Marijuana Kills!
PusBag
proves that marijuana can indeed kill! Apparently a dock worker was standing
below a large bale of pot which fell from a crane overhead and caved his skull
in. I laughed at that report.
I just thought I would share that with you.
PB
Paul Phoenix
Dude, pot kicks ass... It makes working out so much more fun!
--
Support the Fun Institute --> http://fly.to/adp
"Super Karate Monkey" alias "Big Moody Bastard"
Paul Phoenix
Greg Whitman
>Drugs are bad. Umkay. So don't do drugs. Umkay.
did someone say killer bud?
--
"Languages are weird and wonderful things. As long as you are perceptive
enough there is plenty to keep you happy and busy." -- James McCawley
Krista Scott-Dixon
Paul Phoenix wrote in message <37150B...@ThankU.Mam>...
>PusBag wrote:
>>
>> I just read something which you might enjoy. A report which
unequivocally
>> proves that marijuana can indeed kill! Apparently a dock worker was
standing
>> below a large bale of pot which fell from a crane overhead and caved his
skull
>> in. I laughed at that report.
>>
>> I just thought I would share that with you.
>
>Dude, pot kicks ass... It makes working out so much more fun!
>
Drugs are bad. Umkay. So don't do drugs. Umkay.
Krista
----------------------
kr...@interlog.com
http://krista.tico.com/weights.html
"It is not the squat that fails a lifter;
it is the lifter who fails the squat."
----Eric Midkiff
Whitney Richtmyer
Jeff Spicoli
Whitney
Greg Whitman wrote in message <7f2v7f$8qk$1...@eve.enteract.com>...
>Krista Scott-Dixon <kr...@interlog.com> wrote:
>
>>Drugs are bad. Umkay. So don't do drugs. Umkay.
>
Patrick & Gemma Styles
>
> Tasty waves, and a righteous buzz...
> Jeff Spicoli
>
> Whitney
"Dude! That was my head!"
ps
Paul Phoenix
> >Dude, pot kicks ass... It makes working out so much more fun!
>Krista Scott-Dixon wrote:
> Drugs are bad. Umkay. So don't do drugs. Umkay.
Marijuana isn't a drug, its an herb. And the IOM says it doesn't do any
damage to your body, (if you eat it), it isn't addictive and isn't a
gateway drug.
The War On Drugs is Wrong
PusBag
>From: Paul Phoenix <Spa...@ThankU.Mam>
>Marijuana isn't a drug, its an herb. And the IOM says it doesn't do any
>damage to your body, (if you eat it), it isn't addictive and isn't a
>gateway drug.
While it may indeed be true that the chemicals in the plant per se are not
harmful, the problem often arises with growers using pesticides and fertilizers
which are for ornamentals and not for human consumption. These products do
contain carcinogens.
PB
Paul Phoenix
> >Marijuana isn't a drug, its an herb. And the IOM says it doesn't do any
> >damage to your body, (if you eat it), it isn't addictive and isn't a
> >gateway drug.
> While it may indeed be true that the chemicals in the plant per se are not
> harmful, the problem often arises with growers using pesticides and fertilizers
> which are for ornamentals and not for human consumption. These products do
> contain carcinogens.
How round about can you get? That in no way says anything about the
effects of cannabis itself on the human body! The fact remains that pot
is safe, and has been used effectively as medicine for over 3000
years... DARE has been brainwashing people with propaganda that is
completely false, so that we now have a gigantic underground market much
like the one that Alcohol prohibition created, (remember Al Capone?) The
W.O.D. stinks of greed and profit.
Besides that, are you forgetting that cows eat grass and hay sprayed
with all kinds of poisons (not to mention acid rain), pesticides and
fertilizers, plus they're injected with all sorts of nasty chemicals
designed to fatten them up quickly... And in the end we're stuffing our
faces with slab after slab of beef, while wondering at the mystery of
why the entire country seems to be developing cancer at an alarmingly
higher rate...
Between the new "Bigger And Better" hole in the ozone layer, the
increase in global warming, the global acid rain devastation, and the
still persistent nuclear weapons testing. Getting sick and dying is
becoming more and more common. So lets please get real, eh? Smoking a
little grass doesn't hurt, and its not a crime.
Kim Naru [CONTRACTOR]
: Krista Scott-Dixon <kr...@interlog.com> wrote:
: >Drugs are bad. Umkay. So don't do drugs. Umkay.
: did someone say killer bud?
Now that is funny!
PusBag
>From: Paul Phoenix <Spa...@ThankU.Mam>
>That in no way says anything about the
>effects of cannabis itself on the human body!
No, it isn't. If you read the statment and don't simply become emotional, I am
referring to the chemicals used in the cultivation. I think long-term studies
are necessary to determine
precisely the effects of the chemicals in cannabis. However, there are more
than enough studies to substantiate that marijuana does suppress the immune
system. With that known, it is reasonable to conclude that users may be
setting themselves up for cancer. These sources are all available at your
public library.
The fact remains that pot
>is safe
Please cite references to support this conclusion.
>. DARE has been brainwashing people with propaganda that is
>completely false,
>Besides that, are you forgetting that cows eat grass and hay sprayed
>with all kinds of poisons (not to mention acid rain), pesticides and
>fertilizers, plus they're injected with all sorts of nasty chemicals
>designed to fatten them up quickly...
Agreed. But the chemicals do have to remain within accepted Federal Guidelines
and certain chemicals may not be used. You're pot may be grown using
MiracleGro fertilizer and Sevin as a pesticide. The growers might also piss on
it before they dry it. You have no idea, it is a crap shoot.
>we're stuffing our
>faces with slab after slab of beef,
Diet is a choice. Unless you are a steer or a Whitehouse intern, no one is
forcing anything into your mouth.
>Between the new "Bigger And Better" hole in the ozone layer, the
>increase in global warming, the
>global acid rain devastation, and the
>still persistent nuclear weapons testing.
You forgot Y2K and the fact that the sky still could potentially fall.
>Getting sick and dying is
>becoming more and more common.
Actually, the average life expectancy in the United States is at the highest it
has ever been.
So lets please get real, eh? Smoking a
>little grass doesn't hurt,
Again, you're making mere conclusory allegations with no supporting eveidence.
High Times Magazine and NORMAL propaganda are not authoritative sources.
and its not a crime.
Possession and growing are indeed crimes. If we had legal marijuana we would
have more dopey, lazy, and weak people than we do already.
PB
Whitney Richtmyer
Paul Phoenix wrote in message <371616...@ThankU.Mam>...
>> >Paul Phoenix wrote:
>> >Dude, pot kicks ass... It makes working out so much more fun!
>
>> Drugs are bad. Umkay. So don't do drugs. Umkay.
>
Dude, get a clue. Something can be both a drug and an herb. As I am sure
any chemist (Bill?) or pharmacist can tell you there are tons and tons of
herbs that are also drugs. Because something is an herb DOES NOT MEAN that
it also can't be a drug. Here is one definition of "drug" taken from
Webster's. I don't have an OED at home, so Mr. OED feel free to put your
two cents in.
Drug: Any animal, vegetable, or mineral substance used in the composition of
medicines
Herb: A plant whose stem does not become woody and permanent, but dies, at
least down to the ground, after flowering.
(also can be a nickname for somebody named Herbert, but I digress...)
Hmmm. Animal, vegetable, or mineral substance. Definitely includes
marijuana, doesn't it? Marijuana may be an herb, but it is definitely a
vegetable substance, since ALL HERBS ARE VEGETABLE SUBSTANCES! Whether you
think marijuana is good, bad, whatever, is a collateral issue. For you to
say marijuana is an herb, NOT a drug, is to show a fundamental lack of
understanding of the meaning of the words "drug", and "herb". Some herbs
aren't drugs, this is true. Marijuana happens to be a drug. Being an herb
does not mean something can't also be a drug. It does not add anything
meaningful to an intelligent conversation re: war on drugs, benefits of
marijuana, etc. because it is BLATANTLY wrong.
And the IOM says it doesn't do any
>damage to your body, (if you eat it),
That is debatable. Pretty much ANY drug has positive and negative effects,
to include aspirin (of which many people die from), painkillers, etc. To
say it doesn't do ANY damage, is to leave the world of reality, and enter
into the world of rhetoric and unsubstantiated opinion. Many
pro-legalisation people readily admit that marijuana has positive and
negatives to it, like most mind altering substances, to include - alcohol,
caffeine, ephedrine, opiates, etc.
it isn't addictive and isn't a
>gateway drug.
>
>
It is true that marijuana is not addictive.
>The War On Drugs is Wrong
>
>
PusBag
>From: "Whitney Richtmyer" <whi...@earthlink.net>
>Date: 4/15/99 12:41 PM Central
>
>It is true that marijuana is not addictive.
Not phyisically, but some develop an emotional attachment. I know people who
have smoked so long that they can't even watch TV or go to bed without a toke.
They are all quite skinny and weak as well.
PB
deep
wrote:
>The War On Drugs is Wrong
"I say no to drugs but they just don't listen!"
--
SD
http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/4039/
Laytes
evidence)...
:
>Possession and growing are indeed crimes. If we had legal marijuana we would
have more dopey, lazy, and weak people than we do already.
THEN HE WROTE (countering a post declaring marijuana is not addictive)....:
>Not phyisically, but some develop an emotional attachment.
The thing is PB, your first quote draws a conclusion without factual support...
the very thing you criticize the guy before you for doing. Your second quote
is simply genius... there are folks who can't stay away from the gym or their
girlfriend for more than a few days either... should be ban gyms and girls?
You're commenting on addictive personalities, my friend, not addictive
substances/activities. The latter require something more than a simple
psychological attachment.
Chris
___________________________________
I am we todd id-- I am sofa king we todd id.
(remove the Q from the e-mail address to reply by e-mail)
PusBag
>From: lay...@aol.comQ (Laytes)
>Date: 4/15/99 2:18 PM Central Daylight Time
>The thing is PB, your first quote draws a conclusion without factual
>support...
>the very thi
The factual support is there. You need to get your lazy potsmoking ass to the
library and read it.
> Your second quote
>is simply genius... there are folks who can't stay away from the gym or their
>girlfriend for more than a few days either... should be ban gyms and girls?
If it becomes unhealthy, too much of anything is not good.
>You're commenting on addictive personalities, my friend, not addictive
>substances/activities.
Wrong. There becomes a relaince on the chemical high, and I'm not your friend,
pothead.
>The latter require something more than a simple
>psychological attachment.
You are a weak, skinny, low testosterone pothead. Take a look at the
literature, your immune system is for shit and you will develop lung, mouth or
throat cancer. Sorry for you.
PB
John M. Williams
>
>lay...@aol.comQ (Laytes) wrote:
>>
>>You're commenting on addictive personalities, my friend, not addictive
>>substances/activities.
>
>Wrong. There becomes a relaince on the chemical high, and I'm not your friend,
>pothead.
Some assholes know nothing about the dynamics of addiction. Others
cannot afford to recognize the truth. Physical addiction can be
defeated in a few days with proper detox. If that was the only issue,
addiction would be no problem. Psychological addiction, either active
or dormant, is forever. That is why people go back to using drugs.
Of course, this dimwit would realize that if he tried to go a week
without a bonghit.
>>The latter require something more than a simple
>>psychological attachment.
>
>You are a weak, skinny, low testosterone pothead. Take a look at the
>literature ...
Oh, no! Don't wanna to see no literature! That would totally fuck up
a well-designed matrix of denial and rationalization.
Isn't it amazing how potheads will smoke weed all day, every day, and
spend hours searching for a bag when the supply is low, yet proclaim,
"Hey, at least it's not addictive!"
PusBag
>From: theen...@delphi.com (John M. Williams)
>Date: 4/15/99 4:38 PM Centra
>Some assholes know nothing about the dynamics of addiction. Others
>cannot afford to recognize the truth. Physical addiction can be
>defeated in a few days with proper detox. If that was the only issue,
>addiction would be no problem. Psychological addiction, either active
>or dormant, is forever. That is why people go back to using drugs.
That's the ironic thing about this argument. These guys are in complete denial
about the deleterious effects of the drug, a tell-tale sign of dependence.
>Of course, this dimwit would realize that if he tried to go a week
>without a bonghit.
>
>>>The latter require something more than a simple
>>>psychological attachment.
>>
>>You are a weak, skinny, low testosteron
>Of course, this dimwit would realize that if he tried to go a week
>without a bonghit.
>
That's the thing, they can't and don't want to stop with the chemicals, instead
they come back with conclusory allegations that it is not harmful.
