaggerate the dangers of marijuana smoking by
fallaciously citing a study by Dr. Tashkin which found that daily pot
smokers experienced a "mild but significant" increase in airflow
resistance in the large airways greater than that seen in persons
smoking 16 cigarettes per day.(7) What they ignore is that the same
study examined other, more important aspects of lung health, in which
marijuana smokers did much better than tobacco smokers. Dr. Tashkin
himself disavows the notion that one joint equals 16 cigarettes. A
more widely accepted estimate is that marijuana smokers consume four
times as much carcinogenic tar as cigarettes smokers per weight
smoked. (8) This does not necessarily mean that one joint equals four
cigarettes, since joints usually weigh less. In fact, the average
joint has been estimated to contain 0.4 grams of pot, a bit less than
one-half the weight of a cigarette, making one joint equal to two
cigarettes (actually, joint sizes range from cigar-sized spliffs
smoked by Rastas, to very fine sinsemilla joints weighing as little as
0.2 grams). It should be noted that there is no exact equivalency
between tobacco and marijuana smoking, because they affect different
parts of the respiratory tract differently: whereas tobacco tends to
penetrate to the smaller, peripheral passageways of the lungs, pot
tends to concentrate on the larger, central passageways.(9) One
consequence of this is that pot, unlike tobacco, does not appear to
cause emphysema.

*************************************************************************
Exposing Marijuana Myths:
A Review of the Scientific Evidence

Lynn Zimmer
Associate Professor of Sociology, Queens College
John P. Morgan
Professor of Pharmacology, City University of New York Medical School

CLAIM #4:

MARIJUANA CAUSES LUNG DISEASE

It is frequently claimed that marijuana smoke contains such high
concentrations of irritants that marijuana users' risk of developing
lung disease is equal to or greater than that of tobacco users.

THE FACTS

Except for their psychoactive ingredients, marijuana and tobacco smoke
are nearly identical. 21 Because most marijuana smokers inhale more
deeply and hold the smoke in their lungs, more dangerous material may
be consumed per cigarette. However, it is the total volume of irritant
inhalation - not the amount in each cigarette - that matters.

Most tobacco smokers consume more than 10 cigarettes per day and some
consume 40 or more. Regular marijuana smokers seldom consume more than
three to five cigarettes (sic - I think they mean joints) per day and
most consume far fewer. Thus, the amount of irritant material inhaled
almost never approaches that of tobacco users.
Frequent marijuana smokers experience adverse respiratory symptoms
from smoking, including chronic cough, chronic phlegm, and wheezing.
However, the only prospective clinical study shows no increased risk
of crippling pulmonary disease (chronic bronchitis and emphysema).
Since 1982, UCLA researchers have evaluated pulmonary function and
bronchial cell characteristics in marijuana-only smokers, tobacco-only
smokers, smokers of both, and non-smokers. Although they have found
changes in marijuana-only smokers, the changes are much less
pronounced than those found in tobacco smokers.
The nature of the marijuana-induced changes were also different,
occurring primarily in the lung's large airways - not the small
peripheral airways affected by tobacco smoke. Since it is small-airway
inflammation that causes chronic bronchitis and emphysema, marijuana
smokers may not develop these diseases. 22

In an epidemiological survey, approximately 1200 subjects gave
information on smoking and pulmonary function at two-year intervals. A
large percentage of the subjects underwent pulmonary function testing.
Although a small group who reported previous marijuana smoking had
significant pulmonary abnormalities, current marijuana smokers had no
significant reduction in any pulmonary functions. 23
There are no epidemiological or aggregate clinical data suggesting
that marijuana-only smokers develop lung cancer. However, since some
bronchial cell changes appear to be pre-cancerous, an increased risk
of cancer among frequent marijuana smokers is possible. 24

Since the pulmonary risks associated with marijuana are related to
smoking, the danger is eliminated with other routes of administration.
For committed smokers, pulmonary risk might be reduced with
higher-potency products, which produce desired psychoactive effects
with less inhalation of irritants. Smokers could also be encouraged to
abandon deep inhalation and breath-holding, which increase drug
delivery only slightly. Finally, pulmonary risk might be reduced if
marijuana were smoked in water pipes rather than cigarettes. 25

CLAIM #5:
MARIJUANA IMPAIRS IMMUNE SYSTEM FUNCTIONING

It has been widely claimed that marijuana substantially increases
users' risk of contracting various infectious diseases. First emerging
in the 1970s, this claim took on new significance in the 1980s,
following reports of marijuana use by people suffering from AIDS.

THE FACTS

The principal study fueling the original claim of immune impairment
involved preparations created with white blood cells that had been
removed from marijuana smokers and controls. After exposing the cells
to known immune activators, researchers reported a lower rate of
"transformation" in those taken from marijuana smokers. 26

However, numerous groups of scientists, using similar techniques, have
failed to confirm this original study. 27
In fact, a 1988 study demonstrated an increase in responsiveness when
white blood cells from marijuana smokers were exposed to immunological
activators. 28

Studies involving laboratory animals have shown immune impairment
following administration of THC, but only with the use of extremely
high doses. For example, one study demonstrated an increase in herpes
infection in rodents given doses of 100 mg/kg/day - a dose
approximately 1000 times the dose necessary to produce a psychoactive
effect in humans. 29
There have been no clinical or epidemiological studies showing an
increase in bacterial, viral, or parasitic infection among human
marijuana users. In three large field studies conducted in the 1970s,
in Jamaica, Costa Rica and Greece, researchers found no differences in
disease susceptibility between marijuana users and matched controls.
30

Marijuana use does not increase the risk of HIV infection; nor does it
increase the onset or intensity of symptoms among AIDS patients. 31 In
fact, the FDA decision to approve the use of Marinol (synthetic THC)
for use in HIV-wasting syndrome relied upon the absence of any
immunopathology due to THC. 32

Today, thousands of people with AIDS are smoking marijuana daily to
combat nausea and increase appetite. There is no scientific basis for
claims that this practice compromises their immune responses. Indeed,
the recent discovery of a peripheral cannabinoid receptor associated
with lymphatic tissue should encourage aggressive exploration of THC's
potential use as an immune-system stimulant. 33

CLAIM #8:
MARIJUANA CAUSES BRAIN DAMAGE

Critics state that marijuana has been shown to damage brain cells and
that this damage, in turn, causes memory loss, cognitive impairment,
and difficulties in learning.

THE FACTS

The original basis of this claim was a report that, upon postmortem
examinations, structural changes in several brain regions were found
in two rhesus monkeys exposed to THC. 51 Because these changes
primarily involved the hippocampus, a cortical brain region known to
play an important role in learning and memory, this finding suggested
possible negative consequences for human marijuana users.

Additional studies, employing rodents, reported similar brain changes.
However, to achieve these results, massive doses of THC - up to 200
times the psychoactive dose in humans - had to be given . In fact,
studies employing 100 times the human dose have failed to reveal any
damage. 52

In the most recently published study, rhesus monkeys were exposed
through face-mask inhalation to the smoke equivalent of four to five
joints per day for one year. When sacrificed seven months later, there
was no observed alteration of hippocampal architecture, cell size,
cell number, or synaptic configuration. The authors conclude:
"while behavioral and neuroendocrinal effects are observed during
marijuana smoke exposure in the monkey, residual neuropathological and
neurochemical effects of marijuana exposure were not observed seven
months after the year-long marijuana smoke regimen." 53
Thus, 20 years after the first report of brain damage in two
marijuana-exposed monkeys, the claim of damage to brain cells has been
effectively disproven.
No postmortem examinations of the brains of human marijuana users have
ever been conducted. However, numerous studies have explored marijuana
effect on brain-related cognitive functions. Many employ an
experimental design - in which subjects are given marijuana in a
laboratory setting, and then compared to controls on a variety of
measures involving attention, learning and memory.

In a number of studies, no significant differences were detected. 54
In fact, there is substantial research demonstrating that that
marijuana intoxication does not impair the retrieval of information
learned previously. 55 However, there is evidence that marijuana,
particularly in high doses, may interfere with users' ability to
transfer new information into longterm memory. 56
While there is general agreement that, while under the influence of
marijuana, learning is less efficient, 57 there is no evidence that
marijuana users - even longterm users - suffer permanent impairment.
Indeed, numerous studies comparing chronic marijuana users with
non-user controls have found no significant differences in learning,
memory recall or other cognitive functions. 58

Notes;
21. Huber, G.L. et al, "The Effects of Marihuana on the Respiratory
and Cardiovascular Systems," pp 3-18 in G. Chesher et al (eds),
Marijuana: an International Research Report, Canberra: Australian
Government Publishing Service (1988).

22. Tashkin, D.P. et al, "Longitudinal Changes in Respiratory Symptoms
and Lung Function in Non-smokers, Tobacco Smokers, and Heavy, Habitual
Smokers of Marijuana With or Without Tobacco," pp 25-36 in G. Chesher
et al (eds), Marijuana: an International Research Report, Canberra:
Australian Government Publishing Service (1988).

23. Sherrill, D.L. et al, "Respiratory Effects of Non-Tobacco
Cigarettes: A Longitudinal Study in General Population," International
Journal of Epidemiology 20: 132-37 (1991).

24. Fligiel, S.E.G. et al, "Bronchial Pathology in Chronic Marijuana
Smokers: A Light Electron Microscope Study," Journal of Psychoactive
Drugs 20:33-42 (1988).

25. Doblin, R., "The MAPS/California NORML/Marijuana
Waterpipe/Vaporizer Study," Newsletter of the Multidisciplinary
Association for Psychedelic Studies 5,1 (Summer 1994).

26. Nahas, G.G. et al, "Inhibition of Cellular Mediated Immunity in
Marijuana Smokers," Science 183:419-20 (1974).

27. Lau, R.J. et al, "Phytohemagglutinin-Induced Lymphocyte
Transformation in Humans Receiving Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol,"
Science 192: 805-07 (1976); White, S.C. et al, "Mitogen-Induced
Blastogenetic Responses to Lymphocytes from Marijuana Smokers,"
Science 188: 71-72 (1975).

28. Wallace, J.M. et al, "Peripheral Blood Lymphocyte Subpopulations
and Mitogen Responsiveness in Tobacco and Marijuana Smokers," Journal
of Psychoactive Drugs 20:9-14 (1988).

29. Mishkin, E.M. and Cabral, G.A., "Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol
Decreases Host Resistance to Herpes Simplex Virus Type 2 Vaginal
Infection in the BGC3F1 Mouse," Journal of General Virology 66:2539-49
(1985).

30. Carter, W.E. (ed), Cannabis in Costa Rica: A Study of Chronic
Marijuana Use, Philadelphia: Institute for Study of Human Issues
(1980); Rubin, V. and Comitas, L., Ganja in Jamaica, The Hague: Mouton
(1975); Stefanis, C. et al, Hashish: Studies of Long Term Use, New
York: Raven Press (1977).

31. Coates, R.A. et al, "Cofactors of Progression to Acquired
Immunodeficiency Syndrome in a Cohort of Male Sexual Contacts of Men
with Immunodeficiency Virus Disease," American Journal of Epidemiology
132: 717-22 (1990).

32. Plasse, T.F. et al, "Recent Clinical Experience with Dronabinol,"
Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior 40:695-700 (1991).

33. Lynn, A.B. and Herkenham, M., "Localization of Cannabinoid
Receptors and Nonsaturable High Density Cannabinoid Binding Sites in
Peripheral Tissues of the Rat: Implications for Receptor-Mediated
Immune Modulation by Cannabinoids," Journal of Pharmacology and
Experimental Therapeutics 268: 1612-23 (1994).

51. Heath, B.C. et al, "Cannabis Sativa: Effects on Brain Function and
Ultrastructure in Rhesus Monkeys," Biological Psychiatry 15:657
(1980).

52. Scallet, A.C., "Neurotoxicology of Cannabis and THC: A Review of
Chronic Exposure Studies in Animals," Pharmacology Biochemistry and
Behavior 40:671-82 (1991).

53. Slikker, W. et al, "Behavioral, Neurochemical, and
Neurohistological Effects of Chronic Marijuana Smoke Exposure in the
Nonhuman Primate," pp 219-74 in L. Murphy and A. Bartke (eds),
Marijuana/Cannabinoids Neurobiology and Neurophysiology, Boca Raton:
CRC Press (1992).

