At least in CA where medicinal is already legal, it's EXTREMELY easy to get a prescription for it. From pretty much ANY doctor, not just shady ones. "Hey doc, I played football in HS and I have a lot of pain in my knees" and boom, that's all it takes. It's around $100 to get your card, then you can go to any number of weed stores err.... I mean "pharmacies" all over the place and purchase slightly pricey, but insanely good quality weed products. Whether it gets completely legalized for everyone or not, just jump through a couple of small hoops to get your card and it's basically legalized for you anyway. Everything I've ever read suggests the opposite of this. Tobacco, and even alcohol, have more detrimental effects that marijuana. If your average smoker smokes a pack a day, that's 20 cigarettes PER DAY. They each take probably about one to two dozen drags to finish. So you're inhaling roughly 300 drags of cigarette smoke a day. Even if you smoke weed multiple times every day, you're probably just taking no more than 3 drags, and it's doubtful you're smoking 20 bowls a day (although I'm sure some people do). So right there, you are inhaling less carcinogens with daily weed use than daily cigarette use. Then, there are HUNDREDS of chemicals in processed tobacco that aren't in marijuana. Neither are GOOD for you, and inhaling any type of smoke is bad. But at least marijuana is a much cleaner smoke than tobacco. As an interesting experiment, which may or may not prove anything, next time you're around someone smoking weed do this. Have them take as big of a hit as they normally do, then hold a kleenex up to their mouth and exhale the smoke through it like a filter. Then do the exact same thing with a drag of a cigarette. It's pretty freaking nasty, the cigarette hit will leave an almost black circle where you exhaled, and the weed one will just be a light grey. Again, I don't know if that scientifically proves anything, but it's interesting. I smoke both daily, BTW, so I'm not really biased one way or the other. It would be ideal if I could quite both for sure, but I just don't see that happening anytime soon. This statement I couldn't agree with more. Good Job!
Too late. You've outed yourself. Which is why I don't like pot and don't think it's a good idea to do it -- not only are you aware that it's holding you back, you just can't muster the effort to do anything about it. Pot does that to you. However, it's not really much worse than lots of partying and getting shitfaced -- which I'm sure has held plenty of college and university students back too. The main difference really is that getting high isn't really a social thing. Though that's probably because it's illegal and not a very socially acceptable thing to do at a party where not everyone smokes up.
This is partly misleading. A single joint is harsher on the lungs than a single cigarette. Part of this is because marijuana is smoked unfiltered, but the smoke itself is also harsher. While there may be more chemicals used in the processing of tobacco, there still may be such chemicals in weed, depending on if it's hydroponic or grown wild, the latter of which would necessitate the use of pesticides. I don't know what's more likely though as I'm not really familiar with the weed scene. However, marijuana's long-term health effects weigh heavier on the mental than the physiological. Cannibinoids are generally pretty safe when used in moderation -- occasional recreational or medicinal use -- but there are those who are regular consumers (several joints a day, every day) who will be impacted much greater by its long term effects than occasional users. The brown stain from a cigarette comes from tar and nicotine. Marijuana contains neither. This "experiment" shouldn't be used as a means to prove anything other than that tar and nicotine stain things, which everyone knows anyway.