>Isn't it amazing how potheads will smoke weed all day, every day, and
>spend hours searching for a bag when the supply is low, yet proclaim,
>"Hey, at least it's not addictive!"
And anyone who smokes too much over time does not become big and strong. If
(critical word is "IF,") they are prone to addiction they may then search for a
stronger and stronger high until they're banging H.
PB
Whitney Richtmyer
PusBag wrote in message <19990415191439...@ng-ch1.aol.com>...
>>Subject: Re: Marijuana Kills!
>>From: theen...@delphi.com (John M. Williams)
>>Date: 4/15/99 4:38 PM Centra
>
>>Some assholes know nothing about the dynamics of addiction. Others
>>cannot afford to recognize the truth. Physical addiction can be
>>defeated in a few days with proper detox. If that was the only issue,
>>addiction would be no problem. Psychological addiction, either active
>>or dormant, is forever. That is why people go back to using drugs.
>
>That's the ironic thing about this argument. These guys are in complete
denial
>about the deleterious effects of the drug, a tell-tale sign of dependence.
>
Marijuana advocates will say that there are NO harmful effects of marijuana,
which is, of course, ludicrous. There are benefits to marijuana, even the
most ardent anti-drug person will admit this if he/she has a brain, however
there are also deleterious effects (to use your language) to it as well.
Marijuana is NOT physically addictive, and anyone who claims it is, is
wrong. It is obviously psychologically addictive, but so is weightlifting,
so there you go. Many people have a lot of misunderstanding about
marijuana. They say it is legalized in Amsterdam (it is NOT legalized; it
is decriminalized, and largely not enforced. There IS a difference between
decriminilization (which even California did years ago for small amounts of
marijuana - it was only a civil infraction) and legalization), which it is
not. Another thing about marijuana (specifically THC) is that it is
Lipotropic, unlike many other recreational drugs. Chronic (duuuuude, he
said Chronic) users will have a significant amount of THC stored in their
fat cells, which means that they will be on a constant "buzz" even if they
haven't smoked in days, as long as they are metabolizing their fat. That is
why marijuana remains in the urine stream for so much longer than
Amphetamines, etc. This also means that it can have mind-altering effects
hours, and even days after use, which is a problem for certain kinds of
jobs, etc. if the user has high levels in his bloodstream.
Whitney Richtmyer
Paul Phoenix wrote in message <371635...@ThankU.Mam>...
>> >Paul Phoenix wrote:
>> >Marijuana isn't a drug, its an herb. And the IOM says it doesn't do any
>> >damage to your body, (if you eat it), it isn't addictive and isn't a
>> >gateway drug.
>
Get a clue. Read my earlier post. Being an herb does not mean it's not a
drug. By definition (look it up in a dictionary), Marijuana is a drug. It
actually has many psychoactive substances including THC. Yes, it is not
physically addictive, but that does not mean it is "good".
>>PusBag wrote:
>> While it may indeed be true that the chemicals in the plant per se are
not
>> harmful, the problem often arises with growers using pesticides and
fertilizers
>> which are for ornamentals and not for human consumption. These products
do
>> contain carcinogens.
>
>How round about can you get? That in no way says anything about the
>effects of cannabis itself on the human body! The fact remains that pot
>is safe, and has been used effectively as medicine for over 3000
>years...
To say it is safe, is a meaningless noise. Is aspirin safe? Many, many
people die every year from it. ANY DRUG HAS POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE EFFECTS
ON THE BODY. Spouting pro-marijuana propaganda e.g. marijuana is safe, is
just as much bullshit rhetoric as Reefer Madness, except when that movie was
made there hadn't been years of studies on the effects of marijuana, which
we now have. Marijuana is a psychoactive substance. It has significant
effects on the brain, for better and for worse. It effects thought
processes, and it is highly lipotropic. These can all be negative things in
many circumstances.
DARE has been brainwashing people with propaganda that is
>completely false, so that we now have a gigantic underground market much
>like the one that Alcohol prohibition created, (remember Al Capone?) The
>W.O.D. stinks of greed and profit.
>
Well, nobody is arguing that alcohol doesn't have deleterious effects, are
they? Obviously, alcohol is a drug, and obviously it has many deleterious
effects. Alcohol is not lipotropic, though, which is something you seem to
continually gloss over, when referring to marijuana.
>Besides that, are you forgetting that cows eat grass and hay sprayed
>with all kinds of poisons (not to mention acid rain), pesticides and
>fertilizers, plus they're injected with all sorts of nasty chemicals
>designed to fatten them up quickly... And in the end we're stuffing our
>faces with slab after slab of beef, while wondering at the mystery of
>why the entire country seems to be developing cancer at an alarmingly
>higher rate...
>
>Between the new "Bigger And Better" hole in the ozone layer, the
>increase in global warming, the global acid rain devastation, and the
>still persistent nuclear weapons testing.
Which has caused how many deaths? Negligible. More people died in any of a
number of petty skirmishes in various forgotten wars, then have died from
nuclear testing. Remember, it was the "workers paradise" of the Soviet
Union (which I'm sure you admire SO much), that had the worst nuclear
disaster in the history of the planet.
Getting sick and dying is
>becoming more and more common.
According to who? Check out vitality statistics before you spout such
unmitigated nonsense. People in the US,and the world at large are
significantly safer and live longer than they did in the past. Check out
the stats for mortality rates, and average ages, etc. As a matter of fact,
we have more "old people" because of this, and the boomers will be there
quick. First of all, medicine is better, job safety has increased, trauma
care has gotten better, cancer care, etc. etc. etc. The carnage on the
roadway (percentage of drivers killed per mile driven) is WAY WAY WAY lower
than it was in the 50's for example, because of MADD, seatbelts, improved
road engineering, anti-lock brakes, etc. etc. etc. Do some research before
you spout off completely bogus bullshit.
So lets please get real, eh? Smoking a
>little grass doesn't hurt, and its not a crime.
>
It is a crime, according to Federal Law (which supersedes State Law),
although it is true that it has been decriminalized (not legalized) on the
local level in many cases. Also, there are many states where the use of
marijuana for medical purposes has been authorized. Maybe if you could get
your lazy (since you are obviously too lazy to pick up a book and confirm
that your propositions re:death rate, marijuana not being a drug, etc. are
completely factually invalid) ass out of the couch, and into the real world,
you could at least make a logically valid, and factually supported argument
for legalisation, such as others have made. Furthermore, plenty of "right
wingers" are for legalisation as well e.g. William Buckley, and Larry
Elders, however at least they research a little facts before they spout out
ridiculously non-factual propaganda. You are a disservice to the cause of
legalisation, since you are obviously nonfamiliar with facts, and instead
like to spout complete pablum.
Whitney
Whitney Richtmyer
Greg Whitman wrote in message <7f6jtc$q4o$1...@eve.enteract.com>...
>John M. Williams <theen...@delphi.com> wrote:
>
>>"Whitney Richtmyer" <whi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>Marijuana is NOT physically addictive, and anyone who claims it is, is
>>>wrong.
>>
>>and "rationalization," which are the bread-and-butter of habitual
>>cannabis users. Been there; done that. As PusBag said, read the
>>literature ...
>
>In addition... does anyone think that an addict cares if the addiction
>is physical or not? As you already said, physical recuperation can
>take a matter of days, but the desire to use will always be there.
>The physical aspect pales in comparison to preventing relapse.
>
>I was going to mention that there's a DSM III-R classification
>for cannabis dependence syndrome but noticed it's in one of
>the aspects John reproduced here.
>
First of all, the most current version of the DSM, is DSM IV, not DSM III.
The DSM may babble on about cannabis dependence syndrome, and other stuff,
but this is showing that marijuana is psycologically addictive, not
physically addictive. I did some research, since I was a little out-of-date
on the current research. It appears from what I have read, that there IS
some evidence that marijuana might be physically addictive. It seems
somewhat uncertain at this point. The CW in the past has always been that
it is NOT physically addictive, although it is obviously psychologically
addictive. The DSM (since it is a manual of mental disorders) tends to blur
the distinction between psychological dependence and physical addiction, and
I think this is kind of lame, but the agenda of the DSM is different than
that of medical researchers. The DSM defines addiction and dependence in a
way that does not really distinguish between a psychological and a physical
addiction. For marijuana to be physically addictive, some indications would
include physical withdrawal symptoms, etc. The evidence seems to be that
this may be the case, and that marijuana is possibly physically addictive,
and I stand corrected. I admit that, no problem. I should have not spouted
off regarding outdated research, and done some current research. So, I am
saying that I was wrong to state that marijuana is not physically addictive.
It just may be.
Whitney
>[...]
>
>
>>---
>>Bottom line: Habitual use DOES lead to tolerance, withdrawal, and
>>palpable physical, psychological, and social problems. The onset and
>>severity many be the same as opiates, but it exists. And if all this
>>ruins somebody's buzz ... tough shit.
>
>My opinion is that if people must pick a drug to use recreationally,
>they could do a lot worse than pot.
>
>
>
>--
>"I scowl at your runny eggs!" --m00shie
>
John M. Williams
>
>Marijuana is NOT physically addictive, and anyone who claims it is, is
>wrong.
"Wrong" is a pretty strong word, Whitney. Of course, so are "denial"
and "rationalization," which are the bread-and-butter of habitual
cannabis users. Been there; done that. As PusBag said, read the
literature ...
---
Main Entry: ad.dic.tion
Pronunciation: &-'dik-sh&n
Function: noun
: compulsive physiological need for and use of a habit-forming
substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance
and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly :
persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be
physically, psychologically, or socially harmful.
---
Title: An evaluation of the history of a marijuana withdrawal syndrome
in a large population.
Author: Wiesbeck GA; Schuckit MA; Kalmijn JA; Tipp JE; Bucholz KK;
Smith TL
Address: Department of Psychiatry, University of San Diego, USA.
Source: Addiction, 91(10):1469-78 1996 Oct
Abstract:
Case reports and laboratory research indicate the existence of a
cannabis withdrawal syndrome. *** The typical withdrawal symptoms
included "nervous, tense, restlessness", "sleep disturbance" and
"appetite change". *** [E]ven when alcohol and drug use patterns were
statistically taken into account, marijuana use was still
significantly related to a self-report of a history of marijuana
withdrawal.
---
Title: Mesolimbic dopaminergic decline after cannabinoid withdrawal.
Author :Diana M; Melis M; Muntoni AL; Gessa GL
Address :Department of Drug Sciences University of Sassari, via Muroni
23/a 07100 Sassari, Italy. dsfd...@ssmain.uniss.it
Source: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 95(17):10269-73 1998 Aug 18
Abstract:
The mesolimbic dopamine system has recently been implicated in
the long-term aversive consequences of withdrawal from major drugs of
abuse. In the present study we sought to determine whether mesolimbic
dopamine neurons are involved in the neurobiologic mechanisms
underlying withdrawal from chronic cannabinoid exposure. *** [D]ata
indicate that withdrawal from chronic cannabinoid administration is
associated with reduced dopaminergic transmission in the limbic
system, similar to that observed with other addictive drugs; these
changes in neuronal plasticity may play a role in drug craving and
relapse into drug addiction.
---
Title: Psychiatric symptoms in male cannabis users not using other
illicit drugs.
Author: Troisi A; Pasini A; Saracco M; Spalletta G
Address: Department of Psychiatry, University of Rome Tor Vergata,
Italy. tro...@utovrm.it
Source: Addiction, 93(4):487-92 1998 Apr
Abstract:
AIM: To assess the prevalence of DSM-III-R axes I and II
disorders and the severity of psychiatric symptoms in cannabis users
who did not use other illicit drugs. *** FINDINGS: The prevalence of
co-morbid psychiatric disorders varied with the pattern of cannabis
use: 83% of subjects with DSM-III-R cannabis dependence, 46% of those
with DSM-III-R cannabis abuse and 29% of occasional users received at
least one DSM-III-R psychiatric diagnosis. The severity of depressive,
anxious and alexithymic symptoms increased progressively with the
degree of involvement with cannabis. CONCLUSIONS: In this sample of
young men, the risk of associated psychiatric disabilities varied with
the pattern of cannabis use. Chronic use of cannabis was associated
with a high prevalence of co-morbid psychiatric disorders.
John Wash
wrote:
>> >Paul Phoenix wrote:
>> >Dude, pot kicks ass... It makes working out so much more fun!
>
>>Krista Scott-Dixon wrote:
>> Drugs are bad. Umkay. So don't do drugs. Umkay.
>
>Marijuana isn't a drug, its an herb. And the IOM says it doesn't do any
>damage to your body, (if you eat it), it isn't addictive and isn't a
>gateway drug.