54. Weckowicz, T.E. et al, "Effect of Marijuana on Divergent and
Convergent Production Cognitive Tests," Journal of Abnormal Psychology
84:386-98 (1975); Hooker, W.D., and Jones, R.T., "Increased
Susceptibility to Memory Intrusions and the Stroop Interference Effect
During Acute Marijuana Intoxication," Psychopharmacology 91: 20-24
(1987); Waskow, I.E. et el, "Psychological Effects of
Tetrahydrocannabinol," Archives of General Psychiatry 22: 97-107
(1970); Dornbush, R.L. and Kokkevi, A., "Acute Effects of Cannabis on
Cognitive, Perceptual, and Motor Performance in Chronic Hashish
Users," Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 282: 213-22 (1976).

55. Darley, C.F. et al, "Marijuana Effects on Long-Term Memory
Assessment and Retrieval," Psychopharmacology 52:239-41 (1977); Abel,
E.L., "Retrieval of Information After Use of Marijuana," pp 121-24 in
E.L. Abel (ed) The Scientific Study of Marijuana, Chicago: Nelson-Hall
Publishers (1976); Abel, E.L., "Marijuana and Memory: Acquisition or
Retrieval?" pp 125-32 in E.L. Abel (ed) The Scientific Study of
Marijuana, Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers (1976).

56. Abel, E.L., "Marijuana and Memory: Acquisition or Retrieval?" pp
125-32 in E.L. Abel (ed) The Scientific Study of Marijuana, Chicago:
Nelson-Hall Publishers (1976); Miller, L. et al, "Effects of Marijuana
on Recall of Narrative Material and Stroop Colour-Word Performance,"
pp 117-20 in E.L. Abel (ed) The Scientific Study of Marijuana,
Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers (1976); Dornbush, R.L. et al,
"Marijuana, Memory, and Perception," pp 133-40 in E.L. Abel (ed) The
Scientific Study of Marijuana, Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers (1976).

57. Ferraro, D.P., "Acute Effects of Marijuana on Human Memory and
Cognition," pp 98-119 in R.C. Petersen (ed) Marijuana Research
Findings: 1980, Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse
(1980).

58. Satz, P. et al, "Neuropsychologic, Intellectual, and Personality
Correlates of Chronic Marijuana Use in Native Costa Ricans," Annals of
the New York Academy of Sciences 282: 266-306 (1976); Grant, I. et al,
"A Neuropsychological Assessment of the Effects of Moderate Marijuana
Use," Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 156: 278-80 (1973);
Knights, R., "Psychological Test Results," pp 111-20 in V. Rubin and
L. Comitas (eds), Ganja in Jamaica, The Hague: Mouton (1975); Page,
J.B., "Psychosociocultural Perspectives on Chronic Cannabis Use: The
Costa Rican Follow-Up," Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 20: 57-65
(1988); Carlin, A.S. and Trupin, E.W., "The Effect of Long-Term
Chronic Marijuana Use on Neuropsychological Functioning,"
International Journal of the Addictions 12:617-24 (1977).
***************************************************************************************

>
>In respect to your other sites, they have none if little to do
>with this issue. (1) Is marijuana lethal to humans, and (2)
>whether it should be generally legalized (not just for medical
>purposes.)
>
>Please stay on topic, and stop embarrassing yourself with
>misrepresentations that lawyers are doing medical research.
>Whew!

I didn't say that. I said they *interpreted* medical research evidence
and wrote the report based on that, and that this a) doesn't make it a
prestigious report worth quoting by you, and b) it belies your
rejection of alternative interpretations written by far better
qualified people than law students.

Stuart Morrison

unread,

Jul 8, 2002, 2:18:27 PM7/8/02

to

You missed this one.:

http://www.jackherer.com/book/ch15.html

"In 1976, Dr. Tashkin, M.D., UCLA, sent a written
report to Dr. Gabriel
Nahas at the Rheims, France, Conference on "Potential
Cannabis Medical
Dangers". That report became the most sensationalized story
to come out of this
negative world conference on cannabis.

This surprised Tashkin, who had sent the report to
the Rheims
conference as an afterthought.

What Tashkin reported to the Rheims conference was
that only one of the
29 pulmonary areas of the human lung studied the large air
passageway Did he
find marijuana to be more of an irritant (by 15 times) than
tobacco. This
figure is insignificant, however, since Tashkin also notes
that tobacco has
almost no effect on this area. Therefore, 15 times almost
nothing is still
almost nothing. in any event, cannabis has a positive or
neutral effect in most
other areas of the lung. (See chapter 7, "Therapeutic Uses
of Cannabis.")

(Tashkin, Dr. Donald, UCLA studies, 1969-83; UCLA
Pulmonary Studies,
1969-95.)

Afterwards in 1977, the U.S. government resumed
funding for ongoing
cannabis pulmonary studies which it had cut two years
earlier when Tashkin
reported encouraging therapeutic results with marijuana/lung
studies. But now
the government limited funding only to research to the large
air passageway.

We have interviewed Dr. Tashkin dozens of times. In
1986 I asked him
about an article he was preparing for the New England
Journal of Medicine,
indicating that cannabis smoke caused as many or more
pre-cancerous lesions as
tobacco in "equal" amounts.

Most people do not realize, nor are the media told,
that any tissue
abnormality (abrasion, eruption, or even redness) is called
a pre-cancerous
lesion. Unlike lesions caused by tobacco, the THC-related
lesions contain no
radioactivity.

We asked Tashkin how many persons had gone on to get
lung cancer in
these or any other studies of long-term cannabis-only
smokers (Rastas,
Coptics, etc.)

Sitting in his UCLA laboratory, Dr. Tashkin looked
at me and said,
"That's the strange part. So far no one we've studied has
gone on to get lung
cancer."

"Was this reported to the press?"

"Well, it's in the article," Dr. Tashkin said. "But
no one in the press
even asked. They just assumed the worst." His answer to us
was still that not
one single case of lung cancer in someone who only smoked
cannabis, has ever
been reported. It should be remembered that he and other
doctors had predicted
20 years ago, their certainty that hundreds of thousands of
marijuana smokers
would by now (1997) have developed lung cancer.

Another Fact:

Emphysema Suffers
Benefit

During a later interview, Tashkin congratulated me
on the tip I'd given
him that marijuana used for emphysema produced good results
among persons we
knew.

He laughed at me originally, because he had presumed
that marijuana
aggravated emphysema, but after reviewing his evidence found
that, except in
the rarest of cases, marijuana was actually of great benefit
to emphysema
suffers due to the opening and dilation of the bronchial
passages.

And so the relief reported to us by cannabis smoking
emphysema patients
was confirmed.

Marijuana smoke is not unique in its benefits to the
lungs. Yerba
Santa, Colt's foot, Horehound, and other herbs have
traditionally been smoked
to help the lungs.

Tobacco and its associated dangers have so
prejudiced persons against
"smoking" that most persons believe cannabis smoking to be
as or more dangerous
than tobacco. With research banned, these public health and
safety facts are
not readily available.

In December 1997, we asked Dr. Tashkin again, and he
unequivocably
stated that "marijuana does not cause or potentiate
emphysema in any way." In
addition, there has not been one case of lung cancer ever
attributed to smoking
cannabis.

...

(Read the 1982 N.I.H.; the National Academy of Science's
evaluation on past
studies; and the Costa Rica report, 1980.) No Harm to Human
Brain or
Intelligence Hemp has been used in virtually all societies
since time
immemorial as a work motivator and to highlight and renew
creative energies."

SteveL

unread,

Jul 8, 2002, 4:09:52 PM7/8/02

to

Thanks Stuart.

OK here's another one :-) . And let's not forget that virtually all of
the cites (be it Mayo Clinic, Harvard, Australian etc) about
marijuana's effects on the lungs, and on the immune systems came from
people using Dr. Tashkin's work as a base.

Again, this doesn't claim marijuana is completely safe, but it doesn't
exactly demonize it either. It finds some positive aspects to
marijuana use, and suggests that marijuana smoke is less harmful than
cigarette smoke - but again, not completely safe.

Like your article I think it shows the attitude of the man himself,
who is clearly less driven by anti-drug ideology than many people who
interpret and quote his work.

Since he's a pulmonologist I'd guess he wouldn't be too interested in
researching the effects of *eating* cannabis resin. But I'd like to
see some research on that. It would be useful to not have to factor in
the potential dangers of inhaling noxious *smoke* and see the effects
of the drug itself.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

Marijuana Less Harmful to Lungs than Cigarettes
by Louise Gagnon, Medical Post, Sept. 6 1994

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

L'ESTEREL, Quebec -- Heavy marijuana smokers show less evidence of
lung
injury than heavy tobacco smokers, and it may be cannabinoids that are
protecting them from developing a condition like emphysema.

That's according to the principal investigator of a study done at the
University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA).

Speaking at the third annual meeting of the International Cannabis
Research Society here, Dr. Donald Tashkin, a pulmonologist and UCLA
professor of medicine, concluded heavy marijuana use did not cause the
same degree of lung injury as tobacco smoke.

"My own feeling is that marijuana smokers probably will not develop
emphysema as a consequence of smoking marijuana," he said, but
cautioned
that does not rule out the development of other conditions like
respiratory carcinoma.

"It may be that the THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) in marijuana
could have different effects on inflammatory cells, which may mediate
injury in the lung."

His study, which aimed to measure the pulmonary effects of habitual
marijuana use, followed nine tobacco smokers, 10 marijuana smokers, 10
nonsmokers and four smokers of both marijuana and tobacco. He gave
both
quantitative and qualitative explanations for his finding.

Marijuana users in the study smoked three or four joints daily for 15
years on average, while tobacco smokers in the study smoked 25
cigarettes daily over a period of 20 years, indicating a marked
difference in exposure to smoke.

"There is a seven-fold difference in the amount of smoke to which
marijuana and tobacco smokers are exposed," he said.

"It's the quantitative difference in smoke exposure that might explain
the difference in the degree of lung injury as assessed by these
physiologic indices."

Moreover, the phagocytes gathered from the lungs of marijuana smokers
do
not have the same properties as those gathered from the lungs of
tobacco
smokers.

"We have previously shown that the macrophages that are harvested from
the rinse-out of the lungs of marijuana smokers seem not to be
activated," he said. "They do not release toxic oxygen species, either
under basal conditions or under stimulated conditions nearly to the
extent that tobacco macrophages do. If anything, basal secretion of
superoxide seems to be reduced in the marijuana smokers."

Dr. Tashkin measured the clearance of the molecule diethylene triamine
penta-acetate (DTPA) from the lung, believed to be a more sensitive
indicator of lung injury than measuring the lung's diffusing capacity.

If DTPA clearance is accelerated, then it implies an increase in the
leakiness of the alveolar epithelial membrane, which implies injury to
the membrane, he said.

Dr. Tashkin noted DTPA clearance is accelerated in tobacco smoke-
related lung injury.

Initially, the chronic effects of marijuana smoke were measured in
comparison to those of tobacco smoke: DTPA clearance was measured at
about 12 hours after the last marijuana or tobacco cigarette smoked.

To determine the acute effects of marijuana and tobacco smoking, Dr.
Tashkin restudied these smokers a week or two later, giving them a
single joint of marijuana or a single tobacco cigarette or both, and
then measuring DTPA clearance 15 minutes subsequently.

"What we found was the clearance of DTPA was abnormally rapid from the
lung in the tobacco smokers," he said. "It was about twice the rate of
non-smokers. In the marijuana smokers, there was a tendency toward a
much less rapid rate of clearance. There was no acute effect in either
tobacco or marijuana, and there was no added effect of marijuana or
tobacco."

As with the lungs to tobacco smokers, when the lungs of marijuana
smokers are "washed out", a marked increase in the number of alveolar
macrophages is witnessed.

But whereas tobacco smoke has a concomitant effect of activating the
macrophages, leading to the subsequent release of certain toxic
substances, marijuana smoke fails to activate the macrophages, Dr.
Tashkin said. He noted this difference could be attributed to
differential regulation of cytokins.

"It may be that the macrophages from marijuana smokers release certain
suppressive cytokins, like transforming growth factor- beta, which is
known to suppress the inflammatory activity of nearly all of the site
populations," he said. "That's our hypothesis, which we are currently
exploring."

DGVREIMAN

unread,

Jul 8, 2002, 4:37:34 PM7/8/02

to

"SteveL" <Ste...@stevelon.demon.co.uk> wrote in message

news:kkmW8.94975$vq.44...@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...