And like I said, writing a patient a prescription for a legal medicinal drug is not being irresponsible. Re-read my post. A doctor prescribing somebody 1000 oxycodone pills is being irresponsible. My step brother used to slang pills, and had a doctor that would prescribe him hundreds of different drugs at a time. He was the ultimate "shady" doctor, and eventually got caught and had his license revoked. If the only thing that cures a person's joint pain is marijuana, and it's legal to prescribe that, how is a doctor giving that to their patient irresponsible? Would it make you feel better if they prescribed a synthetic pharmaceutical instead? Plenty of those drugs are much worse for you than any pot ever will be. I used to work alongside the medical field, and let me tell you, I've seen DOZENS of drug reps in medical offices peddling their wares. A doctor will prescribe a drug to a patient based solely on the fact that it benefits him to use that brand of drug, not because the patient necessarily needs it. Most doctors will try to sway you from getting a generic, much cheaper and essentially the same, drug in favor of the specific brand that they are in bed with. It happens ALL THE TIME. It's one of the reasons America is so over-medicated on drugs they don't necessarily need. Drug corporations are HUGE business, and they will do anything to get people to use their product whether they need it or not. It's not about what's best for the patient, it's about what's best for the doctor and their interests. IMO, that's far more irresponsible of a doctor than prescribing someone a "natural" medicine like marijuana, and it happens on a daily basis in every city in this country. I still don't understand where you're coming up with this notion. First of all, filters do practically nothing to curb the amount of crap going into your lungs. But secondly and most importantly, there is literally HUNDREDS of chemicals in tobacco, mostly additives that the companies put into it for various reasons. It's literally impossible to have the same amount of chemicals in pot, whether grown naturally or not. It's not processed much after harvest, like tobacco is. It's a plant, it grows, then it buds, then you cut the buds off and sell them. That's it. True, you can add things into the plants to make them grown bigger, and with a higher concentration of THC than would normally occur naturally. But again, those chemicals pale in comparison to what's added into tobacco post-harvest. And as far as growing naturally, there's almost no pesticides needed in my experiences with that. If you live in the right climate, you can drop some seeds in the ground and it'll grow up big and tall with little to no effort on your part. If you live in a non-ideal environment, you can still grown some decent weed with just a little bit of experience and attentiveness. And another option in practically any environment is to grow indoors. I had a buddy who grew 36 plants in his spare bedroom, using just an artificial light source and water. Again, I'm not advocating that either are good for you. They are in fact both bad for you. But I strongly disagree that tobacco smoking is better for you than habitual pot smoking. In reality, I honestly believe that they BOTH get an unfair shake in the average person's eyes. Smoking cigs is not as horrible as the ad campaigns will make it out to be. There's plenty of money to be made in the anti-smoking industry too, and they have their agenda's just as everyone else. For instance, heart disease is the biggest killer of Americans, which gets directly linked to smoking every time. But I'm fairly certain that all of the processed food we eat daily has a more detrimental effect on giving people heart disease than smoking. And same with the proliferation of pharmaceuticals in the last few decades, and especially the last 10 years. It's a worse epidemic than illegal street drugs, yet you don't ever hear about the war on those drugs. This I agree with, for the most part. Weed does tend to "dumb" you down over time, but I think that's also dependant on the individual. I know life-long potheads who are just as successful, smart, and motivated as the non-pothead. And then I know the total burnout potheads, too. I think I fall somewhere in the middle. But the one big difference between the two, and it is a big difference, is the physical and mental addiction caused by cigarettes. I've known people who have kicked heroin habits that say it's a piece of cake compared to quitting cigarettes. It's a DEEP physical and mental addiction, whereas I think marijuana is more of just a mental addiction. I know, like I said it's just interesting to do but doesn't really prove anything. But based just on this experiment, you can decide which one for yourself you think is worse. All that tar lining my lungs can't be very good for me, you know.
They do trap some of the tar, nicotine, and probably some other chemicals; take a look at a spent butt and all the brown crap in it. (And as a sick side note, something I tried as a teen was a disgusting "dare" game called "Chew the Butt." You can probably guess what it's about; the last one to spit it out wins. I can verify it's really quite vile to a degree first time players are not at all prepared for.) Obviously they don't filter it all, or even half, but they do reduce it. Some smokes have longer butts, and certain brands also have a two stage filter with charcoal in the front half which filters out more carcinogens. You can also buy cigarette tips that contain activated charcoal; kind of looks like you're smoking Old Ports, except slightly on the ghetto side. And thinking about that, I should probably get me some of those. I smoke cheap Indian smokes (native, not middle-eastern) which aren't exactly held to the same quality standards domestics are. Like I said, I'm not too familiar with the growing aspects, and I expect hydro is probably more desirable than wild if only because quality can be regulated, but from what I've seen larger hydro grow ops consume a crapton of electricity from all the hydroponics -- that's one of the ways cops find them. Here in Canada our climate isn't exactly ideal for growing that sort of thing for at least half the year. I didn't say it was better, just that a single joint of average size and average strength is more physiologically harmful than a single cigarette by a factor of about 3 or 4. However, nobody smokes joints like they do cigarettes (at least, I'd hope not!) so cumulatively, given one or two bowls