I think you missed a joke, my friend.
john
Greg Whitman
>"Whitney Richtmyer" <whi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>Marijuana is NOT physically addictive, and anyone who claims it is, is
>>wrong.
>
>"Wrong" is a pretty strong word, Whitney. Of course, so are "denial"
>and "rationalization," which are the bread-and-butter of habitual
>cannabis users. Been there; done that. As PusBag said, read the
>literature ...
In addition... does anyone think that an addict cares if the addiction
is physical or not? As you already said, physical recuperation can
take a matter of days, but the desire to use will always be there.
The physical aspect pales in comparison to preventing relapse.
I was going to mention that there's a DSM III-R classification
for cannabis dependence syndrome but noticed it's in one of
the aspects John reproduced here.
[...]
>---
>Bottom line: Habitual use DOES lead to tolerance, withdrawal, and
>palpable physical, psychological, and social problems. The onset and
>severity many be the same as opiates, but it exists. And if all this
>ruins somebody's buzz ... tough shit.
My opinion is that if people must pick a drug to use recreationally,
Paul Phoenix
>[snippage]
> wingers" are for legalisation as well e.g. William Buckley, and Larry
> Elders, however at least they research a little facts before they spout out
> ridiculously non-factual propaganda. You are a disservice to the cause of
> legalisation, since you are obviously nonfamiliar with facts, and instead
> like to spout complete pablum.
Whatever Whitney... The Institute of Medicine's report substantiates
everything that I've claimed about marijuana, just because you're DARE
brainwashed doesn't mean you're right, it just means that your
information's sources are old and wrong...
Paul Phoenix
reso...@my-dejanews.com
theen...@delphi.com (John M. Williams) wrote:
> "Whitney Richtmyer" <whi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >Marijuana is NOT physically addictive, and anyone who claims it is, is
> >wrong.
>
> "Wrong" is a pretty strong word, Whitney. Of course, so are "denial"
> and "rationalization," which are the bread-and-butter of habitual
> cannabis users. Been there; done that. As PusBag said, read the
> literature ...
[snip]
> ---
> Bottom line: Habitual use DOES lead to tolerance, withdrawal, and
> palpable physical, psychological, and social problems. The onset and
> severity many be the same as opiates, but it exists. And if all this
> ruins somebody's buzz ... tough shit.
>
What percentage of marijuana users are chronic users (abusers)?
What percentage of alcohol users are chronic users?
Compare the effects of chronic alcohol use with chronic marijuana use.
Please try to keep things in perspective!
VJ
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Christine Jones
careful now...
: Paul Phoenix wrote in message <371635...@ThankU.Mam>...
: >> >Paul Phoenix wrote:
: >> >Marijuana isn't a drug, its an herb. And the IOM says it doesn't do
Paul Phoenix
> What percentage of marijuana users are chronic users (abusers)?
>
> What percentage of alcohol users are chronic users?
>
> Compare the effects of chronic alcohol use with chronic marijuana use.
>
> Please try to keep things in perspective!
To abuse alcohol will kill your liver & kidneys and therefore you.
To abuse marijuana, if you smoke it, you may develop the same asthmatic
problems that tobacco smokers get and may increase your risk of lung
cancer, however if you eat it, there really aren't any bad side effects
other then the desired high... Oh and some people claim that it makes
you a "bad or evil person" however, I was bad and evil to being with so
I can't substantiate that claim...
Greg Whitman
>
>Greg Whitman wrote in message <7f6jtc$q4o$1...@eve.enteract.com>...
>>
>>>"Whitney Richtmyer" <whi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Marijuana is NOT physically addictive, and anyone who claims it is, is
>>>>wrong.
>>>
>>>"Wrong" is a pretty strong word, Whitney. Of course, so are "denial"
>>>and "rationalization," which are the bread-and-butter of habitual
>>>cannabis users. Been there; done that. As PusBag said, read the
>>>literature ...
>>
>>is physical or not? As you already said, physical recuperation can
>>take a matter of days, but the desire to use will always be there.
>>The physical aspect pales in comparison to preventing relapse.
>>
>>I was going to mention that there's a DSM III-R classification
>>for cannabis dependence syndrome but noticed it's in one of
>>the aspects John reproduced here.
>>
>
I thought III-R is still commonly in use. I could well be wrong.
>The DSM may babble on about cannabis dependence syndrome, and other stuff,
>but this is showing that marijuana is psycologically addictive, not
>physically addictive. I did some research, since I was a little out-of-date
>on the current research. It appears from what I have read, that there IS
>some evidence that marijuana might be physically addictive. It seems
>somewhat uncertain at this point. The CW in the past has always been that
>it is NOT physically addictive, although it is obviously psychologically
>addictive. The DSM (since it is a manual of mental disorders) tends to blur
>the distinction between psychological dependence and physical addiction, and
>I think this is kind of lame, but the agenda of the DSM is different than
>that of medical researchers.
In my opinion addiction is mainly a mental disorder -- if you are
concerned with making the mental/physical distinction, which I don't
think is very important with respect to addiction.
> The DSM defines addiction and dependence in a
>way that does not really distinguish between a psychological and a physical
>addiction. For marijuana to be physically addictive, some indications would
>include physical withdrawal symptoms, etc. The evidence seems to be that
>this may be the case, and that marijuana is possibly physically addictive,
>and I stand corrected. I admit that, no problem. I should have not spouted
>off regarding outdated research, and done some current research. So, I am
>saying that I was wrong to state that marijuana is not physically addictive.
>It just may be.
Okay -- I just don't think it matters that much to say that a person
can develop a physical dependence on a drug. That is, it doesn't matter
to treatment strategies, aside from the initial problem of dealing with
withdrawl symptoms.
Watson Davis
>
> On Thu, 15 Apr 1999 09:42:30 -0700, Paul Phoenix <Spa...@ThankU.Mam>
> wrote:
>
>
> "I say no to drugs but they just don't listen!"
BONG HITZ MAKE ME LAFF, YO!
Watson (the pencil neck) Davis
Whitney Richtmyer
Paul Phoenix wrote in message <371787...@ThankU.Mam>...
>> reso...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> What percentage of marijuana users are chronic users (abusers)?
>>
>> What percentage of alcohol users are chronic users?
>>
>> Compare the effects of chronic alcohol use with chronic marijuana use.
>>
>> Please try to keep things in perspective!
>
>To abuse alcohol will kill your liver & kidneys and therefore you.
>
>To abuse marijuana, if you smoke it, you may develop the same asthmatic
>problems that tobacco smokers get and may increase your risk of lung
>cancer, however if you eat it, there really aren't any bad side effects
>other then the desired high...
Nice try. The "bad" or "deleterious" side effects are many. Even the
prolific pot smoker friends I had in college admitted the negative effects
of marijuana. You would rather stick your head in the sand, and proclaim it
to be a benign substance. Again, you do a disservice to the cause of
legalisation/decriminalization, because you are not willing to accept that
there ARE negative side effects to smoking (or eating) marijuana, as there
are with almost any other drug.
Whitney
Whitney Richtmyer
Christine Jones wrote in message <01be881f$3a2c5460$ea15440c@default>...
>Did you know too much Ganga can cause gynecomastia...
>careful now...
>
>
He probably considers that a benefit.
Whitney
Krista Scott-Dixon
Paul Phoenix wrote in message <371616...@ThankU.Mam>...
>> >Paul Phoenix wrote:
>> >Dude, pot kicks ass... It makes working out so much more fun!
>
>>Krista Scott-Dixon wrote:
>> Drugs are bad. Umkay. So don't do drugs. Umkay.
>
>damage to your body, (if you eat it), it isn't addictive and isn't a
>gateway drug.
>
>
You missed a joke. Umkay.
Krista
----------------------
kr...@interlog.com
http://krista.tico.com/weights.html
"It is not the squat that fails a lifter;
it is the lifter who fails the squat."
----Eric Midkiff
Whitney Richtmyer
Paul Phoenix wrote in message <37176F...@ThankU.Mam>...
>>Whitney Richtmyer wrote:
>>[snippage]
>> wingers" are for legalisation as well e.g. William Buckley, and Larry
>> Elders, however at least they research a little facts before they spout
out
of
>> legalisation, since you are obviously nonfamiliar with facts, and instead
>> like to spout complete pablum.
>
>Whatever Whitney... The Institute of Medicine's report substantiates
>everything that I've claimed about marijuana, just because you're DARE
>brainwashed doesn't mean you're right, it just means that your
>information's sources are old and wrong...
>
Most of my information sources are new and they actually do RESEARCH, e.g.
NIDA, PDR, AMA, etc. I have never attended a DARE class, and I think there
are excellent arguments FOR legalisation, however to say marijuana has no
negative effects, it ridiculous. How "deleterious" these effects are, etc.
is at least a "debatable" subject, but again you prefer the simple mantra of
"marijuana good, marijuana good".
For example marijuana can effect memory. If you choose to disbelieve this,
then fine, but dozens of reputable sources, including many pro-legalisation
ones admit this, because it is supported by empirical evidence. Marijuana
is psychoactive. I affects your brain's functions, ok? That is what a
"high" is. Just like any other controversial subject, you can find data to
support your ridiculous opinion. The real question is, what evidence is out
there, and has been gained from reputable scientists, doctors, etc., that
have actually done research and analyzed same? The evidence is overwhelming
as to the positive and negative effects of marijuana. I have never attended
a DARE class, so I won't speak for what DARE says in their classes, because
I don't know. I do know that even High Times, for Pete's sake, has told of
both the negative and the positive effects of marijuana. When a blatant
pro-marijuana advocacy publication is willing to admit the negative effects
of marijuana, that should tell you something. NORML does likewise,
admitting that marijuana can have negative side effects, but arguing that
"responsible use" should be taught, and that criminalization does more harm
than good ie the harm-reduction argument. Again, ALL these organizations,
when they mention effects of marijuana, admit to negative and positive ones.
You, otoh must have some kind of pipeline to true knowledge that all these
other organizations have missed.
Whitney
Whitney Richtmyer
John M. Williams wrote in message <371687eb....@news.bright.net>...
>"Whitney Richtmyer" <whi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>Marijuana is NOT physically addictive, and anyone who claims it is, is
>>wrong.
>
>"Wrong" is a pretty strong word, Whitney. Of course, so are "denial"
>and "rationalization," which are the bread-and-butter of habitual
>cannabis users. Been there; done that. As PusBag said, read the
>literature ...
You are right, John. I admit that I was wrong, and I was spouting some
outdated stuff. I did some research, to include the PDR, and I now realize
that there is an excellent argument to be made for marijuana being
physically addictive. The withdrawal signs and symptoms aren't as intense
as some drugs, but that is just a question of degree. You make a good
point, and I spouted off without being up-to-date, and I apologize.
Whitney
FJ!!
Whitney Richtmyer <whi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>outdated stuff. I did some research, to include the PDR, and I now realize
>that there is an excellent argument to be made for marijuana being
>physically addictive.
So does nicotine, or alcohol, or probably even chocolate. If physical
addiction actually was a criterion for deciding which drug should be
allowed, ciggarettes should be the first to go under lock and key.
FJ!!
<buft> U DONT KNOW HIS WAIST SIZXE AND U R MEETING HIM FOR A DATE??? -- on irc
deep
wrote:
>Whatever Whitney... The Institute of Medicine's report substantiates
Institute of what? Is that where Dr. Nick Riviera got his shit?
--
SD
Whitney Richtmyer
FJ!! wrote in message ...
>In article <7f83td$oko$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
>Whitney Richtmyer <whi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>outdated stuff. I did some research, to include the PDR, and I now
realize
>>that there is an excellent argument to be made for marijuana being
>>physically addictive.
>
>So does nicotine, or alcohol, or probably even chocolate. If physical
>addiction actually was a criterion for deciding which drug should be
>allowed, ciggarettes should be the first to go under lock and key.
>
> FJ!!
And I never made that argument, ever. Go back and read the posts I wrote,
and you will see that. I was responding to some idiot who claimed that
marijuana didn't have any negative effects, which is so ludicrous. Even
NORML, and High Times readily admit that there are positive and negative
effects to marijuana. You are implying that I am saying that if something
is physically addictive, then it should be illegal, which I have never said.