> Thanks Stuart.
>
> OK here's another one :-) . And let's not forget that virtually
all of
> the cites (be it Mayo Clinic, Harvard, Australian etc) about
> marijuana's effects on the lungs, and on the immune systems
came from
> people using Dr. Tashkin's work as a base.

Doug Says: What utter lies Steve! If a cite references another
study that does not automatically mean it used that study as a
statistical base for its own study! Do you know *anything* about
what you are posting about?

> Again, this doesn't claim marijuana is completely safe, but it
doesn't
> exactly demonize it either. It finds some positive aspects to
> marijuana use, and suggests that marijuana smoke is less
harmful than
> cigarette smoke - but again, not completely safe.

Doug Says: That is abject nonsense. ALL of the reports state
that smoking marijuana is anywhere from four times worse to 20
times worse than smoking cigarettes. You must be making this up
as you go along. Here is a report that proves you are
lying....again:

Marijuana Causes Cancer - Proof

If one was looking for even more credibility in these marijuana
cancer reports, one would not need to look very far. Some of the
components that made up the Harvard Report contain some of the
best credentials in the world. In this report alone we can
reference (1) Journal of Science, (2)National Academy of
Sciences, Institute of Medicine Report, and Doctor William M.
Bennett, M.D., Professor of Medicine, Division of Nephrology,
Clinical Pharmacology and Hypertension at Oregon Health Sciences
University, Portland, Oregon. Dr. Bennett, who is listed in "BEST
DOCTORS IN AMERICA,"

(No Assiasstant Professors of Sociology like Steve's report in
this bunch.)

This report is for those imbeciles that claim "Duh, Marijuana
ain't never done no harm, never did kill anyone, Duh."

"Marijuana / Cancer LinkMARIJUANA / CANCER LINK

Lung cancer causing carcinogen more prevalent in marijuana than
in tobacco.

Sandra Bennett, Northwest Centre for Health & Safety.

A breakthrough report published in the journal Science, October
18, 1996, provides the first true molecular evidence conclusively
linking components in tobacco smoking to lung cancer.

A chemical found in tobacco smoking, benzopyrene, causes genetic
damage in lung cells that is identical to the damage observed in
the DNA of most malignant tumors of the lungs. Although
scientists have been convinced in the past that smoking causes
lung cancer, the strong statistical associations did not provide
absolute proof.

This paper absolutely pinpoints that mutations in lung cancer
cells are caused by benzopyrene.

An average marijuana cigarette contains 30 nanograms of this
carcinogen, compared to 21 nanograms in an average tobacco
cigarette (Marijuana and Health, National Academy of Sciences,
Institute of Medicine report,1982). This potent carcinogen
suppresses a gene that controls growth of cells. When this gene
is damaged, the body becomes more susceptible to cancer. This
gene, P53, is related to half of all human cancers and as many
as 70% of lung cancers.

Clearly marijuana smoke contains more of the potent carcinogen
benzopyrene than tobacco smoke. Furthermore, the technique
of\line smoking marijuana by inhaling deeply and holding the
smoke within the lungs presents a chance of much greater
exposure than a conventional tobacco cigarette.

This material has been reviewed and commented on by William M.
Bennett, M.D., Professor of Medicine, Division of Nephrology,
Clinical Pharmacology and Hypertension at Oregon Health Sciences
University, Portland, Oregon. Dr. Bennett, who is listed in "BEST
DOCTORS IN AMERICA," states, "The idea of using smoked marijuana
containing these carcinogens as medicine, particularly for
patients who have suppressed immune systems like those with AIDS,
should be unthinkable."

End of Report.

DGVREIMAN

unread,

Jul 8, 2002, 4:57:07 PM7/8/02

to

"SteveL" <Ste...@stevelon.demon.co.uk> wrote in message

news:3kejiu4hqh1bsgubp...@4ax.com...

Doug Says: Steve, first you said lawyers wrote the Harvard
Report, now you admit the Harvard report references conclusions
by doctors, (UCLA and the University of Indiana, and several
others). ALL reports use ALL of the evidence they can find to
present conclusions. Moreover, it is illegal for Lawyers to
compose or write their own evidence. (Also I have no problem
with Harvard using statistical studies from other universities,
like UCLA and the University of Indiana, and the University of
Oregon, and many others.)

Although the author is not named precisely in the report, all of
the conclusions come from qualified medical doctors from a
variety of well respected medical schools and universities. They
are NOT "Assistant Professors in Sociology from Queens College"
like those authors you present as "evidence."

It does not matter the name of the typist that typed up the
Harvard Report Steve, what matters is whether it is accurate or
not. Medical Doctors compiled the conclusions presented in this
report, their names and studies are referenced. So cut the Bull
Steve.

The Harvard Report clearly was reviewed and authored by a Medical
Doctor. If you read it, you will know that. If this Doctor did
not use previously recognized statistical reports to confirm his
own findings, then he would be a fool.

I realize you are trying your best to backpeddle from your
argument that smoking marijuana will not kill humans, but trying
to claim the Harvard report is false, that is not evidenced by
conclusions from medical doctors, is preposterous. Anyone that
reads that report will instantly know that is a lie....one of
many you are trying to sell.

The facts are Steve that smoking marijuana will kill you. It
will also cause mental distress, mental retardation and a host of
other maladies, some lethal some just debilitating I just posted
hard scientific evidence of those facts. Read it below and try
to find a lie to get around this:

Cyrakis

unread,

Jul 8, 2002, 7:05:15 PM7/8/02

to

"DGVREIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<vquV8.80394$UT.54...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...

The only lethality to fear from marijuana, is being lynched by some
repugnant christian-taliban shithead like this poster.

Read it, bitch, and learn:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness.

You know what those words were written on, you fuckwit? Paper made
from the cannabis plant.

SteveL

unread,

Jul 8, 2002, 7:50:49 PM7/8/02

to

On Mon, 08 Jul 2002 20:57:07 GMT, "DGVREIMAN"
<dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

Doug, all your typical smokescreen shouting and lies and go for the
jugular attempts to throw me on the defensive do not hide the fact
that your "Harvard Medical report" was written by a team of law
students for a class project. Not Doctors. Not fully fledged Lawyers
(which seems to be your latest deliberate misread, just like the
deliberate editting out of the Professor of Phamacology), but students
on a law course.

You *want* it to be written and officially sanctioned by a doctor, so
that makes it so for you. You can't show it though. You're just
making it up. It is not an official medical report. It was a class
project by students and no more - right along side the "Maroon
Sovereignty Project", and essays by student's about their thoughts on
the course.

The class project referenced Dr Tashkin's report. But it isn't Dr
Tashkin's report. I've already quoted Dr Tashkin. Read him and comment
on his views and stop trying to change the subject.

And if you love the so-called "Harvard Medical Report" (actually
called no such thing) report so much why do you refuse to read and
comment on the others in the same project? There are another seven of
them. But you won't read them any more than you will read anything
else you don't agree with.

And yes, I read the report you just posted. Another "in-vitro"
biochemical experimental find, which doesn't advance the *real*
situation one bit. Dr. Tashkin says there is plenty of in-vitro
evidence. What is lacking is clinical *real world* evidence. And that
still doen't exist, as Tashkin himself complains.

***********************

Quote from Dr Tashkin:
"evidence regarding the potential long-term
pulmonary consequences of regular marijuana smoking is mixed. Several
studies conducted during the past decade on whole animals and isolated
cell systems exposed to marijuana smoke, as well as some clinical
observations, suggest that marijuana can be harmful to the lung.
Conversely, human studies carried out abroad have failed to find any
evidence of respiratory dysfunction or disease in long-term heavy
users of marijuana"

***********************************************************
From Stuart's post.

SteveL

unread,

Jul 8, 2002, 8:09:10 PM7/8/02

to

On Mon, 08 Jul 2002 20:37:34 GMT, "DGVREIMAN"
<dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>

>Doug Says: That is abject nonsense. ALL of the reports state
>that smoking marijuana is anywhere from four times worse to 20
>times worse than smoking cigarettes. You must be making this up
>as you go along. Here is a report that proves you are
>lying....again:

"Making it up as I go along?" Oh please, Doug. The article was quoted
right below my comments on it. You snipped it out.

зKе WхгKАо

unread,

Jul 8, 2002, 9:03:20 PM7/8/02

to

On 8 Jul 2002 16:05:15 -0700, cyr...@yahoo.com (Cyrakis) wrote:

>You know what those words were written on, you fuckwit? Paper made
>from the cannabis plant.

was it really written on hemp?

learn something new everyday.

that's certainly a strong endorsement for legalization, at least of hemp as a
fiber product.

DGVREIMAN

unread,

Jul 9, 2002, 11:12:41 AM7/9/02

to

Australian Marijuana Report

The following information was taken from the Australian Report on
Drugs (ADF) site listed below the Harvard Report. Note the
effects presented here reflect smoking just one marijuana joint
per day on average.

ADF Report:

"Effects
The effects of any drug (including cannabis) vary from
person to person. It depends on many factors including an
individual's size, weight and health, how the drug is taken, how
much is taken, whether the person is used to taking it, what
it's being taken for (for example, stress) and
whether other drugs are taken. The effects also depend on the
environment in which the drug is used - for example, whether the
person is alone, with others, or in a specific social setting.

When people are affected by cannabis they are said to be
"stoned", "bent" or "high". Traces of THC can remain detectable
in urine samples for days, even weeks, after use.

Immediate effects Small quantities of cannabis can have effects
that last 2 to 3 hours after smoking. Relaxation and loss
of inhibition: Cannabis can make the user feel happy, relaxed,
and comfortable. They may feel less inhibited, friendlier and
laugh spontaneously. Sometimes people become quiet and
reflective. They may also become sleepy.

Increased appetite: Cannabis often increases the appetite and
leads to snacking on junk food, "the munchies." Affected
perception: Cannabis can increase awareness and the perception of
colour, sound and other sensations. It can affect vision and
perception of time and space.

Less coordination: Cannabis decreases coordination and balance,
making it dangerous to drive or operate machinery.

Thinking and memory: Cannabis affects memory and the ability to
think logically. People can lose track of what they are saying
or thinking. When affected by cannabis, some people may think
as though they've had profound ideas or insights.

Other common immediate effects include increased heart rate, low
blood pressure, faintness and reddened eyes. There also can be a
"hangover" effect, like drowsiness and poor coordination that
lasts for several hours after the initial effects.

In greater quantities Larger quantities of marijuana make the
above effects stronger, and also
tend to distort a person's perceptions.

Very large quantities of marijuana can produce: (More than one
joint).
confusion
restlessness
feelings of excitement
hallucinations
anxiety or panic, or detachment from reality
decreased reaction time
paranoia.

Long-term effects (smoking an average of one joint per day).

Research in Australia and the USA shows evidence of some
long-term effects in some regular cannabis users.

Respiratory illness: Marijuana cigarettes have more tar than
tobacco, placing cannabis users at an increased risk of
respiratory illness such as lung cancer and chronic bronchitis.
This risk is increased because marijuana smokers often inhale
deeply, and hold the smoke in the lungs longer, to increase
the effects of the drug. Cigarette smokers who also smoke
cannabis have an even greater risk of respiratory disease.

Less motivation: Many regular users, especially young people,
have reported that they have less energy and motivation so that
performance at work or school suffers. Usually these effects
disappear gradually when cannabis use stops.

Brain function: Concentration, memory and the ability to learn
can all be reduced by regular cannabis use. These effects can
last for several months after ceasing cannabis use.

Hormones: Cannabis can affect hormone production. Research shows
that some cannabis users have a lower sex drive. Irregular
menstrual cycles and lowered sperm counts have also been
reported.

Psychosis

In general, there appears to be three separate circumstances
whereby cannabis and psychosis are linked.

It is believed that cannabis use is linked to a condition known
as a drug-induced psychosis or cannabis psychosis. This can last
up to a few days. The episodes are often characterised by
hallucinations, delusions, memory loss and confusion.

Cannabis use may also precipitate a latent psychosis. In other
words, it could bring forward an episode of schizophrenia or
manic depressive psychosis in a vulnerable or pre-disposed
individual.

It is possible that cannabis use can trigger psychotic episodes
in a person who already has a mental illness

Tolerance and dependence

With regular use, people can develop a mild tolerance to
cannabis. This means they need to take more and more to get the
same effect.

Dependence on a drug can be psychological, physical or both.