a day, pot isn't as bad. Well, there are a lot of scare tactics used to frighten people away from them, and I'm quite certain they inflate statistics a considerable amount. But smoking is bad no matter how you slice it, especially given how addictive it is -- but more on that below. Oh hell yeah. Some of the crap we stuff down our craws can be just as bad for you as a smoke, and it doesn't help that the junk food industry is constantly looking for new ways to tempt us and eat more of it. Take potato chips for example. The one thing I have noticed, say, Hostess doing over the last couple of decades is to increase the size of the bag and then increase its price by a percentage that is higher still. A bag that used to have 60g was upped to 75g, called "Grab Bag" or "Super Size" or some crap, and the price went from 60c to 80c. They've done this several times already; the size of the smallest bag of chips (that isn't a halloween-sized bag) now is almost twice what the smallest bag was in the mid-80s. Twinkies and Reese Peanut Butter Cups can't be bought in 2-packs anymore; they're all 3-packs now. Soda? Cans went from 295ml (10oz) to 355ml (12oz). And human nature is such that we don't like to waste what we buy to eat so we eat finish these larger portions. Is it any wonder we're collectively gaining weight? But that's another rant for another day. Point is, heart disease can't be definitively linked to smoking. They just assume that any patient with heart disease who is a smoker got it from smoking, and voila! Another statistic for the anti-smoking lobby. While I do think doctors prescribe far too much medication to treat everything they can think of (because hey, it's profitable), I don't think this is a major issue. I do know there are shady doctors who are only too happy to whip up a scrip for more than a patient needs, to say nothing of the illegal drug trade in pharmaceutical opioids, but I think that on the whole it's not as big a problem. Oh, naturally it's going to effect different people to different degrees; it all depends on one's tolerances and physical and mental fitness. However, the effects are pronounced in those who are vulnerable to them, and unfortunately, the mental effects are permanent, which to me is what makes them so dangerous in the hands of an abuser. But then I'm one who firmly believes that you shouldn't mess with your mind just for fun. You don't get it back. (Gotta continue this in the next message because me, Mr. Wall of Text, exceeded the post size limit)
Ah, now on this I can speak with some authority. Again, it's dependent upon the individual, there are some interesting statistics: - The average cigarette contains about 1mg of nicotine. - Nicotine clears the brain in about 40 minutes. - The majority of nicotine clears the blood stream within about 3 days. - Residual nicotine can stay in the blood stream for up to 2-4 weeks. (There's very little of it by this stage -- in the ppm range) Drinking lots of water can speed up the purging process. The cravings for a smoke start when the brain is running low on nicotine, and will intensify continuously for about that 3 day period within which the majority of the chemical remains in your blood stream. However, after those 3 days, the physical addiction is almost completely broken. What remains is the much more powerful mental addiction. Smokers light up, on average, every 20-30 minutes. It become almost autonomic. The action of lighting up and taking drags, the feeling of the smoke entering your lungs, the sensation of exhaling it, the taste and smell of the tobacco -- these all become ingrained to the point that all of these things are highly desirable to your brain independent of the physical addiction to nicotine. In other words, it becomes compulsive, an addiction unto itself, and part of this is because the acts involved in smoking and the sensations associated with them become inextricably linked to the good feeling you get from the nicotine, all of which are linked to relief of stress. You might notice most smokers smoke more when stressed, and that's because smoking becomes a way to deal with stress -- not unlike people who eat when stressed, or engage in some other defensive and repetitive activity that helps them deal with stress. When not stressed, smoking just feels good. So, self-gratification and relief of stress -- both things we humans crave, and when it's wrapped up in a repetitive, good-feeling activity we can do periodically while engaged in other things -- like typing this message -- well, that's a pretty good deal for your brain, so it forms a strong attachment. And it is that very attachment that's the hardest part of the addiction to break, as it can take months before you've reached the point that you're no longer reflexively reaching for your pack whenever the mood strikes. Even then it's a good year or more before you can comfortably say you've kicked the habit. A good example? I had one of the worst colds I've had in years a few weeks before Christmas. I literally could not smoke at all for a week -- even the most timid attempt to take a drag sent me into nasty hacking fits. By the end of that week there was virtually no nicotine in my system anymore; it had cleared down to mere traces in my bloodstream. But I kept trying, because the compulsion was there. Not so much when I was enduring the worst of the cold, but as soon as it started to clear up, I tried to stay away, but ended up failing utterly. I simply wasn't prepared for the strength of the mental attachment, as this was my first actual attempt at quitting, since I figured it shouldn't be so hard now that the physical addiction was pretty much over and done with. I was so, so wrong. That's why recidivism rates for smokers are incredibly high, and why the vast majority of smokers on average try and fail to quit several times before they manage to kick it completely. It takes several metric shitloads of willpower to quit and stick with it to the end. Overcoming the physical addiction is a walk in the park by comparison. Obviously, all of this varies by how much you smoke, how long you've smoked, your BMI, and so on, so YMMV, naturally. Incidentally, weed can foster a psychotropic addiction, too, it's just that you need to smoke almost as many joints as a smoker would cigarettes for it to become so. Oh, it's pretty gross, no doubt. That crap's going into your lungs after all. But it's a mistake to think that weed isn't doing its own damage to your lungs just because a hankie test comes out clean.