Fuck, caffeine is physically addictive, ok? What I said is that INTELLIGENT
proponents of legalisation and/or decriminalization (there IS a difference)
make intelligent arguments about "harm reduction", etc. but they don't gloss
over the facts that marijuana has plenty of negative effects. They make the
argument that it should not be criminal to possess, and that education is
the key, not law enforcement. My point re: addiction was that the CW not
too long ago, was that MJ was not physically addictive, however current
research suggests that it may be. Of course, if physical addictiveness was
the first criteria for proscribing a drug, then cigarettes would be at the
top of the list. That is 100% true, however that is a collateral issue. My
point is that marijuana has negative and positive effects (as many pro and
anti legalisation people will admit), and that it does a grave disservice to
the cause of legalisation/harm reduction to claim that marijuana is
completely benign, as this poster did ad nauseum.
Whitney
FJ!!
Whitney Richtmyer <whi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>You are implying that I am saying that if something
>is physically addictive, then it should be illegal,
What I am saying explicitely is that this whole threadlet is
politically just a moot hypocritical point, no matter on what side the
evidence of addiction falls. You want to take that as some personal
affront because I followed you up, well, sorry to have riled you, but
have fun.
FJ!!
"Mind you, I don't do coy." -- Melinda Shore
Whitney Richtmyer
FJ!! wrote in message ...
>Whitney Richtmyer <whi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>You are implying that I am saying that if something
>>is physically addictive, then it should be illegal,
>
>What I am saying explicitely is that this whole threadlet is
>politically just a moot hypocritical point, no matter on what side the
>evidence of addiction falls.
Why is it moot? All it takes is a vote to legalise drugs. It is not moot.
At least discussing the merits and drawbacks would be interesting.
You want to take that as some personal
>affront because I followed you up, well, sorry to have riled you, but
>have fun.
You didn't rile me, and I didn't take it as an affront, however what you
posted did not follow from what I posted, and it implied that I equated the
addictiveness of a substance to the fact that it was legal/illegal, which I
never did.
This thread is a response to somebody (probably trollin'. He couldn't
actually be this ignorant of drugs) who states such ridiculous assertions as
Marijuana is not a drug, it's an herb - Which is dumb, because being an herb
has no bearing on whether it's a drug. Plenty of herbs are drugs
Marijuana has no negative effects - Again, this is dumb and incorrect.
An intelligent discussion on the merits and drawbacks of legalisation would
at least be interesting, but this guy obviously has no knowledge of
pharmacology, or anything else.
Whitney
FJ!!
Whitney Richtmyer <whi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Why is it moot? All it takes is a vote to legalise drugs.
All it takes to cure cancer is a drug.
IOW, it's a bit more complicated than that. Too many people have too much
invested.
>At least discussing the merits and drawbacks would be interesting.
I, personally, cannot take such a discussion seriously without putting
the drug in its social and biological context, which includes the
complete historical accident that nicotine and alcohol are legal while
thc is not. The moment you do that is when you notice that merits and
drawbacks is not what is really at issue here.
FJ!!
"It's always time for a Holocaust joke." - Jeffrey Sandris.
The Green Hornet
Whitney Richtmyer wrote in message
<7f7vld$ina$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>
>Paul Phoenix wrote in message <371787...@ThankU.Mam>...
>>> reso...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>> What percentage of marijuana users are chronic users (abusers)?
>>>
>>> What percentage of alcohol users are chronic users?
>>>
>>> Compare the effects of chronic alcohol use with chronic marijuana use.
>>>
>>> Please try to keep things in perspective!
>>
>>To abuse alcohol will kill your liver & kidneys and therefore you.
>>
>>To abuse marijuana, if you smoke it, you may develop the same asthmatic
>>problems that tobacco smokers get and may increase your risk of lung
>>cancer, however if you eat it, there really aren't any bad side effects
>>other then the desired high...
>
>Nice try. The "bad" or "deleterious" side effects are many. Even the
>prolific pot smoker friends I had in college admitted the negative effects
>of marijuana. You would rather stick your head in the sand, and proclaim
it
>to be a benign substance. Again, you do a disservice to the cause of
>legalisation/decriminalization, because you are not willing to accept that
>there ARE negative side effects to smoking (or eating) marijuana, as there
>are with almost any other drug.
>
>Whitney
Well OK, I'll name as many factual bad side effects as I can off the top of
my head.
While you're high
1. Decreased short-term memory.
2. Increased paranoia.
3. Increased appetite.
4. Decreased short-term memory (yes, it's a stupid joke).
5. Decreased coordination (lightweight).
6. You smell like weed (damn, I can't think of any more).
Other side effects
1. Decreased motivation (for some people).
2. Increased risk of throat and esophageal cancer (not so much lung).
3. Possible loss of job (stupid government).
4. Mental addiction (you like being high and want to do it more often. As
opposed to physical addiction, where you hate being high but you get severe
consequences if you don't feed your addiction).
Side effects that don't exist
1. Reproductive system damage (one petri-dish experiment with fantastically
high and unrealistic dosages, and this myth was born).
2. Brain damage (another poor experiment, same doctor as above. Disproven
in the early 90's. People also just believe that every chemical that makes
you feel good kills brain cells. This isn't true of course).
3. Flattened brain waves (out and out lie from an 80's drug commercial).
4. Chromosome damage (see #1).
5. Total and permanent erosion of motivation and mental faculties (it can
fog you up a bit, but a couple months of sobering up will clear up all of
these effects).
6. Everybody hates you because you are a bad bad person (stupid drug
commercials).
There it is, folks. I didn't include ones like "distorted sense of time"
and "mild hallucinations" because those are GOOD side effects, not bad side
effects. Anyone have anything to add, feel free. Don't say no one is
honest here.
>
>
>
>Oh and some people claim that it makes
>>you a "bad or evil person" however, I was bad and evil to being with so
>>I can't substantiate that claim...
>>
>>
Whitney Richtmyer
Greg Whitman wrote in message <7f7ncu$r08$1...@eve.enteract.com>...
>Whitney Richtmyer <whi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>Greg Whitman wrote in message <7f6jtc$q4o$1...@eve.enteract.com>...
>>>John M. Williams <theen...@delphi.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Marijuana is NOT physically addictive, and anyone who claims it is, is
>>>>>wrong.
>>>>
>>>>"Wrong" is a pretty strong word, Whitney. Of course, so are "denial"
>>>>and "rationalization," which are the bread-and-butter of habitual
>>>>cannabis users. Been there; done that. As PusBag said, read the
>>>>literature ...
>>>
Well, if it is a physical addiction, it essentially means that the body only
achieves its homeostasis or balance, with the drug in the system. A person
addicted to an opiate, will need a certain level of the opiate in his system
just to feel "normal", not even to feel high, because there is a physical
need in the body for the drug. I definitely prefer to make the distinction
between physical and psychological addiction, because I think it is
dangerous and imprecise to blur those lines. A psychologist or psychiatrist
may have a "vested interest" to blur those lines, because then it follows
that their preferred method of treatment is the way to go. If an addiction
is purely physical, or purely psychological (many are both), then there are
different options in treatment, etc.
Whitney
Whitney Richtmyer
Wanda Hodge wrote in message <371817FA...@usa.net>...
>Whitney Richtmyer wrote:
>
>> Paul Phoenix wrote in message <371787...@ThankU.Mam>...
>> >> reso...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> >> What percentage of marijuana users are chronic users (abusers)?
>> >>
>> >> What percentage of alcohol users are chronic users?
>> >>
>> >> Compare the effects of chronic alcohol use with chronic marijuana use.
>> >>
>> >> Please try to keep things in perspective!
>> >
>> >To abuse alcohol will kill your liver & kidneys and therefore you.
>> >
>> >To abuse marijuana, if you smoke it, you may develop the same asthmatic
>> >problems that tobacco smokers get and may increase your risk of lung
>> >cancer, however if you eat it, there really aren't any bad side effects
>> >other then the desired high...
>>
>> Nice try. The "bad" or "deleterious" side effects are many. Even the
>> prolific pot smoker friends I had in college admitted the negative
effects
>> of marijuana. You would rather stick your head in the sand, and proclaim
it
>> to be a benign substance. Again, you do a disservice to the cause of
that
>> there ARE negative side effects to smoking (or eating) marijuana, as
there
>> are with almost any other drug.
>>
>> Whitney
>>
>> >you a "bad or evil person" however, I was bad and evil to being with so
>> >I can't substantiate that claim...
>> >
>> >
>> >--
>> >Support the Fun Institute --> http://fly.to/adp
>> >"Super Karate Monkey" alias "Big Moody Bastard"
>> >Paul Phoenix
>
and as
>far as your buddies how many smoked only pot and how many drank alcohol and
did
>other drugs? Come on get real, you are trying to convince people that know
>better about something you know nothing about. It makes you sound very
>uneducated and very ill informed. The negative side effects of pot are
>relaxation, feelings of euphoria, munches, if smoked it produces coughing
but
>that's not all bad, coughing can be good to clear the lungs and bronical
>passages. Marijuana is not a drug, it is an herb,
Look, do us all a favor. Go down to the store. Buy a DICTIONARY. Look up
"herb". Now look up "drug". Realize that if something is an herb, it can
still be a drug. Marijuana IS a drug. It actually has numerous substances
in it, to include THC. Just because something is natural (ie grows in
nature), does not make it benign, and even NORML and High Times admit there
are deleterious effects to marijuana. You, otoh would prefer to live in a
fantasy world. Informed advocates of legalisation/decriminalization realize
the deleterious effects, as well as the positive ones (e.g. Buckley, NORML,
etc.), however they think that the harm caused by prohibition is too great
to justify its retention. Others, disagree. There is room for argument in
the discussion of legalization pros and cons. However, there are tons of
herbs that are not only drugs, but are poisonous, and will kill you quite
easily. Are they harmless because they are "herbs"? No, of course not.
This is not only a ridiculous argument, but isn't even logical. As John has
stated, he has known the effects of marijuana first hand, and they are not
all hunky-dory, umkay?
Whitney
catnip is an herb, what are
>the negative side affects of eating or smoking catnip? THC isolated and
>compounded is a drug, all drugs have some side effects. The negative side
>effects of merinol (THC Capsules) are mainly nausea, dizziness, blurred
vision
>and forgetfullness. Wanda
>
>
Whitney Richtmyer
John M. Williams wrote in message <37180cdc...@news.bright.net>...
That is true, but remember the psychologists run the show, so to speak. I
have been closely involved with several who have tried to break the heroin
habit, and that is a major bitch, and I think the reason it is harder to
kick than marijuana (at least for most addicts) is that it is more
physically addicting than many other drugs.
After that, all addicts
>receive the same treatment. Keep in mind that, although addicts
>nearly always have a "drug of choice," most addicts abuse a variety of
>drugs, often simultaneously.
True. Uppers, downers, and in-betweeners.
Whitney
John M. Williams
>> Bottom line: Habitual use DOES lead to tolerance, withdrawal, and
>> palpable physical, psychological, and social problems. The onset and
>> severity many be the same as opiates, but it exists. And if all this
>> ruins somebody's buzz ... tough shit.
>
>What percentage of alcohol users are chronic users?
>Compare the effects of chronic alcohol use with chronic marijuana use.
>Please try to keep things in perspective!
I post references. You post rhetorical questions. Fuck off.
PusBag
>and "mild hallucinations" because those are GOOD side effects, not bad side
>effects. Anyone have anything to add, feel free.
The original Star Trek series is extraordinarily fascinating after smoking a
sufficient quantity of high-quality herb.
PB
John M. Williams
>
>To abuse marijuana, if you smoke it, you may develop the same asthmatic
>problems that tobacco smokers get and may increase your risk of lung
>cancer, however if you eat it, there really aren't any bad side effects
>you a "bad or evil person" however, I was bad and evil to being with so
>I can't substantiate that claim...
Are you bad or evil? I doubt it.
Are you drug dependent? Well, let's see ...
Signature Line: The Alt.Drugs.Pot Web Site
DejaNews Posting History:
349 alt.drugs.pot
80 alt.games.starcraft
13 misc.fitness.weights
4 alt.drugs
4 alt.drugs.mushrooms
4 alt.law-enforcement
4 sci.med.cannabis
3 alt.non.sequitur
2 alt.drugs.psychedelics
2 alt.games.quake2
1 3dfx.products.voodoo2
1 alt.drugs.hard
1 rec.music.phish
1 talk.politics.drugs
Hmmmm ... you aren't obsessed with drugs are you? And don't bullshit
us about the relative "safety" of ingested marijuana. Cookies and
brownies are a rare novelty for someone who finds themselves in
possession of copious weed. It is a highly inefficient use of good
pot, and you know it. You smoke your weed just like everyone else
does. Do you really think that we are so naïve as to fall for that
shit?