Psychological dependence: People can become psychologically
dependent on any drug, including cannabis. This means that using
cannabis becomes far more important than other activities in
their life. Cannabis becomes part of their lifestyle (e.g.
reducing stress, increasing relaxation) and some come to depend
on it. Some people crave the drug and find it very
difficult to stop using it.

Physical dependence: Physical dependence occurs when a person's
body adapts to a drug. The body gets used to functioning with the
drug present. Heavy and frequent use of cannabis can cause
physical dependence.

Withdrawal
Abrupt termination of cannabis use can produce a mild withdrawal
syndrome. Symptoms include sleep disturbance, irritability, loss
of appetite and consequent weight loss, nervousness, anxiety,
sweating and upset stomach. Sometimes chills, increased body
temperature and tremors occur. The withdrawal syndrome usually
lasts for less than a week, although the sleep disturbances
may persist for a longer period.

Copyright 2002 Australian Drug Foundation
409 King Street, West Melbourne, VIC 3003
PO Box 818 North Melbourne VIC 3051

Site powered by Utility

End of excerpts:

Doug Notes: A few items here worth mentioning. Remember when
Steve said that marijuana users actually need less of the drug to
make them high after prolonged use? Obviously Steve was lying as
this report contradicts his preposterous claims. (What a
surprise like we all did not already know Steve was lying.)

Also, consider "cannabis psychosis" mentioned above. It appears
that marijuana use has been classed as a separate and distinct
psychological psychosis. Apparently this psychosis occurs so
frequently in marijuana users that it warrants its own distinct
classification.

If you use marijuana, that is up to you. But you should know
what harm it will do to you, your family and your unborn
children. If you accept these facts as truth, which they are,
and use the drug anyway, then you need help. I suggest you
contact an agency that can help you kick this lethal habit once
and for all.

Doug Grant (Tm)
"Cyrakis" <cyr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e7e9a223.02070...@posting.google.com...

Doug Says: All these aliases using the same terms is about as
convincing as their opinions.

Doug Grant (Tm)

DGVREIMAN

unread,

Jul 9, 2002, 12:57:12 PM7/9/02

to

"SteveL" <Ste...@stevelon.demon.co.uk> wrote in message

news:tzpW8.340208$_j6.16...@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...

> On Mon, 08 Jul 2002 20:57:07 GMT, "DGVREIMAN"
> <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> Doug, all your typical smokescreen shouting and lies and go for
the
> jugular attempts to throw me on the defensive do not hide the
fact
> that your "Harvard Medical report" was written by a team of law
> students for a class project. Not Doctors. Not fully fledged
Lawyers
> (which seems to be your latest deliberate misread, just like
the
> deliberate editting out of the Professor of Phamacology), but
students
> on a law course.

Doug Says: Steve, all your bullshit about who wrote the Harvard
Report is nonsense. Please provide the name of the author.
Obviously you cannot. Further, the information delivered in the
Harvard Report is based upon studies completed by Medical
Doctors, not some Assistant Professor of Sociology" like the
report you are relying upon. When I first posted the Harvard
Report, I listed all of the references that were used to compile
this report. Whether a secretary typed up the report, a lawyer,
a law student, or a doctor, the fact remains the "conclusions" of
the report are all based upon confirmed and referenced medical
studies completed by highly qualified Medical Doctors. Moreover,
I have posted even more prestigious reports from the Mayo Clinic
and elsewhere that confirms the findings of the Harvard report.

So cut the bull steve, we are not concerned with the name of the
typist, only if the information presented is accurate, referenced
and was complied by medical doctors....which it was.

Doug Grant (Tm)

DGVREIMAN

unread,

Jul 9, 2002, 1:00:46 PM7/9/02

to

"SteveL" <Ste...@stevelon.demon.co.uk> wrote in message

news:GQpW8.96287$vq.46...@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...

Doug Says: Obsolete reports are nonsense and you know it. Here
is the report from the National Accadamy of Science that proves
smoking marijuana is at least four times worse than smoking
cigarettes:

Moreover, WebMD states smoking marijuana is 20 times worse than
smoking cigarettes.

Marijuana Causes Cancer - Proof

GuitarMan

unread,

Jul 9, 2002, 6:24:20 PM7/9/02

to

State Health Department Studies
In addition to the published research there have been a series of six
studies conducted by state health departments under research protocols
approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.The focus of these
studies, conducted by six state health agencies was the use of marijuana as
an anti-emetic for cancer patients. The studies, conducted in California,
Georgia, New Mexico, New York, Michigan and Tennessee, compared marijuana to
antiemetics available by prescription, including the synthetic THC pill,
Marinol. Marijuana was found to be an effective and safe antiemetic in each
of the studies and more effective than other drugs for many patients.

New Mexico: This study involved 250 patients.The study compared marijuana to
THC capsules. The research protocol was approved by the FDA in 1978. In
order to participate in the research the patient had to be referred by a
physician and had to have failed on at least three other antiemetics.
Patients were permitted to choose marijuana or the THC pill. Both objective
(e.g., frequency of vomiting, amount of vomiting, muscle biofeedback, blood
samples and patient observation) and subjective measures were made to
determine the effectiveness of the drug.

The study concluded that marijuana was not only an effective antiemetic but
also far superior to the best available conventional drug, Compazine, and
clearly superior to synthetic THC pill." The study found that [m]ore than
ninety percent of the patients who received marijuana . . . reported
significant or total relief from nausea and vomiting." The study found no
major adverse side effects. Only three patients reported adverse reactions,
none of these reactions involved marijuana alone. The 1984 report concluded
. . . the data accumulated over all five years of the program's operation do
show that marijuana smoked resulted in a higher percentage of success than
does THC ingested."

Michigan:
The Michigan research compared marijuana to Torecan. It involved 165
patients. Upon admission to the program patients were randomized into
control groups with some randomized on the conventional antiemetic Torecan
and the remainder randomized to marijuana. When failure on the initial
randomized drug occurred, patients could elect to crossover to the alternate
therapy. This procedure allowed the Michigan Department of Health to
evaluate how well patients responded to both drugs and allowed patients to
register their preference.

The Michigan study reported 71.1 percent of the patients who received
marijuana reported no emesis to moderate nausea. Ninety percent of the
patients receiving marijuana elected to remain on marijuana. Only 8 of 83
patients randomized to marijuana chose to alter their mode of antiemetic
therapy. This was almost the inverse of patients randomized to Torecan,
there more than 90 percent - 22 out of 23 patients - elected to discontinue
use of Torecan and switched to marijuana. Very few serious side effects were
found related to marijuana use. The most common side effect was increased
appetite - reported by 32.3 percent of patients - this was a positive
effect. The most common negative effects were sleepiness, reported by 21
patients and sore throat, reported by 13 patients.

Tennessee:
This study involved an evaluation of 27 patients. The patients had all
failed on other forms of antiemetic therapy including oral THC. The study
found an overall success rate of 90.4 percent for marijuana inhalation
therapy. In comparison it found a 66.7 percent success rate for THC
capsules. In the under 40 age group, the study found a 100 percent success
rate for marijuana inhalation therapy.

The report concludes:

We found both marijuana smoking and THC capsules to be effective
anti-emetics. We found an approximate 23 percent higher success rate among
those patients administered THC capsules. We found no significant
differences in success rates by age group. We found that the major reason
for smoking failure was smoking intolerance; while the major reason for THC
capsule failure was nausea and vomiting so severe that patient could not
retain the capsule.
New York:
In describing the purpose of the marijuana research program the New York
Department of Health stated: [t]he program is a large-scale (Phase III)
cooperative clinical trial . . . ." The central question addressed is [h]ow
effective is inhalation marijuana in preventing nausea and vomiting due to
chemotherapy in patients . . . who have failed to respond to previous
antiemetic therapy?"

By 1985, the New York program had extended marijuana therapy to 208 patients
through 55 practitioners. Of that, 199 patients were evaluated. These
patients had received a total of 6,044 NIDA-supplied marijuana cigarettes
which were provided to patients during 514 treatment episodes.

In percentage terms the results were stunning:

a.. North Shore Hospital reported marijuana was effective at reducing
emesis 92.9 percent of the time;
b.. Columbia Memorial Hospital reported efficacy of 89.7 percent;
c.. Upstate Medical Center, St. Joseph's Hospital and Jamestown General
Hospital reported 100 percent of the patients smoking marijuana gained
significant benefit.
The report concludes: Patient evaluations have indicated that approximately
ninety-three (93) percent of marijuana inhalation treatment episodes are
reported to be effective' or highly effective' when compared to other
antiemetics." The New York study reports no serious adverse side effects. No
patient receiving marijuana required hospitalization or any other form of
medical intervention. See, Evaluation of the Antiemetic Properties of
Inhalation Marijuana in Cancer Patients Receiving Chemotherapy Treatment,"
New York Department of Health, Office of Public Health (Annual Reports).

Georgia:
The Georgia program evaluated 119 patients. It compared THC to standardized
smoking of marijuana and with patient-controlled smoking. To enter the
program a patient had to have failed on other antiemetics. Patients were
randomized to either patient-controlled smoking of marijuana, standardized
smoking of marijuana or THC pills.

The report found that both THC and marijuana were effective in providing
antiemetic relief for patients who were previously unresponsive to
antiemetics. The rate of success was 73.1 percent. Patient controlled
smoking of marijuana was successful in 72.2 percent, standardized smoking
was successful in 65.4 percent and THC was effective in 76 percent of the
cases. In comparing the reasons for failure between marijuana and THC the
report found:

The primary reasons for failure of THC capsules were due to either adverse
reaction (6 out of 18) or failure to improve nausea and vomiting (9 out of
18). The primary reason for failure of smoking marijuana were due to smoking
intolerance (6 out of 14) or failure to improve the nausea and vomiting (3
out of 14).

California:
California conducted a series of studies from 1981 through 1989. Annual
reports were submitted to the FDA, state legislature and Governor. Each year
approximately 90 to 100 patients received marijuana. The California research
was described as a Phase III trial."

The study protocol preferred THC pills by making it much easier for patients
to enter that portion of the study. Patients who received marijuana had to
be over 15 years of age (the THC pill patients had to be over 5 years of
age); had to be marijuana experienced, use the drug on an in-patient basis
(patients could only use marijuana in the hospital and not take the medicine
home) and had to be receiving rarely used and severe forms of chemotherapy.
Thus, the design of the study did not favor marijuana.

Even with this built in bias against marijuana, the study consistently found
marijuana to be an effective antiemetic. In 1981 the California Research
Advisory Panel reported: Over 74 percent of the cancer patients treated in
the program have reported that marijuana is more effective in relieving
their nausea and vomiting than any other drug they have tried." In 1982, a
78.9 percent effectiveness rate was found for smoked marijuana. By 1983 the
report was conclusory in its findings, stating:

The California Program also has met its research objectives. Marijuana has
been shown to be effective for many cancer chemotherapy patients, safe
dosage levels have been established and a dosage regimen which minimizes
undesirable side effects has been devised and tested.
The California Research Advisory Panel continued to review data on marijuana
until 1989 with similar results.

Adam Meadows

unread,

Jul 10, 2002, 10:18:58 PM7/10/02

to

"DGVREIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<2FEW8.88292$UT.59...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...

Heres a more relevant comparison for you Doug (sorry about the
alignment; the first number corresponds to marijuana, the second to
tobacco):

Comparison of gaseous and particulate components of marijuana and
tobacco smoke from equal masses of each substance roughly equivalent
to a cigarette.
MJ Tobacco
Gas Phase Analysis
Carbon Monoxide (Vol %) 3.99 4.58
Carbon Monoxide (mg) 17.6 20.2
Carbon Dioxide (Vol %) 8.27 9.38
Carbon Dioxide (mg) 57.3 65.0
Ammonia (ug) 228 178
HCN (ug) 532 498
Isoprene (ug) 83 310
Acetaldehyde (ug) 1200 980
Acetone (ug) 443 578
Acetonitrile (ug) 92 85
Benzene (ug) 76 67
Toluene (ug) 112 108
Dimethylnitrosamine (ng) 75 84
Methylethylnitrosamine (ng) 27 30
Particulate Matter Analysis
Phenol (ug) 76.8 138.5
o-Cresol (ug) 76.8 24
17.9 24
m-p-Cresol (ug) 54.4 65
2.4- and 2.5- dimethylphenol (ug) 6.8 14.4
Cannabidiol (ug) 190 0
delta-9 THC (ug) 820 0
Nicotine (ug) 0 2850
Naphthalene (ng) 3000 1200
1-methylnaphthalene 6100 3650
2-methylnaphthalene 3600 1400
Benzo(a)anthracene (ng) 75 43
Benzo(a)pyrene (ng) 31 22.1

The information here came from a chapter in A Primer of Drug Action.
So on the whole, it looks like the smoke from both plants contains
approximately equal quantities of some pretty unhealthy chemicals.
The reference you cite (twice for some reason) seems a tad biased to
me. A statement such as: "This paper absolutely pinpoints that
mutations in lung cancer cells are caused by benzopyrene." seems
highly suspect to me scientifically, but I have neither the time nor
the inclination nor the knowledge to critically evaluate the Science
article so I will let it stand.