I did read your post, and you made it sound like anyone can go to a doctor for "joint pain", or "an old high school football injury", and get a prescription. I understand the concept behind medical marijuana, and I support it. However, my main point is that a lot of people that support the legalization of marijuana, ie college students looking for a good time, should not benefit from it. Someone with ACTUAL joint pain, that's fine. But a doctor prescribing something "just because" someone said they have an injury or condition IS irresponsible. It is their responsibility to make sure they aren't handing out prescriptions like candy. This big cause for medicinal marijuana is a joke. Yeah, I support it for people who need it for pain killing, etc. But the problem is that most people seem to view it as an opportunity to just make it easier for them to get marijuana for recreational purposes. My entire point here is that the high school and college kids that support this are in it for their own selfish reasons, they could care less about cancer patients, or people with arthritis, etc.
It's not like they don't hand out other prescriptions like candy. The more prescriptions of any drug they give, the more money they get. It's a corrupt business.
I voted yes. To make my case, I first point out that I believe marijuana has detrimental effects on a person's mind both in the immediate term and in the long term. I also think the same thing of alcohol. It would be best if a person does not use marijuana or alcohol ever. However, since marijuana is being used by no trivial number of people, it's important that these people are not abandoned, the sale of the drug is measured and controlled, and responsibility is taken by the country to make sure its use does not create too negative of an impact. It's my personal belief, without anything but anecdotal evidence, that marijuana users for the most part must hide their use and have little to resort to for help if things get out of hand. It is a hurdle to confide in their family that they have this use and much more so to confide in the government for their help. I believe alcohol users have much more benefit since alcohol use is legal and condoned by society. They can tell their families that they drink, their families can talk to them about the responsibilities of doing so, and the government offers help without a lot of condemnation. Alcohol users don't have to hide. On the contrary, they go to bars. Alcohol and its effects can be discussed in wide forums and even on tv. Marijuana could benefit from having the same benefits that alcohol has from being legal. Its use can be monitored, controlled, and marijuana users should then eventually come out of hiding and just say they use marijuana as any drinker would say that they drink. Then the discussion about it can come out into the open and taboos can't prevent progress with the issue. I believe criminalizing marijuana has some similarities to brushing things under the carpet. It doesn't solve the larger problem of why marijuana use is non-trivial in the first place.