Even as a law enforcement officer, I am not a big fan of the legal ban
on marijuana. But I'm not raising a legal issue here. To claim that
marijuana is totally harmless is a statement of either ignorance or
denial. What's your excuse?
John M. Williams
>
>I, personally, cannot take such a discussion seriously without putting
>the drug in its social and biological context, which includes the
>complete historical accident that nicotine and alcohol are legal while
>thc is not. The moment you do that is when you notice that merits and
>drawbacks is not what is really at issue here.
No legal issue was raised until guys like you decided to get up on a
political soapbox. This is always so predictable. The first claim is
that marijuana is harmless. When that is disproven, you instantly
change the subject and start making comparisons with tobacco and
alcohol, neither of which were ever claimed to be harmless. Stick to
the issues, FJ, and quit being a crybaby.
Wanda Hodge
> Paul Phoenix wrote in message <371787...@ThankU.Mam>...
> >> reso...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >> What percentage of marijuana users are chronic users (abusers)?
> >>
> >> What percentage of alcohol users are chronic users?
> >>
> >> Compare the effects of chronic alcohol use with chronic marijuana use.
> >>
> >> Please try to keep things in perspective!
> >
> >To abuse alcohol will kill your liver & kidneys and therefore you.
> >
> >To abuse marijuana, if you smoke it, you may develop the same asthmatic
> >problems that tobacco smokers get and may increase your risk of lung
> >cancer, however if you eat it, there really aren't any bad side effects
> >other then the desired high...
>
> Nice try. The "bad" or "deleterious" side effects are many. Even the
> prolific pot smoker friends I had in college admitted the negative effects
> of marijuana. You would rather stick your head in the sand, and proclaim it
> to be a benign substance. Again, you do a disservice to the cause of
> legalisation/decriminalization, because you are not willing to accept that
> there ARE negative side effects to smoking (or eating) marijuana, as there
> are with almost any other drug.
>
> Whitney
>
> Oh and some people claim that it makes
> >you a "bad or evil person" however, I was bad and evil to being with so
> >I can't substantiate that claim...
> >
> >
> >--
> >Support the Fun Institute --> http://fly.to/adp
> >"Super Karate Monkey" alias "Big Moody Bastard"
> >Paul Phoenix
You certainly can't be talking about your experiences if you don't smoke and as
far as your buddies how many smoked only pot and how many drank alcohol and did
other drugs? Come on get real, you are trying to convince people that know
better about something you know nothing about. It makes you sound very
uneducated and very ill informed. The negative side effects of pot are
relaxation, feelings of euphoria, munches, if smoked it produces coughing but
that's not all bad, coughing can be good to clear the lungs and bronical
passages. Marijuana is not a drug, it is an herb, catnip is an herb, what are
John M. Williams
>
>If an addiction
>is purely physical, or purely psychological (many are both), then there are
>different options in treatment, etc.
This is only true in the initial detox stage. After that, all addicts
Watson Davis
>
> <<< massive snippage >>>
I really don't give a damn about any of this discussion but...
>
> <<< snippage >>>
> Marijuana is not a drug, it is an herb, catnip is an herb, what are
> the negative side affects of eating or smoking catnip?
Lots of herbs can kill you. Isn't Hemlock an herb? Many drugs are
created from herbs. Some herbs can be used instead of man-made drugs to
get the same effects (ma-huang/ephedrine, willow bark/aspirin, etc.).
That's because some herbs ARE drugs.
With that said, let me state for the record that although I quit doing
drugs at 15 (and drinking at 17), I have no problems with people doing
drugs. Some of my best friends smoke pot, snort coke, smoke crack,
shoot heroin, take LSD, and whatever else people are doing nowadays. I
just think it's wrong to base an argument on the fact that something is
an herb or "organic" and therefore good.
John M. Williams
>
>Whitney Richtmyer wrote:
>>
>> Nice try. The "bad" or "deleterious" side effects are many. Even the
>> prolific pot smoker friends I had in college admitted the negative effects
>> of marijuana. You would rather stick your head in the sand, and proclaim it
>> to be a benign substance.
>
>far as your buddies how many smoked only pot and how many drank alcohol and did
>other drugs? Come on get real, you are trying to convince people that know
>better about something you know nothing about. It makes you sound very
>uneducated and very ill informed. The negative side effects of pot are
>relaxation, feelings of euphoria, munches, if smoked it produces coughing but
>that's not all bad, coughing can be good to clear the lungs and bronical
>the negative side affects of eating or smoking catnip?
Whitney may not have the experience. I do. I started smoking weed at
the age of fifteen, and within a few years, I was smoking it several
times a day, including first thing in the morning and last thing at
night, every day, until I was twenty-seven years old. I have posted
the scientific studies, and I can personally attest to the deleterious
effects. You, on the other hand, are a retarded, rationalizing bitch
in denial.
Tom Morley
(John M. Williams) wrote:
Yes, yes, yes.
Legality is a seperate issue.
Tom Morley |Telling a muscle what to do is a
mor...@math.gatech.edu |little like teaching French to
tmo...@bmtc.mindspring.com |your poodle: You get rapt
http://www.math.gatech.edu/~morley |attention but not much retention.
ICQ: 24798603 | Terry Laughlin (and J. Delves)
VJ
> >> Bottom line: Habitual use DOES lead to tolerance, withdrawal, and
> >> palpable physical, psychological, and social problems. The onset and
> >> severity many be the same as opiates, but it exists. And if all this
> >> ruins somebody's buzz ... tough shit.
> >
> >What percentage of alcohol users are chronic users?
> >Compare the effects of chronic alcohol use with chronic marijuana use.
> >Please try to keep things in perspective!
>
No.
VJ
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
GABRIEL MEDINA
It is bad for you.
All humans have an innate need to feel good. The need to feel good is
satiated when we accomplish a goal, put in a good day's hard work, fall
in love, etc...
Pot makes us feel good without having to do anything. That is why most
pot smokers are usually not very goal-oriented, The natural joy the
body craves from accomplishing goals is displaced with the pot high.
I have seen many talented people become useless zombies because of
drugs. Pot especially.
If you pot smokers would focus instead on getting high from working out,
finishing a book, falling in love, being outdoors, helping a friend,
eating good food, etc...
you will have a fuller, richer and more rewarding life.
I got high just from posting this.
GABRIEL MEDINA
Aidan Ryder
<theen...@delphi.com> like, said all this stuff...
>Paul Phoenix <Spa...@ThankU.Mam> wrote:
>>
>>To abuse marijuana, if you smoke it, you may develop the same asthmatic
>>problems that tobacco smokers get and may increase your risk of lung
>>cancer, however if you eat it, there really aren't any bad side effects
>>you a "bad or evil person" however, I was bad and evil to being with so
>>I can't substantiate that claim...
>
>
>Are you drug dependent? Well, let's see ...
>
Sure, you can tell if someone is dependent on drugs because he hangs
aroud with stoners on the Internet. Here, have a Virtualhit (TM)
guaranteed to make you dependent...ha!
>Signature Line: The Alt.Drugs.Pot Web Site
A group site which I wrote a chunk of. It`s a FAQ fro alt.drugs.pot. And
this is bad how?
FYI my .sig changes depending on the group. I have a sig with my Quake
nick in for when I post to demon.games, but does that make me quake
obsessed?
>
>DejaNews Posting History:
> 349 alt.drugs.pot
> 80 alt.games.starcraft
> 13 misc.fitness.weights
> 4 alt.drugs
> 4 alt.drugs.mushrooms
> 4 alt.law-enforcement
> 4 sci.med.cannabis
> 3 alt.non.sequitur
> 2 alt.drugs.psychedelics
> 2 alt.games.quake2
> 1 3dfx.products.voodoo2
> 1 alt.drugs.hard
> 1 rec.music.phish
> 1 talk.politics.drugs
>
>Hmmmm ... you aren't obsessed with drugs are you? And don't bullshit
>us about the relative "safety" of ingested marijuana. Cookies and
>brownies are a rare novelty for someone who finds themselves in
>possession of copious weed. It is a highly inefficient use of good
>pot, and you know it. You smoke your weed just like everyone else
>does. Do you really think that we are so naïve as to fall for that
>shit?
>
Highly inefficient? Shows how much you know, eating ganja is the most
efficient way to get stoned.
>Even as a law enforcement officer, I am not a big fan of the legal ban
>on marijuana. But I'm not raising a legal issue here. To claim that
>marijuana is totally harmless is a statement of either ignorance or
>denial. What's your excuse?
Well, I don`t know about the other guy, but I don`t claim cannabis is
harmless. I do claim that it`s a lot better for you than a lot of legal
substances, and that it causes very little harm, but smoking anything
isn`t good for you.
--
Aidan Ryder -- gatekeeper for the eldritch horror that is http://fly.to/adp
Cthulhu for president! Why vote for a lesser evil?
PusBag
>From: theen...@delphi.com (John M. Williams)
>Date: 4/16/99 11:41 PM Central Daylight Time
>
>Whitney may not have the experience. I do. I started smoking weed at
>the age of fifteen, and within a few years, I was smoking it several
>times a day, including first thing in the morning and last thing at
>night, every day, until I was twenty-seven years old. I have posted
>the scientific studies, and I can personally attest to the deleterious
>effects. You, on the other hand, are a retarded, rationalizing bitch
>in denial.
Pot is shit. It makes users lazy, weak, sleepy, forgetful, mellow pussies. I
only wish it were legal, it would mean less competition for me.
PB
John M. Williams
>
>Wanda Hodge wrote in message <371817FA...@usa.net>...
>>
>
>"herb". Now look up "drug". Realize that if something is an herb, it can
>still be a drug. Marijuana IS a drug. It actually has numerous substances
>in it, to include THC. Just because something is natural (ie grows in
>nature), does not make it benign, and even NORML and High Times admit there
>are deleterious effects to marijuana. You, otoh would prefer to live in a
>fantasy world. Informed advocates of legalisation/decriminalization realize
>the deleterious effects, as well as the positive ones (e.g. Buckley, NORML,
>etc.), however they think that the harm caused by prohibition is too great
>to justify its retention. Others, disagree. There is room for argument in
>the discussion of legalization pros and cons. However, there are tons of
>herbs that are not only drugs, but are poisonous, and will kill you quite
>easily. Are they harmless because they are "herbs"? No, of course not.
>This is not only a ridiculous argument, but isn't even logical. As John has
>stated, he has known the effects of marijuana first hand, and they are not
>all hunky-dory, umkay?
It would be nice for her to have a dictionary around the house, but
they have them on line, too:
---
Main Entry: herb
Pronunciation: '(h)&rb
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
1 : a seed plant that does not develop persistent woody tissue but
dies down at the end of a growing season
2 : a plant or plant part valued for its medicinal, savory, or
aromatic qualities
---
Main Entry: opi.um
Pronunciation: 'O-pE-&m
Function: noun
: a highly addictive drug that consists of the dried milky juice from
the seed capsules of the opium poppy obtained from incisions
made in the unripe capsules of the plant, that has a brownish yellow
color, a faint smell, and a bitter and acrid taste, that is a
stimulant narcotic usually producing a feeling of well-being,
hallucinations, and drowsiness terminating in coma or death if the
dose is excessive, that was formerly used in medicine to soothe pain
but is now often replaced by derivative alkaloids (as morphine or
codeine) or synthetic substitutes, and that is smoked illicitly as an
intoxicant with harmful effects
---
And that's today's lesson in Herbology 101. Tomorrow we will cover
another wonderful flowering herb, the morning glory, and its seeds'
derivative alkaloids, d-lysergic acid amide (LSA) and d-lysergic acid
diethylamide (LSD)
PusBag
>And that's today's lesson in Herbology 101. Tomorrow we will cover
>another wonderful flowering herb, the morning glory, and its seeds'
>derivative alkaloids, d-lysergic acid amide (LSA) and d-lysergic acid
>diethylamide (LSD)
You could also soak Woodrose seeds in vodka for 48 hours, strain and drink. It
can be quite a trip, although it is easy to overdose. NOTE: This message is
for entertainment purposes only. Do not try this at home. As individuals
vary, so my results. Taxes, licenses and insurace extra.
PB
Laytes
point, at least in my book.
chris
___________________________________
I am we todd id-- I am sofa king we todd id.
(remove the Q from the e-mail address to reply by e-mail)
John M. Williams
>>another wonderful flowering herb, the morning glory, and its seeds'
>>derivative alkaloids, d-lysergic acid amide (LSA) and d-lysergic acid
>>diethylamide (LSD)
>
>You could also soak Woodrose seeds in vodka for 48 hours, strain and drink. It
>can be quite a trip, although it is easy to overdose. NOTE: This message is
>for entertainment purposes only. Do not try this at home. As individuals
>vary, so my results. Taxes, licenses and insurace extra.