Assuming benzopyrene is our chemical of interest, then we can neglect
the rest which is convenient for analysis. Lets consider an AVERAGE
smoker of each product; if you disagree with any of these numbers, we
can discuss them further. A typical tobacco smoker smokes, say, 3/4
of a pack a day. If each pack contains 20 cigarettes, then they smoke
15 a day and could potentially inhale, 331 ng a day. A typical pot
smoker smokes, say, 3/4 of a joint a day. This puts them at risk for
inhaling 23.3 ng per day. Why didn't the article you cite mention
this I wonder?

We could try to go even further and try to address different smoking
styles. This is very difficult without having a lot of data on
peoples behavior AND the propensity of this chemical to enter lung
tissue (although that doesn't seem to have detered Ms. Bennett). I
wont even try to quantitatively address that issue because frankly
there are just way too many unknowns (and would require solving a
second order partial differential equation namely the time dependent
diffusion equation); qualitatively though, it seems reasonable to
assume that the tobacco smoker absorbs much more carcinogens, perhaps
an order of magnitude more, than the marijuana smoker. Ms. Bennett
points out the "fact" that pot smokers often hold their smoke in
longer. Assuming this is true, this could also be used as evidence
that marijuana smokers absorb LESS carcinogens than tobacco smokers
because of all the wasted smoke that is left to burn away during the
inhalation process! In one long pot smoker inhalation, the tobacco
smoker might have inhaled once or even twice! If the adsorption of
our evil chemical is "fast" (or, conversely, diffusion in the gas is
"slow") then the most effect smoking strategy is to inhale and exhale
relatively quikly so as to keep a fresh layer of carcinogens close to
the lung tissue. At the opposite end of the spectrum, "slow"
adsorption by the lungs, the two strategies become equivalent. Either
way, tobacco smokers lose. Still, this issue has so many unknowns
dependent on individual behavior that its hard to conclude much of
anything other than the less you smoke, the better off your lungs are.

Another interesting point Doug is that the same potency increases in
marijuana that you decry in other threads could actually makes
marijuana use healthier by causing users to cut their intake of
associated carcinogens. If a user can reach his desired level of
intoxication via smoking only a few hits off a joint, he can maximize
his expected utility by saving the rest for a future episode. What is
more relevant is how the price/(unit wt of THC) has changed over the
years. Given the prices one pays for premium marijuana nowadays, I
would guess it has been more or less constant. If this is the case,
one would expect THC consumption levels to remain more or less
constant as well.

Adam

Alec Owen

unread,

Jul 11, 2002, 11:05:19 AM7/11/02

to

"DGVREIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message

news:mVtV8.80278$UT.54...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

> Doug Says: The Harvard Medical School, and the Mayo Clinic,
> WebMD and the rest that agree smoking marijuana is lethal are not

> politically motivated entities. Why would they lie? Why would

> these prestigious entities risk their reputations simply to lie
> about the effects of smoking marijuana on the human body?

> Clearly, they are not the ones that are lying.
>
> Doug Grant (Tm)
>
Because they would get their research funds and grants discontinued if they
did bit lie. It's the money, stupid.

A Owen

Alec Owen

unread,

Jul 11, 2002, 11:09:14 AM7/11/02

to

"DGVREIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message

news:GZuV8.80522$UT.54...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

>
> > "DGVREIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> >

> news:IhnV8.79741$UT.54...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

> > >
> > > "D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in

> > > message news:3D25EB...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught...

> > > Doug Says: What it is about is reports like the Harvard
> Medical
> > > Report, and the Mayo Clinic Report, and many like them,
> coming
> > > out and explaining the health hazards of smoking marijuana.
> > >
> > > Prior to recently there were not enough subjects that
> smoked
> > > marijuana long enough to complete a statistically sound
> study.
> > > However, today, based upon the results of several exhaustive
> and
> > > statistically sound studies, the lethal effects of smoking
> > > marijuana have been presented by some of the best and most
> > > prestigious medical institutions in the world. And what is
> even
> > > worse, all of these Medical Institutions suggest that more
> > > studies need to be completed as they believe what they have
> found
> > > is just the tip of the lethal iceberg.
> > >
> > > These medical studies, and my posting them are not
> politically
> > > motivated. I simply posted the truth in response to a Drake
> > > claim that marijuana is not harmful. When I posted the
> Harvard
> > > report, then apparently aliases started to fly, and a few
> > > politically minded proponents of marijuana appeared out the
> > > woodwork to try and "howl down" these prestigious reports
> with
> > > lies, distortions, deceptions and ridiculous counter reports
> from
> > > an "Assistant Professor of Sociology from Queens College."
> > >
> > > The facts are the facts, and what I presented is the truth.
> When
> > > I am right, I do not back down, and I never quit. Further, I
> > > have found several other reports that are similar to the
> Harvard
> > > and Mayo Clinic report that I have yet to publish. However,
> if
> > > the debate continues then I expect to post them.
> > >
> > > The evidence is overwhelming....smoking marijuana will kill
> you
> > > much faster than smoking cigarettes, and marijuana creates
> mental
> > > distress and memory loss in *each* person that uses it.
> > > Marijuana has been proven as a gateway into other drugs,
> > > including alcoholism. Further, legalizing marijuana has
> > > increased addiction of all drugs substantially in Holland,
> and
> > > has increased crime by about 300%. I am sure however, that
> due
> > > to legalizing marijuana Holland has increased its tourism.
> No
> > > doubt it has lined the pockets of those that benefit from
> such
> > > illicit activities at the expense of the Netherlands people
> in
> > > the process. I also suspect this is the motivation for the
> > > legalization proponents in the United States. They hope to
> make
> > > some money on the misfortune and stupidity of those they can
> con
> > > into believing that smoking marijuana is not harmful to human
> > > health.
> > >
> > > What I have also noticed however, is that many that post
> > > pro-terrorist propaganda are also proponents of deceptions
> and
> > > lies in respect to marijuana use. We know the terrorists are
> > > trying to find new ways to generate income since many of
> their
> > > "charities" and other criminal activities have been
> discovered
> > > and shut down. Perhaps this explains the level of deception
> the
> > > pro marijuana group is using.
> > >
> > > Legalization of marijuana reminds me of authorizing casinos
> in
> > > population areas. Initially the tax profits from the casinos
> > > bolster the Politician's pork budgets, but eventually the
> > > residual cost of increased crime, suicide and other casino
> > > related dangers and costs end up costing the population
> center $3
> > > for every $1 the casino provides in tax dollars. Yet the
> > > politicians would need to raise taxes from the population to
> > > offset the money they are receiving from the casinos. The
> > > politicians are trapped with political suicide (raising
> taxes) or
> > > living with the monster they created. I believe the same
> will
> > > happen if marijuana is ever legalized.
> > >
> > > The comprehensive conclusions from those famous medical
> > > institutions are much more credible than one dufus duggie
> saying
> > > "hey, dude, duh, what's duh, at dat fuss, duh, I ben smoking
> duh
> > > nigh on 20 years, gulpm, duh, and ainbt nothing wrong wit me
> > > duh." Like we see in most of the posts between the pot and
> TP's.
> > >
> > > Doug Grant (Tm)

> > >
> > >
> "Alec Owen" <ao...@phaedrav.com> wrote in message

> news:3d266337$1...@audacity.velocet.net...
> > Annual Causes of Death in the United States
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Tobacco 430,7001
> > Alcohol 110,6402
> > Adverse Reactions to Prescription Drugs 32,0003
> > Suicide 30,5754
> > Homicide 18,2725
> > All Licit & Illicit Drug-Induced Deaths 16,9266
> > Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Such As Aspirin 7,6007
> > Marijuana 0 See note 8 below
>
> Doug Says: So you are saying that all of those that died did
> not smoke marijuana? That is not what the Harvard report says.
> If marijuana produces the same or worse toxins that cigarettes
> produce, then obviously, even a moron can understand that
> marijuana will kill faster than cigarettes. So how many of those
> cigarette deaths were really caused by marijuana? What Harvard
> found is an abnormal amount of cancer is found in marijuana
> smokers...ABNORMAL AMOUNT OF CANCER FOUND IN MARIJUANA SMOKERS!
> I repeated that so you might understand the obvious
> conclusion....BTW, cancer kills humans, duh.
>
> Moreover, when the death certificate is completed, it NEVER says
> death by cigarettes you imbecile. The statistics you presented
> are drawn by association. Since all marijuana smokers ingest
> other drugs, alcohol and usually smoke tobacco, there has not
> been a national statistic created for exclusively marijuana
> smokers.

Very true so why do you keep saying what you are saying if there are not
statistics which
relate exclusively to marijuana? AOwen

But I think that is one great idea....I think I will
> pass it on.
>
> Doug Grant (Tm)
>
Why would The World Health Organisationb lie?
Read the entire report.
A Owen

Alec Owen

unread,

Jul 11, 2002, 11:14:32 AM7/11/02

to

"DGVREIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message

news:B3uV8.80304$UT.54...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Rick Wilson" <nos...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:ag5399$j992s$1...@ID-82690.news.dfncis.de...

> > "D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in

> message news:3D2604...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught...
> > > But WHY does it keep going on??
> > > We spent $1 million in '98 on the Institute of Medicine
> report, and that
> > > one is all but forgotten. I don't know what the 1969 report
> cost, but
> > > it was similarly swept under the rug. We've had a complete
> generational
> > > turnover but the stupidity still rules. The people who as
> teens were
> > > scared shitless by "Reefer Madness" are dying off but their
> kids, who
> > > probably as not smoked some reefer, are dutifully following
> in their
> > > path.
> > > WHY do people need to cling to this bullshit?? It makes no
> sense at
> > > all.
> Doug Says: Here we have Rick Pot Head trying to dictate to
> Harvard Medical School and the Mayo Clinic where they went wrong
> in their conclusion that smoking marijuana is lethal. The
> Harvard report also said that smoking marijuana causes mental
> distress, memory loss and mental illness. Rick and the pot
> head/terrorist aliases et al are living confirmation of that
> conclusion. The truth is that marijuana is a dangerous drug.
> Smoking one joint is equal to smoking one pack of cigarettes
> (WebMD). Now everyone knows that cigarettes cause cancer. So,
> Duh, if cigarettes cause cancer, what does marijuana cause? Duh.
>
> Doug Grant (Tm).
>
You were already given the names of a bunch of doctors at the Harvard
Medical School who
were of the opposite opinion and you have given no names to support your
case. You simply say the school itself
makes this or that statement. The school is made up of a number of different
individuals and does not speak.
You are such a dope that I refuse to debate the question any more. You are a
real thick head and never
address any of the evidence presented to you or try to give rational reason
for you opposition. You just keep repeating the same boring mantra.

I would rather talk to the village idiot. Hey maybe it's you.

A Owen

>
>

DGVREIMAN

unread,

Jul 11, 2002, 1:49:50 PM7/11/02

to

"Alec Owen" <ao...@phaedrav.com> wrote in message

news:3d2d9e35$1...@audacity.velocet.net...

Doug Says: Duh, they do not get any research funds and grants
for marijuana research. Moreover, you are lying when you claim
the Government withdraws research funds for results it does not
want to hear. You need to post some proof on that issue, as all
of the research I have done on this issues proves conclusively
otherwise.

Perhaps the reason all of these pot head are obviously so
engrossed with nonsense, idiotic repsponses and incredibly stupid
postings in respect to marijuana being used to make terminally
ill people delusional is presented below:

Marijuana=Self Delusion

So far, we have seen those addicted to marijuana refute every
medical study conducted by prestigious medical entities such as
Harvard, Mayo Clinic, UCLA, University of Oregon, University of
Indiana, and a host of other tremendously prestigious Medical
Doctors, Psychiatrists, and irrefutable statistical studies that
prove without question that marijuana is not only lethal to
humans, but also causes brain damage even in occasional users.