Well Mindfield, after all this it seems that despite a few minor discrepancies, we have pretty much the same view on things. You make some really compelling arguments, I know I learned a thing or two. Well that's just gross It's almost as bad as the "I accidentally drank from my buddies chew spit cup" game. Ok, talking about harmfulness as a whole I can see where you're coming from. I was thinking in strictly physical effects, specifically on your lungs. Really? It seems like the sleeper epidemic in America. It may not be quite the same in Canada, I'm not sure. And possibly being in California specifically, I might have a higher exposure to such a problem. But this is the one that really scares me, the government gets into bed with the drug corporations the same way they did with the tobacco guys. I've been there, it can be a jarring experience That was a lot of really good information. I've had a few almost identical experiences. It's the worst when it actually hurts to inhale, but you force yourself to anyway. And it tastes extra disgusting when you're really sick. I've also tried to use it as an excuse to quit, but it never pans out. The longest I've ever quit for was 7 months. I was going to college at the time, it was just an average day, and in between classes I pulled out my smokes to have one and just stared at them. I out of the blue decided to quite right then and there, and walked over and threw them in the trash. I didn't make any "deals" with myself like "after this pack is done" or "after today I'll quit", and I didn't set out to quit that day either. I just decided it. I stuck with it without cheating, and eventually weeks turned into months. One of the big motivating factors was collecting all that time, cause I knew if I even cheated a drag my amount of time I'd had quit for would start over. I didn't want that. But the crazy thing is, after that much time, I'm fairly certain almost all of the physical traces of smoking were out of my system. But the mental is another story altogether. I thought about it constantly for that entire 7 months, almost to the point of madness. I wouldn't want to think about it, but there it was, constantly on my attention. I thought I would go literally insane at times, even weeks and months after having my last smoke. The thing that finally caused me to fall off the wagon was getting a delivery job where I was on the road for a good 6 out of my 8 work hours. Driving and smoking is like chocolate and peanut butter, they just go together. At least during my off hours I could occupy myself with something else when the cravings came, but being trapped in the cab of a delivery truck in stand still traffic on a daily basis was too much for me to handle. So I started again, got back into all the old habits, and have been smoking ever since then (12 years total ) But that's the longest I've ever quit for, so I know that one day it will be possible. I promised myself years ago to quite by 30, which is fast approaching, so I hope that I don't wuss out. It's hard to force yourself to quit doing something you love. I'll have to apologize, then, because I went back and actually re-read your post and realized I was completely misunderstanding you. I understand your position now, and can't say I disagree. @Bochu, you make a really good argument as well, good post. I had never actually really though of it like that. Marijuana really is sort of a taboo subject, even though it is so widely used. It would be nice if people felt they had a problem or needed support there was something solid for them to turn to.
When I worked retail many years ago at an electronics store many years ago I'd go smoke on lunch and when I came back the rest of the day was so much more enjoyable! I was nicer to customers, and the time went by much faster. One problem is someone kept eating all the cheese puffs out of the vending machine!!!! grrr I wonder who.... lol
I was like that when I first moved out on my own. Since I had the freedom to smoke up pretty much whenever I wanted, I did just that. Some jobs were infinitely more enjoyable while high, but then a couple jobs I had it just made it horrible! But eventually, due to how much money I was spending and how stupid my brain was feeling, I had to really put the hammer down on how much I smoked. Now, I'll never smoke while at a job, and usually reserve it for something to do in the evening when all my priorities have been taken care of. Weekends are fair game for wake and bake once and a while though.
I dunno if it's just me, but it seems the majority of members who take on a persona are usually second (third/fourth...) accounts of existing members...
No, I don't think our views are that different, even though I'm still kind of against marijuana, mostly on principle. Oh god, just thinking about that makes me feel ill. I'm glad I've never known anyone that was into chew. (Well, I knew one guy I worked with, he liked the cherry-flavoured stuff. It smelled good, but it was still disgusting.) It could very well be different in Canada, given the difference in our health care system; I don't know how profitable it is for Canadian doctors and pharmacists, but I suspect it's probably not as profitable as it is in the USA, thus I don't really see it as such a big problem where I am. There's probably not quite as much pressure on doctors from big pharma to push particular drugs, either. That's one of the biggest problems. Every smoker has at least a few triggers, whether it's after eating, when driving, sitting at the computer, or whatever, there's at least one place or activity where lighting up is just automatic, and most of the time it's impossible to avoid all of your triggers. That's what makes it so hard to quit, even months after the fact. You enjoy smoking, you enjoy the things you do while you smoke. The two are linked. That's why so many people turn to eating or something else to take the place of smoking. You feel like you need something. Breaking that habit is a downright bastard and a half. I think though that next time I get a cold I'm going to try and prepare myself for the possibility that it gets too bad to smoke, and if that happens figure out what I'm going to do to quit and stay quit. I'm considering eCigs, either low nicotine or no nicotine. Only problem is the one I want (BluCigs) can't ship to Canada due to import laws on these type of products. *sigh*