There are several web sites that provide details for preparation of
morning glory seeds and Hawaiian baby rosewood seeds. One also
provides a fairly detailed method for cooking LSD. I would highly
discourage the latter; not only is it a serious felony, but it is also
dangerous. Here's an anecdote:
I knew someone who used to cook acid. This guy had a large area of
"chicken skin" on his right arm. He explained that he was heating a
test tube to cook off the ether from the solution, and test tube
slipped out of the test tube clamp. It hit the table, and
fortunately, it didn't break. However, he panicked and grabbed the
test tube with his bare hand, forgetting how hot it was. Of course,
he dropped it again, and this time it did break. When the ether hit
the flame of the Bunsen burner, a huge ball of flame went up his arm.
Third-degree burns. Ouchie!
PusBag
>From: lay...@aol.comQ (Laytes)
>Date: 4/17/99 11:11 AM Central Daylight Time
>Hey PB, I don't smoke pot
You're unequivocally backpeddaling in an attempt to save face.
However, I will accept the hypothetical that you do not smoke marijuana, then
you have no way of making a truly informed decision.
and the myriad of insults are unconvincing of your
>point, at least in my book.
>chris
(Those insults struck home, didn't they.)
Please begin smoking pot on a daily basis. Check your "book" after one year of
daily use.
PB
Greg Whitman
>
>John M. Williams wrote in message <37180cdc...@news.bright.net>...
>>>
>>>If an addiction
>>>is purely physical, or purely psychological (many are both), then there
>are
>>>different options in treatment, etc.
>>
>>This is only true in the initial detox stage.
>
>have been closely involved with several who have tried to break the heroin
>habit, and that is a major bitch, and I think the reason it is harder to
>kick than marijuana (at least for most addicts) is that it is more
>physically addicting than many other drugs.
So, in response to my contention that the difference between
psychological vs physical addiction is unimportant, you state that
physical addiction is harder because it's physical. This is based on
your anectodal evidence. I think you ought to come up with some
better reasons for why it's so important to keep the physical distinct
from the psychological with respect to treatment.
The fact is, and John and I have both tried very nicely to state this
to you, that once withdrawl has ended, physical addiction has been
dealt with, completely. You may like to frame the situation in terms
of the psychologists runing the show, but that begs the question of
why they're running the show. As far as I know, addiction is
psychological, when the concern is avoiding relapse over the long
term.
Is there evidence of any drugs that cause irreversible changes, such
as permanent downregulation of whatever endogenous substances they
mimic? I obviously don't know specifically, but, if there are drugs
that cause irreversible physiological changes of this sort, I would
grant that the physical vs psychological distinction is important, but
*only* given this scenario, where the drug and irreversible effects
are linked.
> After that, all addicts
>>receive the same treatment. Keep in mind that, although addicts
>>nearly always have a "drug of choice," most addicts abuse a variety of
>>drugs, often simultaneously.
>
>True. Uppers, downers, and in-betweeners.
John Wash
> I knew someone who used to cook acid. This guy had a large area of
> "chicken skin" on his right arm. He explained that he was heating a
> test tube to cook off the ether from the solution, and test tube
> slipped out of the test tube clamp. It hit the table, and
> fortunately, it didn't break. However, he panicked and grabbed the
> test tube with his bare hand, forgetting how hot it was. Of course,
> he dropped it again, and this time it did break. When the ether hit
> the flame of the Bunsen burner, a huge ball of flame went up his arm.
> Third-degree burns. Ouchie!
Most lab procedures are dangerous. I think that evolution was trying to give this
guy a hint that he might want to hop out of the gene pool.
john
--
john wash; j_w...@tico.com (to email me, remove the underscore)
mfw (http://mfw.tico.com) personal (http://jwash.tico.com)
----------------------------
"If these are low pulley cable rows they actually work well. If he
is pointing you towards the hamper strength iso foo foo back
blaster or the booty mustard row, etc....smack him." -- Jason Burnell
dozr
if my sig said support pizza http://www.pizza.com does that mean I am
pizza dependent? no so shove it
On Sat, 17 Apr 1999 02:37:58 GMT, theen...@delphi.com (John M.
Williams) wrote:
>Paul Phoenix <Spa...@ThankU.Mam> wrote:
>>
>>To abuse marijuana, if you smoke it, you may develop the same asthmatic
>>problems that tobacco smokers get and may increase your risk of lung
>>cancer, however if you eat it, there really aren't any bad side effects
>>other then the desired high... Oh and some people claim that it makes
>>you a "bad or evil person" however, I was bad and evil to being with so
>>I can't substantiate that claim...
>
>Are you bad or evil? I doubt it.
>
>Are you drug dependent? Well, let's see ...
>
>Signature Line: The Alt.Drugs.Pot Web Site
>
>DejaNews Posting History:
> 349 alt.drugs.pot
> 80 alt.games.starcraft
> 13 misc.fitness.weights
> 4 alt.drugs
> 4 alt.drugs.mushrooms
> 4 alt.law-enforcement
> 4 sci.med.cannabis
> 3 alt.non.sequitur
> 2 alt.drugs.psychedelics
> 2 alt.games.quake2
> 1 3dfx.products.voodoo2
> 1 alt.drugs.hard
> 1 rec.music.phish
> 1 talk.politics.drugs
>
>Hmmmm ... you aren't obsessed with drugs are you? And don't bullshit
>us about the relative "safety" of ingested marijuana. Cookies and
>brownies are a rare novelty for someone who finds themselves in
>possession of copious weed. It is a highly inefficient use of good
>pot, and you know it. You smoke your weed just like everyone else
>does. Do you really think that we are so naïve as to fall for that
>shit?
>
>Even as a law enforcement officer, I am not a big fan of the legal ban
>on marijuana. But I'm not raising a legal issue here. To claim that
>marijuana is totally harmless is a statement of either ignorance or
>denial. What's your excuse?
--
Every night it's 'get revenge this' and 'get revenge that'
-what about my needs?
Ernie Blake
Bitch ass ho, mind your own fucking business.
EB
John M. Williams
>
>just cuz he has that signature doesnt mean that he is drug dependent.
>if my sig said support pizza http://www.pizza.com does that mean I am
>pizza dependent? no so shove it
People put in their sigs what is important to them or what amuses
them. However, I thought that the DejaNews history was much more
relevant, as is yours:
78 alt.drugs.pot
2 alt.games.half-life
2 alt.security.pgp
1 rec.pets.cats.community
Are those permanent bongwater stains on your lips? Or did you get
that from giving rim jobs to your dad? (Just thought I would share
some MFW culture with alt.pothead.slackers)
Whitney Richtmyer
John M. Williams wrote in message <37189e16...@news.bright.net>...
>>>another wonderful flowering herb, the morning glory, and its seeds'
>>>derivative alkaloids, d-lysergic acid amide (LSA) and d-lysergic acid
>>>diethylamide (LSD)
>>
>>You could also soak Woodrose seeds in vodka for 48 hours, strain and
drink. It
>>can be quite a trip, although it is easy to overdose. NOTE: This message
is
>>for entertainment purposes only. Do not try this at home. As individuals
>>vary, so my results. Taxes, licenses and insurace extra.
>
>There are several web sites that provide details for preparation of
>morning glory seeds and Hawaiian baby rosewood seeds. One also
>provides a fairly detailed method for cooking LSD. I would highly
>discourage the latter; not only is it a serious felony, but it is also
>dangerous. Here's an anecdote:
>
>"chicken skin" on his right arm. He explained that he was heating a
>test tube to cook off the ether from the solution, and test tube
>slipped out of the test tube clamp. It hit the table, and
>fortunately, it didn't break. However, he panicked and grabbed the
>test tube with his bare hand, forgetting how hot it was. Of course,
>he dropped it again, and this time it did break. When the ether hit
>the flame of the Bunsen burner, a huge ball of flame went up his arm.
>Third-degree burns. Ouchie!
Well, at least 3rd Degree burns are (usually) less painful than 2nd Degree
burns, since the nerve endings are completely destroyed. But, of course
there is the drawback of having black, crispy flesh. Otoh, some of these
above referenced authors probably would deny this being a "negative" effect
of 3rd Degree burns, since there are NO negative effects to something if one
continually denies them in the face of incontrovertible evidence.
Amateur Chemistry 101 meets IED (Improvised Explosive Device).
Whitney
Whitney
Whitney Richtmyer
<SNIP>
>Well, I don`t know about the other guy, but I don`t claim cannabis is
>harmless. I do claim that it`s a lot better for you than a lot of legal
>substances, and that it causes very little harm, but smoking anything
>isn`t good for you.
>--
Yes, well if you go back and read this thread, you will see that these
"certain people" (I will not resort to name calling... yet) claim that there
are NO negative effects to marijuana, which (if you go back and read) is so
ridiculous as to be laughable. They further claim that since marijuana is
an herb, that it can't be a drug (failing to own a dictionary, obviously, so
that they can look up the definitions of said words, and realize that there
is nothing in the def. of a herb, that has any bearing on whether or not it
is a drug). As I have stated, plenty of people who argue for
legalisation/decrim of marijuana readily admit that it has deleterious
effects as well as positive effects, and thus an "intelligent" discussion
can proceed. These posters on the other hand formulate an "argument"
thusly...
Pot is good
There are no negative effects to pot
Since alcohol is bad, and it is legal, pot should be legal
Lipotropic???? What is Lipotropic?
Whitney
insomniac
>
> do...@fuckyou.co.uk (dozr) wrote:
> >
> >just cuz he has that signature doesnt mean that he is drug dependent.
> >if my sig said support pizza http://www.pizza.com does that mean I am
> >pizza dependent? no so shove it
>
> People put in their sigs what is important to them or what amuses
> them. However, I thought that the DejaNews history was much more
> relevant, as is yours:
>
> 78 alt.drugs.pot
> 2 alt.games.half-life
> 2 alt.security.pgp
> 1 rec.pets.cats.community
>
> Are those permanent bongwater stains on your lips?
What the hell is your problem? If you think you're going to get a
perfect picture of someone by looking at his DejaNews history or sig,
you're completely wrong. Are you now going to look at mine and post it
here, too? I'll save you the trouble.
934 alt.cascade
349 alt.drugs.pot
272 alt.non.sequitur
74 alt.tv.beavis-n-butthead
11 alt.fan.longest-thread
5 comp.os.linux.misc
3 alt.drugs
1 alt.flame.niggers
1 rec.pets.cats.community
1 rec.running
Does this now give a complete picture of my life? No, in fact I've
posted to usenet under over 15 email addresses, and adp (or alt.cascade)
isn't the ng I've posted most to. I've also used different sigs with
different themes. I like pot. Does that make me "drug dependent?" If
you think so, that's fine, but then I'm also basketball dependent,
politics dependent, tv dependent, and computer dependent. Oh well.
> Or did you get
> that from giving rim jobs to your dad? (Just thought I would share
> some MFW culture with alt.pothead.slackers)
You need to get a fucking life. Having an interest in something doesn't
make you obsessed with it or dependent on it. Good bye, you
weightlifting, gun dependent slacker.
--
~~~
~~ "You can smoke a pound of bud a day...
~ that's the American dream" --Snoop Doggy Dogg
U=====- -- insomniac --
Whitney Richtmyer
Greg Whitman wrote in message <7faftn$bgg$1...@eve.enteract.com>...
Permanent is a STRONG word. I would prefer the term "prolonged". They do
cause downregulation, which is evidenced in withdrawal. Here are some
quotes ...
"repeated injections of narcotic lead to down-regulation of the modulating
system and possibly also to suppression of endogenous ligands, thus
contributing to narcotic tolerance and dependence and progressively
diminishing the analgesic utility of narcotics"
"When sensory stimuli activate neurological and humoral systems, the
modulating processes react to protect against excessive response. With
long-term administration of narcotics, the modulating system is
down-regulated. The receptors become insensitive both to narcotic drugs and
to their natural ligands. A new stability is achieved if methadone is given
in an adequate daily dose, but at the price of continued dependence on the
medication. Thus, a fundamental question in treatment of long-term users of
narcotics is whether the modulating systems can return to normal function
after termination of narcotic input. Ideally, methadone would be used as a
stabilizing medication to provide immediate intervention, stopping the use
of illicit narcotics and normalizing general metabolism. Later, after
medical and social rehabilitation, the maintenance medicine would be
withdrawn slowly and the patient would be totally cured. "
Note the tie-in between physical and psychological addiction. The
"two-pronged attack"
Here is some information on the "persistence" of the down-regulation. Note
that I do not necessarily say it is "permanent", but it is certainly
prolonged.