We have also seen the marijuana addicts use a plethora of fake
names to post their feeble opposition, declarations of personal
and empirical results they believe contradicts all of these
prestigious voluminous medical studies, and even try to snip out
and hide these studies and their applicable references, and
replace these studies with personal attacks on me for daring to
post the truth about this issue.

So are all these marijuana addicts nuts or what? Can they really
be that stupid? The following medical report by the famous
Psychiatrist Doctor Harold M. Voth, M.D. explains exactly what is
wrong with all of these marijuana users, and why their brains
have been clearly damaged to a degree they are delusional.

"PsyviewA PSYCHIATRIST'S VIEW ON MARIJUANA
Harold M. Voth, M.D.

In my experience there is only one certain way to be cured from
marijuana smoking.The user must be totally isolated from the drug
for a minimum of three months.Only after a period of sustained
abstinence will the user become aware of the profound effects the
drug has had on him and, at the same time, become free of its
addictive effects.

**The inability of the user to perceive himself or gain insight
into what has happened to him over time is one of the truly
pernicious and remarkable aspects of the effects of the
drug.Talking rarely works; forthright decisive action by someone
willing and able to take responsibility for the fate of the user
is necessary.The chronic and heavy, and probably even moderate
user, cannot take
responsibility for himself.** (Emphisis added.)
.
How the person or persons exercise their responsibility to the
user depends on the age of the user, his life circumstances, the
severity of the retrogressive changes and deterioration of the
user, and so on. I recommend sparing no effort whatsoever in
achieving this objective. Searches are in order, use of police
to back up parental authority if necessary, hiring a companion
for the user,
confinement to the home and hospitalization are all methods that
I have recommended and have seen used. Someone who cares must
intervene, totally, consistently and with unrelenting
perseverance. Efforts short of an all-out effort generally fail.

***In summary, I believe chronic marijuana use affects judgement,
motivation, perception, cognition, and will. In addition, the
drug causes and overall deterioration of personality; It leads
to an estrangement from the mainstream of life; it lowers
performance in all areas; and it leads to a social phenomenon
in which users bond together into both loose and tightly bound
subsocial groups. The effects on the user s family life is
frequently devastating.***

Harold M. Voth, M.D., Senior Psychiatrist and Psychoanalyst, The
Menniger Foundation, Topeka, KS, Associate Chief of Psychiatry
for Education, Veterans Admin. Medical Center, Topeka, KS,
Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, University
of Kansas, Kansas City, KS, Rear Admiral, Medical Corps, United
States Naval Reserve.

End of Report on the mental retardation of ALL Marijuana users.

Doug Said: I added all of the emphasis ***. We now know why pot
heads stick together. They are like a race of zombies, all
thinking the same way, all deluding themselves, all so afraid
they cannot stop using their delusional product they do not even
wish to try. Not only are these users delusional, they are also
retarded due to their frequent use of this insidious drug.

Marijuana is about one of the most insidious products I have
ever researched. It is amazing anyone would even dream of trying
to legalize this product overall. I am not opposed to
prescription marijuana prescribed by Doctors in special
conditions, especially for terminally ill patients. Those
unfortunate souls need some delusion. But for a perfectly sane
and healthy person to use this insidious drug to make themselves
permanently deluded and retarded, and then to die from Cancer or
Heart disease or Liver failure or the host of other fatal
diseases marijuana produces, is beyond rational comprehension.

Doug Grant (Tm)

DGVREIMAN

unread,

Jul 11, 2002, 1:51:34 PM7/11/02

to

"Alec Owen" <ao...@phaedrav.com> wrote in message

news:3d2d9f21$1...@audacity.velocet.net...

Doug Says: Calling the Harvard Report, the Mayo Clinic report,
and the dozens of medical reports that have proved conclusively
that marijuana is lethal all "lies" for some vague reason that
only you understand, is explained by yet another study presented
below:

"***In summary, I believe chronic marijuana use affects
judgement, motivation, perception, cognition, and will. In
addition, the drug causes and overall deterioration of
personality; It leads to an estrangement from the mainstream of
life; it lowers performance in all areas; and it leads to a
social phenomenon in which users bond together into both loose
and tightly bound subsocial groups. The effects on the user s
family life is frequently devastating.*** "

Harold M. Voth, M.D., Senior Psychiatrist and Psychoanalyst, The
Menniger Foundation, Topeka, KS, Associate Chief of Psychiatry
for Education, Veterans Admin. Medical Center, Topeka, KS,
Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, University
of Kansas, Kansas City, KS, Rear Admiral, Medical Corps, United
States Naval Reserve.

End.

Doug Grant (Tm)

DGVREIMAN

unread,

Jul 11, 2002, 1:57:12 PM7/11/02

to

"Alec Owen" <ao...@phaedrav.com> wrote in message

news:3d2da05f$1...@audacity.velocet.net...

Doug Says: First no "bunch of Doctors" that disagreed with the
reports I have been posting were ever presented. There were a
few Assassitant Proffessors and Associate Professors, and such
but no Medical Doctors that claimed smoking marijuana was not
harmful to humans...in fact they ALL agree it will cause all of
the dieases and malidies I have presented.

The pot heads have lost this argument, and that is why they are
trying now to use personal attacks. According to one of the most
prestigious Psychiatrists in the world that is typical of people
that use marijuana. The information below demonstrates why all
of these pot heads seems to suffer from the same mental
retardation when it comes to claiming that marijuana is not
lethal to humans....especially in face of all the overwhelming
evidence it is lethal to humans.

Marijuana=Delusional Zombies

***In summary, I believe chronic marijuana use affects judgement,

motivation, perception, cognition, and will. In addition, the
drug causes and overall deterioration of personality; It leads
to an estrangement from the mainstream of life; it lowers
performance in all areas; and it leads to a social phenomenon
in which users bond together into both loose and tightly bound
subsocial groups. The effects on the user s family life is
frequently devastating.***

Harold M. Voth, M.D., Senior Psychiatrist and Psychoanalyst, The
Menniger Foundation, Topeka, KS, Associate Chief of Psychiatry
for Education, Veterans Admin. Medical Center, Topeka, KS,
Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, University
of Kansas, Kansas City, KS, Rear Admiral, Medical Corps, United
States Naval Reserve.

End of Report on the mental retardation of ALL Marijuana users.

Doug Said: I added all of the emphasis ***. We now know why pot
heads stick together. They are like a race of zombies, all
thinking the same way, all deluding themselves, all so afraid
they cannot stop using their delusional product they do not even
wish to try. Not only are these users delusional, they are also
retarded due to their frequent use of this insidious drug.

Marijuana is about one of the most insidious products I have
ever researched. It is amazing anyone would even dream of trying
to legalize this product overall. I am not opposed to
prescription marijuana prescribed by Doctors in special
conditions, especially for terminally ill patients. Those
unfortunate souls need some delusion. But for a perfectly sane
and healthy person to use this insidious drug to make themselves
permanently deluded and retarded, and then to die from Cancer or
Heart disease or Liver failure or the host of other fatal
diseases marijuana produces, is beyond rational comprehension.

Doug Grant (Tm)

--
De Oppresso Liber
Happy Birthday

DGVREIMAN

unread,

Jul 11, 2002, 2:16:05 PM7/11/02

to

"Adam Meadows" <mead...@uclink.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:3b5326f6.02071...@posting.google.com...

> Doug Says: Posting your opinion is nice. But I think I would
rather believe a study completed by the Medical Doctors I listed
above, and their conclusions. I have found several studies that
conclude smoking marijuana is from four times to 20 times worse
than smoking cigarettes. Displaying information that is skewed,
nor relevant to this issue, but appears informative is a form of
deception, not honest debate. If you have some studies,
authenticated by a major University or Medical Institution such
as the ones I posted to refute the obvious fact that marijuana
contains at least four times the tar as cigarettes, then I would
love to review its details, and verify its origin.

BTW, I *know* an "Adam Meadows." (Born in Illinois.) Is that
your real name or just your handle?

Doug Grant (Tm)

GuitarMan

unread,

Jul 11, 2002, 6:18:02 PM7/11/02

to

"DGVREIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message

news:2zjX8.20972$Iu6.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

unread,

Jul 11, 2002, 8:59:55 PM7/11/02

to

You are what you eat ,, Doppers eat shit

Suzan

unread,

Jul 12, 2002, 4:30:19 AM7/12/02

to

DGVREIMAN schreef

> > Doug Says: Posting your opinion is nice. But I think I would
> rather believe a study completed by the Medical Doctors I listed
> above, and their conclusions. I have found several studies that
> conclude smoking marijuana is from four times to 20 times worse
> than smoking cigarettes.

(...)

Don't you ever get tired by pressing the CTRL-A CTRL-V button so many times?

Suzan, who is still waiting a response with proper counter-arguments.

GuitarMan

unread,

Jul 12, 2002, 6:58:12 AM7/12/02

to

"DGVREIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message

news:4uoX8.93892$UT.62...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>
>
>
> Marijuana=Self Delusion
>
<snipped all the BS>

Doug, you should practice what you preach...
quoted from you:

Doug Says: You need to stop posting the same irrelevant study.
You are obviously bombing the net with the same repetitive post.
You are forcing people to think you an idiot.

unread,

Jul 12, 2002, 2:12:37 PM7/12/02

to

http://www.psych.org/pnews/98-02-06/voth.html

"DGVREIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message

news:2zjX8.20972$Iu6.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

> So far, we have seen those addicted to marijuana refute every
> medical study conducted by prestigious medical entities such as
> Harvard, Mayo Clinic, UCLA, University of Oregon, University of
> Indiana, and a host of other tremendously prestigious Medical
> Doctors, Psychiatrists, and irrefutable statistical studies that
> prove without question that marijuana is not only lethal to
> humans, but also causes brain damage even in occasional users.
>
> We have also seen the marijuana addicts use a plethora of fake
> names to post their feeble opposition, declarations of personal
> and empirical results they believe contradicts all of these
> prestigious voluminous medical studies, and even try to snip out
> and hide these studies and their applicable references, and
> replace these studies with personal attacks on me for daring to
> post the truth about this issue.
>
> So are all these marijuana addicts nuts or what? Can they really
> be that stupid? The following medical report by the famous
> Psychiatrist Doctor Harold M. Voth, M.D. explains exactly what is
> wrong with all of these marijuana users, and why their brains
> have been clearly damaged to a degree they are delusional.
>
>
>
> "PsyviewA PSYCHIATRIST'S VIEW ON MARIJUANA
> Harold M. Voth, M.D.

This Voth character is a real antediluvian throwback.
I looked him up. In addition to his weird ideas on marijuana, he believes,
incredibly that homosexuality which he calls "sexual identity disturbances"
is due to disturbances in the parents which he can cure and thus make the
children
heterosexual.

Read this about Voth:
http://www.psych.org/pnews/98-02-06/voth.html

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that he thinks the earth is flat.
Quite obviously he and anybody who quotes him is a religious nut.

A Owen

Alec Owen

unread,

Jul 12, 2002, 2:14:13 PM7/12/02

to

"Me Too" <rightw...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:634-3D2...@storefull-2371.public.lawson.webtv.net...

> You are what you eat ,, Doppers eat shit
>

What is a dopper?
You are what you learn.
A Owen

Alec Owen

unread,

Jul 12, 2002, 2:31:59 PM7/12/02

to

"GuitarMan" <u...@yourface.com> wrote in message

news:uis10fa...@corp.supernews.com...

It doesn't say this in the bible so it can't be true.
The dinosaurs which once roamed the earth with human kind became extinct
because they ate marijuana plants. Everyone knows that.
This fact was uncovered by the research of the famous Dr Voth.

A fellow whose last name is Voth
Was frightened one day by a moth.
"He said I can't cope.
because they smoke dope,
I'll cover my head with a cloth"

Moths, as you know are quite queer,
The smoke Mary Jane and drink beer
I'm really quite sure
I can fashion a cure.
So, Universe, be of good cheer.

VOTH IS HERE. DA DA!

A Owen .

Alec Owen

unread,

Jul 12, 2002, 3:02:52 PM7/12/02

to

"vonroach" <vonr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3d3004d5...@nntp.ix.netcom.com...