"Unfortunately, cure of chronic narcotic addiction is not that simple. Some
patients do well after rehabilitation , but the majority, although equally
motivated, experience dysphoria, restlessness, irritability, and recurrent
urges to use heroin again. The danger of relapse is great under these
conditions. Objectively measurable physiological disturbances persist after
detoxification from heroin or any other narcotic that has been used for a
long time. These were noted by Himmelsbach (1968) in early studies of the
abstinence syndrome at the Public Health Hospital. Observing signs of
dependence (sympathetic nervous system hyperactivity) that persisted up to
two years in prisoners serving long sentences, he surmised that the almost
invariable relapse of prisoners after release was "abetted by what seem to
be indelible effects of addiction on the nervous system" (Himmelsbach,
1968). "
If one does LARGE amounts of cocaine for EXTENDED periods of time, there is
a downregulation in the associated "pleasure centers" of the brain.
I obviously don't know specifically, but, if there are drugs
>that cause irreversible physiological changes of this sort, I would
>grant that the physical vs psychological distinction is important, but
>*only* given this scenario, where the drug and irreversible effects
>are linked.
>
See above. Cocaine is an excellent example of this. I hesitate to use the
word "irreversible", which like "permanent" is a bit strong. Did I use
those words myself? I prefer "prolonged" and "persistent" which are used
frequently in the medical lit.
An example of a physical addiction without accompanying psychological
addiction follow:
for example, surgical patients who are given morphine for pain often develop
tolerance and a withdrawal reaction, but they do not continue to use the
drug once they leave the hospital, and they have developed no psychological
addiction.
These patients have a physical addiction, but no psychological addiction.
Stimulants, (eg cocaine) , act on catecholamine (norepinephrine and
dopamine) systems, which may be associated with alertness and pleasure
centers in the brain. It has not been conclusively determined, however it
is believed that long-term (chronic) use of these stimulants results in a
downregulation of these endogenous substances in the brain, and since
depression is often seen with withdrawal, this gives insight into
treatments.
Note: In regards to stimulants, it has not been "conclusively determined".
It is the conventional CW in the scientific field that downregulation also
takes place with stimulants eg cocaine.
Opioid drugs probably substitute themselves for enkephalins and endorphins,
the opioid analgesics normally manufactured by the body for its own
purposes. Nerve receptors for benzodiazepines have also been identified.
Again, chronic use of large quantities can result in down regulation of
natural endorphins, the drugs that make us feel "groovy".
Dude, even psychologists admit that there IS a difference between physical
and psychological addiction. But, they prefer to use terminology such as
"addiction" or "dependence" to lump em both together, and move on towards
treatment. Physical addiction is generally accompanied by psychological
addiction (an exception re: the surgical patient noted above), but they
aren't always both present. Nobody, (that I know of) even makes the
argument that there isn't a difference between the two. Most addictions to
substances are a combination of both. And I agree that the psychological
addiction can linger on for a long time after the physical is gone. I am
agreeing with you on this point. I am saying that it is semantically
"loose" to not distinguish between the two, because different treatments
will work better for one or the other. A good treatment program will attack
the physical addiction and the psychological addiction, and most do.
Methadone for example is a physical "remedy" that minimizes withdrawal from
heroin, because it is an opiate itself. It binds to the "mu" receptors of
the nervous system. By introducing some of this into the body, the
withdrawal effects are minimized. This is a response to a physical
addiction. Likewise, nicoderm patches are a drug that gives the body a
maintenance level of drugs to lessen withdrawal symptoms. Neither of these
things will do much, if anything for the psychological addiction, they only
act on the physical side. Methadone treatment in and of itself is far less
effective than combining methadone with other "psychological addiction"
based "cures.
Whitney
Laytes
your only interest is insulting the proponent of the opposing view, whom you
know nothing about, with assumptions (drug intake, physical strength and
size...etc). I envy you though, for I wish that I could be satisfied with
myself, as you appear to be, upon stacking assumption upon assumption until
I've reached a conclusion that sits in my favor. It's mental masturbation of
the highest order and takes a certain soulful ignorance to achieve-- but hey,
don't let anybody take it away from you, because with out it, you may find
yourself uneasy with incompetence.
Chris
PusBag
>From: lay...@aol.comQ (Laytes)
>Date: 4/17/99 6:24 PM Central
Sorry we can't have a discussion on this topic, Pusbag, but it appears that
your only interest is insulting the proponent of the opposing view, whom you
know nothing about, with assumptions (drug intake, physical strength and
size...etc).
>I envy you though, for I wish that I could be satisfied with
>myself, as you appear to be, upon stacking assumption upon assumption until
>I've reached a conclusion that sits in my favor.
Don't envy me. Petty envy and jealousy will get you nowhere. Stop smoking pot
and hit the iron and it may improve your view of yourself.
> It's mental masturbation of
>the highest order
I take it any way I can get it. Personally, I like "mental gymnastics." I
have a mental image of Monica Brant on a balance beam, she's wearing a thong
bikini and...oh, well...that's a story for another day.
and takes a certain soulful ignorance to achieve-- but hey,
>don't let anybody take it away from you, because with out it, you may find
>yourself uneasy with incompetence.
And you are now attempting to insult me because I have an opposing view. Go
back to the beginning of your post and reread.
Pot does indeed impair short-term memory.
However, as I have stated unequivocally before, I don't care if people choose
to smoke pot, in fact, I encourage them.
PB
Kevin Haggerty
news:T1aS2.3419$e81.7...@news1.mia...
>
> John Wash <j_w...@tico.com> wrote in message
> news:3718DE27...@tico.com...
> > "John M. Williams" wrote:
> >
> > > I knew someone who used to cook acid. This guy had a large area of
> > > "chicken skin" on his right arm. He explained that he was heating a
> > > test tube to cook off the ether from the solution, and test tube
> > > slipped out of the test tube clamp. It hit the table, and
> > > fortunately, it didn't break. However, he panicked and grabbed the
> > > test tube with his bare hand, forgetting how hot it was. Of course,
> > > he dropped it again, and this time it did break. When the ether hit
> > > the flame of the Bunsen burner, a huge ball of flame went up his arm.
> > > Third-degree burns. Ouchie!
> >
> give this
> > guy a hint that he might want to hop out of the gene pool.
> >
> > john
> >
> >
>
> rushing through one of my lab experiments. I mixed the acid and the water
> in the wrong order and got a nice face bath. Why I picked that one lab not
> to rebel against the rule for wearing eye shields, I'll never know ( I hated
> wearing those things). I guess it was something along the order of God
> looking out for babies and drunks.
>
> As it was, I just had some mildly red skin. Oh, and for every lab
> afterwards, eye shields were my new best friend.
Our ass gets sent out of the lab if we don't have goggles, long pants, and
shoes. We may return once we find those items. If we don't return we get a
zero because there are no make-ups for lab.
--
Kevin Haggerty
kev...@purdue.edu
ICQ: 21045492
The Green Hornet
John M. Williams wrote in message <37195deb....@news.bright.net>...
>bob...@home.com (Bob Mann) wrote:
>>
>>IOW, you become satisfied with where ever you are at in your life.
>>If you start getting the feeling that all is not right or that you could
be
>>doing better, it will all go away the very next time you light up.
>>Couple this with the short term memory loss you mentioned and it is no
>>wonder that many people cannot function to their capacity while smoking
up.
>
>You know, Bob, this is an excellent observation. To take it even
>further, one of the reasons that smoking weed is such a deceptive
>"problem solver" is a combination of the effects. Not only does it
>give you a good buzz, but the short-term memory loss makes you say,
>"What was it I was worrying about?"
I don't know about anyone else, but I don't actually forget about that crap
when I'm high. If shit is really important, you won't forget it. It does
make it a lot easier to forget, and if you have a little subconscious urge
to want to forget something (like some chores or stupid homework that you
were supposed to do), then you might just voluntarily forget it. It does
make you satisfied with where you are, and that can be a bit of a danger.
It's not impossible to stay motivated, but you can't be a wuss about it.
thcantey
John Wash <j_w...@tico.com> wrote in message
news:3718DE27...@tico.com...
> "John M. Williams" wrote:
>
> > I knew someone who used to cook acid. This guy had a large area of
> > "chicken skin" on his right arm. He explained that he was heating a
> > test tube to cook off the ether from the solution, and test tube
> > slipped out of the test tube clamp. It hit the table, and
> > fortunately, it didn't break. However, he panicked and grabbed the
> > test tube with his bare hand, forgetting how hot it was. Of course,
> > he dropped it again, and this time it did break. When the ether hit
> > the flame of the Bunsen burner, a huge ball of flame went up his arm.
> > Third-degree burns. Ouchie!
>
> Most lab procedures are dangerous. I think that evolution was trying to
give this
> guy a hint that he might want to hop out of the gene pool.
>
> john
>
>
Heh, even the simplest of procedures. I remember back in college I was
rushing through one of my lab experiments. I mixed the acid and the water
in the wrong order and got a nice face bath. Why I picked that one lab not
to rebel against the rule for wearing eye shields, I'll never know ( I hated
wearing those things). I guess it was something along the order of God
looking out for babies and drunks.
As it was, I just had some mildly red skin. Oh, and for every lab
afterwards, eye shields were my new best friend.
Tom
Bob Mann
<gho...@ghornet.com> wrote:
>
>Other side effects
>1. Decreased motivation (for some people).
I never used to believe that one.
After many years of clearer thinking though, it came to me that the lack of
motivation was directly tied to the feeling of satisfaction you get from
MJ.
Bong Boy
> Paul Phoenix wrote in message <371787...@ThankU.Mam>...
> >> reso...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >> What percentage of marijuana users are chronic users (abusers)?
> >>
> >> What percentage of alcohol users are chronic users?
> >>
> >> Compare the effects of chronic alcohol use with chronic marijuana use.
> >>
> >> Please try to keep things in perspective!
> >
> >To abuse alcohol will kill your liver & kidneys and therefore you.
> >
> >To abuse marijuana, if you smoke it, you may develop the same asthmatic
> >problems that tobacco smokers get and may increase your risk of lung
> >cancer, however if you eat it, there really aren't any bad side effects
> >other then the desired high...
>
> Nice try. The "bad" or "deleterious" side effects are many. Even the
> prolific pot smoker friends I had in college admitted the negative effects
> of marijuana. You would rather stick your head in the sand, and proclaim it
> to be a benign substance. Again, you do a disservice to the cause of
> legalisation/decriminalization, because you are not willing to accept that
> there ARE negative side effects to smoking (or eating) marijuana, as there
> are with almost any other drug.
such as?
John M. Williams
>
> Whitney Richtmyer wrote:
>>
>> Again, you do a disservice to the cause of
>> legalisation/decriminalization, because you are not willing to accept that
>> there ARE negative side effects to smoking (or eating) marijuana, as there
>> are with almost any other drug.
>
>such as?
One of the classics is short-term memory loss. Quite apparent in your
case. Or maybe you should READ THE FUCKING THREAD!!!
John M. Williams
>
>IOW, you become satisfied with where ever you are at in your life.
>If you start getting the feeling that all is not right or that you could be
>doing better, it will all go away the very next time you light up.
>Couple this with the short term memory loss you mentioned and it is no
>wonder that many people cannot function to their capacity while smoking up.
You know, Bob, this is an excellent observation. To take it even
John Wash
> bob...@home.com (Bob Mann) wrote:
> >
> >IOW, you become satisfied with where ever you are at in your life.
> >If you start getting the feeling that all is not right or that you could be
> >doing better, it will all go away the very next time you light up.
>
> You know, Bob, this is an excellent observation. To take it even
> further, one of the reasons that smoking weed is such a deceptive
> "problem solver" is a combination of the effects. Not only does it
> give you a good buzz, but the short-term memory loss makes you say,
> "What was it I was worrying about?"
I'm reading this thread and thinking, "wow, pot must be awful." But then I think
of all of the people I know who smoke pot daily and are tremendously successful
in their jobs, their personal relationships, and their hobbies, and it occurs to
me that marijuana is not the problem: A weak or confused mind is the problem.
Certainly I know people who have fucked up their lives by using drugs. I know
many more people who use recreational drugs monthly, weekly, and sometimes even
daily, and are by all accounts responsible, productive members of society.
Marijuana is neither good nor bad. It is a psychoactive drug; a tool used for
many purposes. The good or bad comes from the way in which it is used.
John M. Williams
>
>I'm reading this thread and thinking, "wow, pot must be awful." But then I think
>of all of the people I know who smoke pot daily and are tremendously successful
>in their jobs, their personal relationships, and their hobbies, and it occurs to
>me that marijuana is not the problem: A weak or confused mind is the problem.
With daily use, it is usually a matter of time. It usually starts
with the interpersonal relationships. I had created precisely the
type of illusion that you describe above. But eventually the house of
cards comes tumbling down. Watch, wait, and see if I'm not right.
John M. Williams
>>
>>You know, Bob, this is an excellent observation. To take it even
>>further, one of the reasons that smoking weed is such a deceptive
>>"problem solver" is a combination of the effects. Not only does it
>>give you a good buzz, but the short-term memory loss makes you say,
>>"What was it I was worrying about?"
>
>when I'm high. If shit is really important, you won't forget it. It does
>make it a lot easier to forget, and if you have a little subconscious urge
>to want to forget something (like some chores or stupid homework that you
>were supposed to do), then you might just voluntarily forget it. It does
>make you satisfied with where you are, and that can be a bit of a danger.
>It's not impossible to stay motivated, but you can't be a wuss about it.
Or you can get really motivated about a single task, become obsessed
with it, and spend hours doing some shit that should take you minutes.
The Green Hornet
John M. Williams wrote in message <37197429....@news.bright.net>...
Or you can lay off it til the weekend. It's not impossible to mix weed with
all the other activities of life. If you can't function with everyday
smoking, then you cut back. And if you have an artistic lifestyle, getting
motivated on a single task can actually be a good thing.
George Whyte
>On Fri, 16 Apr 1999 20:37:38 -0700, "The Green Hornet"
><gho...@ghornet.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Other side effects
>>1. Decreased motivation (for some people).
>
>I never used to believe that one.
>After many years of clearer thinking though, it came to me that the lack of
>motivation was directly tied to the feeling of satisfaction you get from
>MJ.
I regulary train with a pair of twins. The one who regulary smokes
weed, is always missing legs, calfs. In fact he hasn,t trained calfs
more than once in the last 6 mths. Always complaining about this and
that. Lost his last job in a gym for taking too much sick time. Lost
his one and only personal training client for training him while he
was wasted. Was an hour late for his new job three days into it.
Always borrows money....
Smoking weed, turns you into a whinging lazy bastard.
George UK
eeech du baaan!
George Whyte
>passages. Marijuana is not a drug, it is an herb, catnip is an herb, what are
>the negative side affects of eating or smoking catnip?
You end up purring a lot.
Dr Digi A Doobie THC
btw, what's your excuse?
--
www.StonerNET.org
United we're stoned
Divided we're busted
George Whyte <geo...@eech.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3719c24a...@news.freeserve.net...
FJ!!
John M. Williams <theen...@delphi.com> wrote:
>political soapbox. This is always so predictable. The first claim is
>that marijuana is harmless.
I did not do that. You are conflating people into camps. I just stated
that I have problems taking this discussion seriously in isolation. I
am sorry this is enough of a problem for you you have to ascribe things
and motivations to people they do not have.
>Stick to the issues, FJ, and quit being a crybaby.
Yeah, wanting some consistency out of the legal system I live in makes
me a crybaby.
20 years from now we'll be having these threads about nicotine.
FJ!!
"My therapist is on vacation, I have lost all sense of time." - W. Crawford
John Wash
> John Wash <j_w...@tico.com> wrote:
> >
> >I'm reading this thread and thinking, "wow, pot must be awful." But then I think
> >of all of the people I know who smoke pot daily and are tremendously successful
> >in their jobs, their personal relationships, and their hobbies, and it occurs to
> >me that marijuana is not the problem: A weak or confused mind is the problem.
>
> With daily use, it is usually a matter of time.
Usually. Okay, that's fine. I don't know if it's true, but I admire you for not
making a blanket statement.
> It usually starts
> with the interpersonal relationships. I had created precisely the
> type of illusion that you describe above. But eventually the house of
> cards comes tumbling down. Watch, wait, and see if I'm not right.
How long? Five years? Ten? Thirty?
I think that you are very brave to admit that you had problems with drugs, and you
are obviously strong enough to have overcome those problems. Your experience is
probably not unique; in fact, it might be the dominant tendency in our culture. But
is daily pot use too much? How about monthly? Yearly? How many drinks are too many?
If you use Valium every day for six months, is that too often? What if Valium is
prescribed to you? What if marijuana is prescribed to you and you have to use it
daily? Is that a bad thing?
I am simply trying to make the point that there is nothing inherently evil about
drugs. The problems come when they are misused. Some people are misusing drugs if
they try them once or twice. Some people are fine using them every weekend, or twice
a week, or even twice a day. You cannot paint all of humanity with the same brush,
especially when it comes to our marvelously complicated minds.
Wanda Hodge
> Even as a law enforcement officer, I am not a big fan of the legal ban
> on marijuana. But I'm not raising a legal issue here. To claim that
> marijuana is totally harmless is a statement of either ignorance or
> denial. What's your excuse?
I will be happy to challenge you on this issue. Show me one documented case
where overdosing on marijuana has harmed or killed anyone. Show me one
documented case where the use of marijuana has caused birth defects, brain
damage, physical damage or contributed to other illnesses. I'm not some
stereo typed under age hippy pot smoker that you can easily dismiss. I am a
counselor and therapist. I have studied this issue for many years. Among one
of my earlier studies was a book published by the US Depatrment of
Agriculture on the effects of marijuana after 30 yrs of research, the book
was published in 1971. The conclusion of the research could not substanuate
any harmfull side effects. Since that time much more research has been
conducted and the findings clearly point out that marijuana is not only safe
but actually good for you. It's not a gate way drug except for the fact it
has been labeled as a drug and put on the black market alongside harmful and
addictive drugs. Marijuana is an herb. The negative side effects are no
worse than catnip or any other harmless herb. If you are in law enforcement
as you say you are then you should already know that not one case of death
or serious illness has ever resulted from smoking or eating pot. The
negative side effects of withdrawl are not as bad as the withdrawl of
caffine. If you have medical research information or documented cases that
show marijuana to be harmful then please by all means share them with me so
that I can be enlightened.
Tom Morley
[snip...[\]
> I think that you are very brave to admit that you had problems with
drugs, and you
> are obviously strong enough to have overcome those problems. Your
experience is
> probably not unique; in fact, it might be the dominant tendency in our
culture. But
> is daily pot use too much? How about monthly? Yearly? How many drinks
are too many?
> If you use Valium every day for six months, is that too often? What if
Valium is
> prescribed to you? What if marijuana is prescribed to you and you have
to use it
> daily? Is that a bad thing?
>
The ammount or how often is not the issue.
The question to ask (and answer honestly), is "is the
drug screwing up me life?"
If, not, then have fun (and I mean it.)
Tom Morley |Telling a muscle what to do is a
mor...@math.gatech.edu |little like teaching French to
tmo...@bmtc.mindspring.com |your poodle: You get rapt
http://www.math.gatech.edu/~morley |attention but not much retention.
ICQ: 24798603 | Terry Laughlin (and J. Delves)
Bong Boy
Oh, you mean the short term memory loss that goes away when you're not high! So
I suppose being easily amused is also a negative effect of mj? and craving
snack food... if these are the negative effects, then I think I can live with
it!
BTW, just because I missed the beginning of the thread because I don't have time
to read news every day (yes I have a life outside of news and smoking weed),
does *not* mean marijuana causes permanent short term memory loss!
legalize it!
-- Rob
John M. Williams
>
>Oh, you mean the short term memory loss that goes away when you're not high!
And just how often are you "not high," Bong Boy? What does "not high"
mean to you? Does it mean "it's been two hours since my last
bonghit"? C'mon, Bong Boy; I'm really intrigued at seeing if you will
tell the truth as to how often you are "high" and when you think you
are not.
>legalize it!
No issue has been raised regarding legalization, except by those on a
political soapbox. We are simply discussing whether or not there are
deleterious effects. And since you haven't read the thread, we have
already covered the rant about tobacco and alcohol conparisons, which
nobody contends are harmless, regardless of whether or not they are
legal. I have no problem with legalization, but it will never happen
so long as the NORML propoganda parrots like you are spouting the same
deceptive crap as the DARE people are.
Wanda Hodge
> On Sun, 18 Apr 1999 04:26:30 GMT, bob...@home.com (Bob Mann) wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 16 Apr 1999 20:37:38 -0700, "The Green Hornet"
> ><gho...@ghornet.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >>Other side effects
> >>1. Decreased motivation (for some people).
> >
> >I never used to believe that one.
> >After many years of clearer thinking though, it came to me that the lack of
> >motivation was directly tied to the feeling of satisfaction you get from
> >MJ.
> I regulary train with a pair of twins. The one who regulary smokes
> weed, is always missing legs, calfs. In fact he hasn,t trained calfs
> more than once in the last 6 mths. Always complaining about this and
> that. Lost his last job in a gym for taking too much sick time. Lost
> his one and only personal training client for training him while he
> was wasted. Was an hour late for his new job three days into it.
> Always borrows money....
> Smoking weed, turns you into a whinging lazy bastard.
>
> George UK
>
> eeech du baaan!
I take it that you are concluding that marijuana is bad because your friend who
smokes takes too much sick leave, doesn't exercise enough and lost his job. How
about all the none smokers who don't exercise enough, take too much sick time
and lost their jobs or is it only smokers who suffer such outcomes?
Wanda Hodge
> Wanda Hodge <wmh...@usa.net> wrote:
> >
> >Whitney Richtmyer wrote:
> >>
> >> Nice try. The "bad" or "deleterious" side effects are many. Even the
> >> prolific pot smoker friends I had in college admitted the negative effects
> >> of marijuana. You would rather stick your head in the sand, and proclaim it
> >> to be a benign substance.
> >
> >You certainly can't be talking about your experiences if you don't smoke and as
> >far as your buddies how many smoked only pot and how many drank alcohol and did
> >other drugs? Come on get real, you are trying to convince people that know
> >better about something you know nothing about. It makes you sound very
> >uneducated and very ill informed. The negative side effects of pot are
> >relaxation, feelings of euphoria, munches, if smoked it produces coughing but
> >that's not all bad, coughing can be good to clear the lungs and bronical
> >passages. Marijuana is not a drug, it is an herb, catnip is an herb, what are
> >the negative side affects of eating or smoking catnip?
>
> Whitney may not have the experience. I do. I started smoking weed at
> the age of fifteen, and within a few years, I was smoking it several
> times a day, including first thing in the morning and last thing at
> night, every day, until I was twenty-seven years old. I have posted
> the scientific studies, and I can personally attest to the deleterious
> effects. You, on the other hand, are a retarded, rationalizing bitch
> in denial.
Instead of name calling show me where those scientific facts are about the dangers
of marijuana. You said you became obsessed with smoking and it had a very
deleterious effect, what were those effects? You have yet to show me where someone
has died or developed brain damage or other health problems from marijuana. Did you
drink or do other drugs when you smoked pot or was it a stand alone drug (we'll call
it a drug for the sake of those who deny it's an herb).?
Wanda Hodge
> Lots of herbs can kill you. Isn't Hemlock an herb? Many drugs are
> created from herbs. Some herbs can be used instead of man-made drugs to
> get the same effects (ma-huang/ephedrine, willow bark/aspirin, etc.).
> That's because some herbs ARE drugs.
>
Yes there are lot's of herbs that can kill and others are medicine,some are
good to use as spice etc. So which one is marijuana, is marijuana it one
that kills?
> With that said, let me state for the record that although I quit doing
> drugs at 15 (and drinking at 17), I have no problems with people doing
> drugs. Some of my best friends smoke pot, snort coke, smoke crack,
> shoot heroin, take LSD, and whatever else people are doing nowadays. I
> just think it's wrong to base an argument on the fact that something is
> an herb or "organic" and therefore good.
>
> Watson (the pencil neck) Davis
All herbs are good for something even if it's nothing but shoe polish. Some
herbs are for cooking, some for eating, some for medicine and some for
making poison.
PusBag
>From: Wanda Hodge <wmh...@usa.net>
>Date: 4/18/99 5:26 PM Cent
>
>> George UK
>>
>> eeech du baaan!
>
>I take it that you are concluding that marijuana is bad because your friend
>who
>smokes takes too much sick leave, doesn't exercise enough and lost his job.
>How
>about all the none smokers who don't exercise enough, take too much sick time
>and lost their jobs?
They use heroin.
PB