Mr Roach,
Sorry about that. It was a typo and should have read "they would get their
research funds and grants discontinued if they didn't lie. It's the money,
stupid". But you knew that, didn't you? More to the point some of these so
called foundations are supported by groups which have a particular agenda
and the so-called researchers like the infamous Dr Voth (who believes he can
prevent children from being homosexual by treating the parents) are employed
only if they make statements that are acceptable to the group which finances
them. You must know of cases where a reseacher has had his job discontinued
because the people who put up the money were annoyed at a position he took.
As to a minority view please do some research on what democratic and widely
supported governments in Holland, Scandinavia, Canada, Britain and other
countries are doing about this issue.

I have no brief for free-spending Democrats or Republicans but would observe
that the books under the
present Republican administration are rapidly getting out of balance and
that the National Debts is climbing
precipitously. Your comment indicated that your opinions on drug policy are
probably influenced by a political bias and are not formed by a thoughtful
process. A jerk I may be but I am informed. Also I am a-political. (That
means
I do not espouse any particular political philosophy and support any and all
intelligent positions from no matter which party as long as they make
sense). Try being a-political; you'll like it. The current drug policy of
the United States is an abysmal failure and is costing the taxpayers many
billions of dollars annually and all for a few votes.

Want to brighten your day? Look up Dr Voth's opinions and you'll get a good
laugh.
Scan carefully for typos, please, I am in too much of a hurry to proof-read.
A Owen

DGVREIMAN

unread,

Jul 12, 2002, 6:49:43 PM7/12/02

to

"Alec Owen" <ao...@phaedrav.com> wrote in message

news:3d2f1b9b$1...@audacity.velocet.net...

Doug Says: Obviously you have not even read your own link. That
link clearly establishes Dr. Voth's as the expert and the person
he is critiquing as the "nut." No religion is even mentioned,
and obviously Dr. Voth does not believe there is a biological
gene for homosexuality. So please, stop the bullshit. You guys
must really be desperate.

Doug Grant (Tm)

DGVREIMAN

unread,

Jul 12, 2002, 6:51:10 PM7/12/02

to

"Alec Owen" <ao...@phaedrav.com> wrote in message

news:3d2f2027$1...@audacity.velocet.net...

Marijuana=Self Delusion

DGVREIMAN

unread,

Jul 12, 2002, 7:00:40 PM7/12/02

to

"Alec Owen" <ao...@phaedrav.com> wrote in message

news:3d2f...@audacity.velocet.net...

Doug Says: Lame brained pot head "excuses" for prominent Doctors
destroying their reputations by submitting fraudulent reports is
about as idiotic as it gets. You are generalizing standard pro
drug propaganda. The studies I have presented are statistically
sound, and are based upon statistical evidence from signed
questionnaires by subjects, and documented medical examinations.
(If you ask for the statistical evidence for any of these studies
they will refer you to the statistical information.)

These Doctors did not set out to forge subject questionnaires,
lie about diagnoses, and falsify official documents just to
please some bureaucrat that does not give them money anyway. The
incredibly stupid notion that Doctors would lie just to demonize
a drug that has been proved by a 100 different tests to cause the
very diseases they agree marijuana will cause, is preposterous
nonsense...almost childlike is it so nonsensical.

Get real Alec. Marijuana has been scientifically proved lethal
to humans as it contains the same carcinogens as cigarettes, and
about 4 to 20 times the amount of toxins. The National Academy
of Science has established this fact. Anyone can verify the
toxicity in marijuana. So if deny that cigarettes will not kill
you, then that would be as stupid as denying that smoking
marijuana will not kill you.

Doug Grant (Tm)

jmw

unread,

Jul 12, 2002, 11:38:52 PM7/12/02

to

What's a dopper?
JMW

unread,

Jul 14, 2002, 8:32:42 AM7/14/02

to

"DGVREIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message

news:6%tV8.80289$UT.54...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

>
> "D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote in

> message news:3D2604...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught...

> > > The same "just say no", three-martini-lunch hypocrites who
> were
> > > around 20 (and even 30) years ago are again in power. And
> the
> > > scam works the same way:
> http://www.peele.net/debate/award.html
> > >
> > > 1. Government "drug czars" such as Bush's John Walters
> > >
> Doug Says: Blaming the US Government for independent medical
> reports that prove smoking marijuana is lethal to humans is pure
> distortion and hiding from the truth. All the bullshit in the
> world is not going to change the fact the most prestigious and
> competent medical universities and clinics in the United States
> agree that smoking marijuana is deadly to humans. Live with it
> boys, the truth is out.
>
> Doug Grant (Tm)
>
Unfortunately people do not learn from experience- even governments.
The most regrettable experience in the 1920s with prohibition proves my
point.
The damage done to America by this policy which was instituted largely due
to
religious fanatics, as is the case with the current drug policy was evident
even
to the ignorant and uninformed. Al Capone however and his ilk applauded
such policies as do today's criminals.

One could go on and on detailing bad decisions made by governments.
Think about Viet Nam. Anyone with blind and moronic faith in government
should be
led carefully by the hand into enlightenment.

A Owen

Alec Owen

unread,

Jul 14, 2002, 8:40:53 AM7/14/02

to

"DGVREIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message

news:0ouV8.80385$UT.54...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

>
> "Alec Owen" <ao...@phaedrav.com> wrote in message

> news:3d262ae2$1...@audacity.velocet.net...

> > No it's about votes from the religious right and the fear of
> losing control
> > of Congress in November.
> > That is what it is all about.
> >
> > A Owen
> >
> Doug Says: Now these idiots are blaming the "religious right"
> for the Harvard Medical School report and the Mayo Clinic report
> that proves smoking marijuana is lethal. Next they will try to
> divert the blame to the Republicans, and the war against
> terrorism, and another tangent they can think of. Truth is the
> proof is in. Smoking marijuana is lethal.
>
> Doug Grant (Tm)
>
Typical. Create a straw man and then knock him over.
If you can't defeat an argument ascribe statements or points of view
to your opponents which are obviously not in fact true and then ridicule
them.
Such tactics point to obvious weaknesses in a position.

A Owen.

A Owen

Alec Owen

unread,

Jul 14, 2002, 8:52:11 AM7/14/02

to

"Adam Meadows" <mead...@uclink.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:3b5326f6.02071...@posting.google.com...

> "DGVREIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message

news:<2FEW8.88292$UT.59...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> > "SteveL" <Ste...@stevelon.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:GQpW8.96287$vq.46...@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> > > On Mon, 08 Jul 2002 20:37:34 GMT, "DGVREIMAN"
> > > <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> >
> > > >Doug Says: That is abject nonsense. ALL of the reports state
> > > >that smoking marijuana is anywhere from four times worse to 20
> > > >times worse than smoking cigarettes. You must be making this
> > up
> > > >as you go along. Here is a report that proves you are
> > > >lying....again:
> > >
> > > "Making it up as I go along?" Oh please, Doug. The article was
> > quoted
> > > right below my comments on it. You snipped it out.
> >
> > Doug Says: Obsolete reports are nonsense and you know it. Here
> > is the report from the National Accadamy of Science that proves
> > smoking marijuana is at least four times worse than smoking
> > cigarettes:
> >
> > Moreover, WebMD states smoking marijuana is 20 times worse than
> > smoking cigarettes.
> >
> > Marijuana Causes Cancer - Proof
> >
> > If one was looking for even more credibility in these marijuana
> > cancer reports, one would not need to look very far. Some of the
> > components that made up the Harvard Report contain some of the
> > best credentials in the world. In this report alone we can
> > reference (1) Journal of Science, (2)National Academy of
> > Sciences, Institute of Medicine Report, and Doctor William M.
> > Bennett, M.D., Professor of Medicine, Division of Nephrology,
> > Clinical Pharmacology and Hypertension at Oregon Health Sciences
> > University, Portland, Oregon. Dr. Bennett, who is listed in "BEST
> > DOCTORS IN AMERICA,"
> >
> > (No Assiasstant Professors of Sociology like Steve's report in
> > this bunch.)
> >
> >
> > This report is for those imbeciles that claim "Duh, Marijuana
> > ain't never done no harm, never did kill anyone, Duh."
> >
> >
> > "Marijuana / Cancer LinkMARIJUANA / CANCER LINK
> >
> > Lung cancer causing carcinogen more prevalent in marijuana than
> > in tobacco.
> >
> > Sandra Bennett, Northwest Centre for Health & Safety.
> >
> > A breakthrough report published in the journal Science, October
> > 18, 1996, provides the first true molecular evidence conclusively
> > linking components in tobacco smoking to lung cancer.
> >
> > A chemical found in tobacco smoking, benzopyrene, causes genetic
> > damage in lung cells that is identical to the damage observed in
> > the DNA of most malignant tumors of the lungs. Although
> > scientists have been convinced in the past that smoking causes
> > lung cancer, the strong statistical associations did not provide
> > absolute proof.
> >
> > This paper absolutely pinpoints that mutations in lung cancer
> > cells are caused by benzopyrene.
> >
> > An average marijuana cigarette contains 30 nanograms of this
> > carcinogen, compared to 21 nanograms in an average tobacco
> > cigarette (Marijuana and Health, National Academy of Sciences,
> > Institute of Medicine report,1982). This potent carcinogen
> > suppresses a gene that controls growth of cells. When this gene
> > is damaged, the body becomes more susceptible to cancer. This
> > gene, P53, is related to half of all human cancers and as many
> > as 70% of lung cancers.
> >
> > Clearly marijuana smoke contains more of the potent carcinogen
> > benzopyrene than tobacco smoke. Furthermore, the technique
> > of\line smoking marijuana by inhaling deeply and holding the
> > smoke within the lungs presents a chance of much greater
> > exposure than a conventional tobacco cigarette.
> >
> > This material has been reviewed and commented on by William M.
> > Bennett, M.D., Professor of Medicine, Division of Nephrology,
> > Clinical Pharmacology and Hypertension at Oregon Health Sciences
> > University, Portland, Oregon. Dr. Bennett, who is listed in "BEST
> > DOCTORS IN AMERICA," states, "The idea of using smoked marijuana
> > containing these carcinogens as medicine, particularly for
> > patients who have suppressed immune systems like those with AIDS,
> > should be unthinkable."
> >
> > End of Report.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Marijuana Causes Cancer - Proof
> >
> > If one was looking for even more credibility in these marijuana
> > cancer reports, one would not need to look very far. Some of the
> > components that made up the Harvard Report contain some of the
> > best credentials in the world. In this report alone we can
> > reference (1) Journal of Science, (2)National Academy of
> > Sciences, Institute of Medicine Report, and Doctor William M.
> > Bennett, M.D., Professor of Medicine, Division of Nephrology,
> > Clinical Pharmacology and Hypertension at Oregon Health Sciences
> > University, Portland, Oregon. Dr. Bennett, who is listed in "BEST
> > DOCTORS IN AMERICA,"
> >
> > (No Assiasstant Professors of Sociology like Steve's report in
> > this bunch.)
> >
> >
> > This report is for those imbeciles that claim "Duh, Marijuana
> > ain't never done no harm, never did kill anyone, Duh."
> >
> >
> > "Marijuana / Cancer LinkMARIJUANA / CANCER LINK
> >
> > Lung cancer causing carcinogen more prevalent in marijuana than
> > in tobacco.
> >
> > Sandra Bennett, Northwest Centre for Health & Safety.
> >
> > A breakthrough report published in the journal Science, October
> > 18, 1996, provides the first true molecular evidence conclusively
> > linking components in tobacco smoking to lung cancer.
> >
> > A chemical found in tobacco smoking, benzopyrene, causes genetic
> > damage in lung cells that is identical to the damage observed in
> > the DNA of most malignant tumors of the lungs. Although
> > scientists have been convinced in the past that smoking causes
> > lung cancer, the strong statistical associations did not provide
> > absolute proof.
> >
> > This paper absolutely pinpoints that mutations in lung cancer
> > cells are caused by benzopyrene.
> >
> > An average marijuana cigarette contains 30 nanograms of this
> > carcinogen, compared to 21 nanograms in an average tobacco
> > cigarette (Marijuana and Health, National Academy of Sciences,
> > Institute of Medicine report,1982). This potent carcinogen
> > suppresses a gene that controls growth of cells. When this gene
> > is damaged, the body becomes more susceptible to cancer. This
> > gene, P53, is related to half of all human cancers and as many
> > as 70% of lung cancers.
> >
> > Clearly marijuana smoke contains more of the potent carcinogen
> > benzopyrene than tobacco smoke. Furthermore, the technique
> > of\line smoking marijuana by inhaling deeply and holding the
> > smoke within the lungs presents a chance of much greater
> > exposure than a conventional tobacco cigarette.
> >
> > This material has been reviewed and commented on by William M.
> > Bennett, M.D., Professor of Medicine, Division of Nephrology,
> > Clinical Pharmacology and Hypertension at Oregon Health Sciences
> > University, Portland, Oregon. Dr. Bennett, who is listed in "BEST
> > DOCTORS IN AMERICA," states, "The idea of using smoked marijuana
> > containing these carcinogens as medicine, particularly for
> > patients who have suppressed immune systems like those with AIDS,
> > should be unthinkable."
> >
> > End of Report.
>
>
> Heres a more relevant comparison for you Doug (sorry about the
> alignment; the first number corresponds to marijuana, the second to
> tobacco):
>
> Comparison of gaseous and particulate components of marijuana and
> tobacco smoke from equal masses of each substance roughly equivalent
> to a cigarette.
> MJ Tobacco
> Gas Phase Analysis
> Carbon Monoxide (Vol %) 3.99 4.58
> Carbon Monoxide (mg) 17.6 20.2
> Carbon Dioxide (Vol %) 8.27 9.38
> Carbon Dioxide (mg) 57.3 65.0
> Ammonia (ug) 228 178
> HCN (ug) 532 498
> Isoprene (ug) 83 310
> Acetaldehyde (ug) 1200 980
> Acetone (ug) 443 578
> Acetonitrile (ug) 92 85
> Benzene (ug) 76 67
> Toluene (ug) 112 108
> Dimethylnitrosamine (ng) 75 84
> Methylethylnitrosamine (ng) 27 30
> Particulate Matter Analysis
> Phenol (ug) 76.8 138.5
> o-Cresol (ug) 76.8 24
> 17.9 24
> m-p-Cresol (ug) 54.4 65
> 2.4- and 2.5- dimethylphenol (ug) 6.8 14.4
> Cannabidiol (ug) 190 0
> delta-9 THC (ug) 820 0
> Nicotine (ug) 0 2850
> Naphthalene (ng) 3000 1200
> 1-methylnaphthalene 6100 3650
> 2-methylnaphthalene 3600 1400
> Benzo(a)anthracene (ng) 75 43
> Benzo(a)pyrene (ng) 31 22.1
>
>
> The information here came from a chapter in A Primer of Drug Action.
> So on the whole, it looks like the smoke from both plants contains
> approximately equal quantities of some pretty unhealthy chemicals.
> The reference you cite (twice for some reason) seems a tad biased to
> me. A statement such as: "This paper absolutely pinpoints that
> mutations in lung cancer cells are caused by benzopyrene." seems
> highly suspect to me scientifically, but I have neither the time nor
> the inclination nor the knowledge to critically evaluate the Science
> article so I will let it stand.
>
> Assuming benzopyrene is our chemical of interest, then we can neglect
> the rest which is convenient for analysis. Lets consider an AVERAGE
> smoker of each product; if you disagree with any of these numbers, we
> can discuss them further. A typical tobacco smoker smokes, say, 3/4
> of a pack a day. If each pack contains 20 cigarettes, then they smoke
> 15 a day and could potentially inhale, 331 ng a day. A typical pot
> smoker smokes, say, 3/4 of a joint a day. This puts them at risk for
> inhaling 23.3 ng per day. Why didn't the article you cite mention
> this I wonder?
>
> We could try to go even further and try to address different smoking
> styles. This is very difficult without having a lot of data on
> peoples behavior AND the propensity of this chemical to enter lung
> tissue (although that doesn't seem to have detered Ms. Bennett). I
> wont even try to quantitatively address that issue because frankly
> there are just way too many unknowns (and would require solving a
> second order partial differential equation namely the time dependent
> diffusion equation); qualitatively though, it seems reasonable to
> assume that the tobacco smoker absorbs much more carcinogens, perhaps
> an order of magnitude more, than the marijuana smoker. Ms. Bennett
> points out the "fact" that pot smokers often hold their smoke in
> longer. Assuming this is true, this could also be used as evidence
> that marijuana smokers absorb LESS carcinogens than tobacco smokers
> because of all the wasted smoke that is left to burn away during the
> inhalation process! In one long pot smoker inhalation, the tobacco
> smoker might have inhaled once or even twice! If the adsorption of
> our evil chemical is "fast" (or, conversely, diffusion in the gas is
> "slow") then the most effect smoking strategy is to inhale and exhale
> relatively quikly so as to keep a fresh layer of carcinogens close to
> the lung tissue. At the opposite end of the spectrum, "slow"
> adsorption by the lungs, the two strategies become equivalent. Either
> way, tobacco smokers lose. Still, this issue has so many unknowns
> dependent on individual behavior that its hard to conclude much of
> anything other than the less you smoke, the better off your lungs are.
>
> Another interesting point Doug is that the same potency increases in
> marijuana that you decry in other threads could actually makes
> marijuana use healthier by causing users to cut their intake of
> associated carcinogens. If a user can reach his desired level of
> intoxication via smoking only a few hits off a joint, he can maximize
> his expected utility by saving the rest for a future episode. What is
> more relevant is how the price/(unit wt of THC) has changed over the
> years. Given the prices one pays for premium marijuana nowadays, I
> would guess it has been more or less constant. If this is the case,
> one would expect THC consumption levels to remain more or less
> constant as well.
>
> Adam

If the harm/benefit (cost/benefit) analysis is applied to the ingestion of
any
exotic substance into the lungs is applied, I believe that except in
particular cases
it is better not to smoke at all. I was interested in what you had to say
although I use
neither plant, my position is that it is a personal decision and that a
radical change in
drug policy would, again applying a cost/benefit analysis, be benefical to
any
body-politic.

However you have now succeeded in confusing poor Duggie in his knee-jerk
support of the current policy even more.
Shame on you.

A Owen

vonroach

unread,

Jul 14, 2002, 9:17:20 AM7/14/02

to

On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 08:15:06 -0400, "Alec Owen" <ao...@phaedrav.com>
wrote:

>Voth states categorically that homosexuality is due to "sexual disurbances

>in a person's parents".
>Nobody has ever found a reason for this condition or proved that it is
>either genetic or hormonal.
>Nobody but Voth and the "religious right" believe it is due to conditioning.
>
>Voth says:
>"Of course, children with gender disturbances should be treated
>sympathetic-ally by their parents and others. However, children are very
>pliable, and disturbances in the children invariably reflect disturbances in
>the parents. Well-trained psychiatrists, and in particular child
>psychiatrists and child psychoanalysts, know this to be true. Treat the
>parents, and frequently the child will turn out just fine".
>
>"I asked him that if I, a heterosexual psychoanalyst, converted a
>homo-sexual patient into a heterosexual person, had I created
>psychopathology in that person? He stated emphatically yes. "
>
>A Owen
>

No where does it state it is an inevitable perversion. The key is
choice.
In answer to your question, he could say, you are not a heterosexual
psychoanalyst, and he would probably advise you that you have a
psychopathology which in his opinion reflects a disturbance in your
parents - others would probably disagree and say it was just a
childish mentality on your part by your own choice.

DGVREIMAN

unread,

Jul 14, 2002, 10:07:15 AM7/14/02

to

"Alec Owen" <ao...@phaedrav.com> wrote in message

news:3d316acf$1...@audacity.velocet.net...

Doug Says: So? Are you disputing this conclusion? What exactly
are you saying Alec? That you have a medical degree and you know
more than this world famous Psychiatrist in his own field? Or,
are you just trying to discredit him with lay personal diatribe,
nonsense, idiotic and child like "opinions" and pathetic
self-serving observations?

Marijuana causes brain damage and mental retardation Alec, that
has nothing to do with opinions on homosexuality. Duh.

Doug Grant (Tm)

DGVREIMAN

unread,

Jul 14, 2002, 10:11:23 AM7/14/02

to

"Alec Owen" <ao...@phaedrav.com> wrote in message

news:3d316eef$1...@audacity.velocet.net...

Doug Says: None of these reports came from the Government Alec.
The reports I re-published that proves marijuana is lethal and
causes mental retardation are from medical doctors and
scientists. These are scientific facts. Your ridiculous analogy
that "political decisions" alter "scientific fact" is
preposterous. Politicians have nothing to do with the
conclusions of some of the best medical doctors and medical
institutions in the world - which prove that Marijuana smoking is
lethal to humans, and further, even occasional use causes mental
retardation.

Doug Grant (Tm)

DGVREIMAN

unread,

Jul 14, 2002, 10:14:44 AM7/14/02

to

"Alec Owen" <ao...@phaedrav.com> wrote in message

news:3d3170da$1...@audacity.velocet.net...

Doug Says: Alec, I created no straw men. I simply stated the
truth. Your opinion that somehow the "religious right" has
influence on the Harvard Medical School, or the Mayo Clinic's
conclusion that marijuana is lethal to humans and even occasional
use causes mental retardation is preposterous. Most of those
doctors are atheists. Very few medical doctors are religious
fanatics like you seem to be claiming.

Doug Grant (Tm)

DGVREIMAN

unread,

Jul 14, 2002, 10:35:55 AM7/14/02

to

"Alec Owen" <ao...@phaedrav.com> wrote in message

news:3d317383$1...@audacity.velocet.net...

> >
>

> If the harm/benefit (cost/benefit) analysis is applied to the
ingestion of
> any
> exotic substance into the lungs is applied, I believe that
except in
> particular cases
> it is better not to smoke at all. I was interested in what you
had to say
> although I use
> neither plant, my position is that it is a personal decision
and that a
> radical change in
> drug policy would, again applying a cost/benefit analysis, be
benefical to
> any
> body-politic.
>
> However you have now succeeded in confusing poor Duggie in his
knee-jerk
> support of the current policy even more.
> Shame on you.
>
> A Owen
>

Doug Says: Your question why the article did not mention your
analysis is because making up statistical information to curve
fit a conclusion is not very scientific. That is exactly what
you have done. Marijuana has 4 times the amount of tar than any
cigarette, and because of the other toxins that are used to grow
marijuana, and other drugs that are used to lace it, no one
really knows how much more deadly smoking marijuana is than
smoking cigarettes. Moreover, the Harvard Report was based upon
a person smoking an average of only one joint per day.

I will grant you that in all likelihood a cigarette smoker will
smoke many more cigarettes than a marijuana smoker. However,
most of the evidence shows that marijuana users also smoke
cigarettes, or use other drugs. If we compare a person that
smokes one marijuana joint per day, to a person that does not
smoke marijuana but smokes one pack of cigarettes per day, it
appears because of the way the marijuana smoke is inhaled and
held, and the other aforementioned toxins, the consensus medical
conclusion is the two imbibers would be comparable in respect to
cancer generation. However, mental retardation, memory loss,
etc..., seem to be exclusively attributable to marijuana. Adding
those additional mental disease factors, I would conclude that
smoking one marijuana joint per day is much worse than smoking a
pack of cigarettes per day. But I admit my conclusion is
subjective.

However, none of this is the issue. When I said smoking
marijuana was lethal to humans, and would cause mental
retardation, many from the pro-marijuana crowd challenged me to
post independent evidence of my statements. I have done as they
asked. Now, it appears, they agree with my statements, yet are
now bent on dissecting them with conjecture, opinion and
"generated" empirical statistical self-serving data. We can
"assume" anything we want in respect how much, when and how many.
We can alter the numbers to make marijuana smoking worse than
cigarettes, and vice versa forever, it will not change the fact
that marijuana is lethal to humans, and marijuana also causes
mental retardation even for the occasional user.

Doug Grant (Tm)

Alec Owen

unread,

Jul 14, 2002, 1:25:59 PM7/14/02

to

I will grant you that in all likelihood a cigarette smoker will
> smoke many more cigarettes than a marijuana smoker. However,
> most of the evidence shows that marijuana users also smoke
> cigarettes, or use other drugs.

Many marijuana users also drink alcohol and eat cereal for breakfast.
We should obviously close up all liquor outlets and
make Corn Flakes illegal.
A Owen

"DGVREIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message

news:f%fY8.27198$Iu6.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

Many marijuana users also drink alcohol and eat cereal for breakfast.
We should obviously close up all liquor outlets and
make Corn Flakes illegal.
A Owen