Whitehouse.gov Responds to Petition to Legalize Marijuana - Polidicks

[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;33029093]But normal weed has no nicotine or anything else tobacco has.[/QUOTE] Hence why I said if you were to eat pot brownies there are no health implications if you are mentally healthy. I suppose using a bong might reduce the health implications for smoking it. Seen as all you're getting is weed and a little butane - so it would really just be the butane causing any damage.

[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;33029379]Hence why I said if you were to eat pot brownies there are no health implications if you are mentally healthy. I suppose using a bong might reduce the health implications for smoking it. Seen as all you're getting is weed and a little butane - so it would really just be the butane causing any damage.[/QUOTE] How would using a bong make a difference? The smoke is cooled by the water but without a doubt still does damage to your lungs. Ops I misread what you said, but still its not the butane doing damage, it's the smoke.

lol eets dangerous. In one trip to Wal-Mart you can pick up a handgun/shotgun/high-powered rifle, ammunition, multiple drugs to trip or get high on, the supplies to make mustard gas, strychnine and a multitude of explosives. Yet this plant that would grow in the ground whether we humans were here or not is prohibited because it's [i]dangerous[/i]? I call bullshit on that. I'm not saying that's a reason to make it legal, I'm saying that their excuse is a dump truck's worth of horseshit.

[QUOTE=Whitebowl;33029401]How would using a bong make a difference? The smoke is cooled by the water but without a doubt still does damage to your lungs.[/QUOTE] When you're using a bong you're only burning the weed - if I'm right in thinking. If you smoke it using other methods you need to burn other stuff. I don't see how it could. It's not got harmful tars in it like cigarettes do, the smoke is cooled and such. I've never used one though so I could be talking out my ass here.

[QUOTE=Whitebowl;33029401]How would using a bong make a difference? The smoke is cooled by the water but without a doubt still does damage to your lungs.[/QUOTE] Well it filters the ash out. But if you're inhaling ash in the first place then you're doing it wrong.

Filtering the smoke through water also removes some of the tars and harmful chemicals found in smoke. Multiple chambers and percolators can make for an even healthier smoking experience. :eng101:

[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;33029450]When you're using a bong you're only burning the weed - if I'm right in thinking. If you smoke it using other methods you need to burn other stuff. I don't see how it could. It's not got harmful tars in it like cigarettes do, the smoke is cooled and such. I've never used one though so I could be talking out my ass here.[/QUOTE] The smoke is cooled, and you are only burning weed, but smoke is smoke and it still does damage your lungs.

[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;33029450]When you're using a bong you're only burning the weed - if I'm right in thinking. If you smoke it using other methods you need to burn other stuff. I don't see how it could. It's not got harmful tars in it like cigarettes do, the smoke is cooled and such. I've never used one though so I could be talking out my ass here.[/QUOTE] Smoking cannabis actually does create tar in your lungs, but the amount is negligible. Cannabis is smoked in a significantly lesser quantity than tobacco, so the tar poses no threat unless you smoke something like 15 joints daily.

[QUOTE=Mister_Jack;33029503]Filtering the smoke through water also removes some of the tars and harmful chemicals found in smoke. Multiple chambers and percolators can make for an even healthier smoking experience. :eng101:[/QUOTE] I didn't know this! Do you have a source? [QUOTE=Micr0;33029515]Smoking cannabis actually does create tar in your lungs, but the amount is negligible. Cannabis is smoked in a significantly lesser quantity than tobacco, so the tar poses no threat unless you smoke something like 15 joints daily.[/QUOTE] This has nothing to do with your argument but how can people use a joint as an accurate measurement? A joint can have any ware from .5 to 1.5 grams in it.

But bongs aren't even the healthiest way to smoke weed. If you use a vaporizer or bake it into edibles than there is literally not a single negative health risk associated with it. The government's claims in this answer to the petition are completely baseless and honestly, I'm not surprised.

[QUOTE=Mister_Jack;33029406]lol eets dangerous. In one trip to Wal-Mart you can pick up a handgun/shotgun/high-powered rifle, ammunition, multiple drugs to trip or get high on, the supplies to make mustard gas, strychnine and a multitude of explosives. Yet this plant that would grow in the ground whether we humans were here or not is prohibited because it's [i]dangerous[/i]? I call bullshit on that. I'm not saying that's a reason to make it legal, I'm saying that their excuse is a dump truck's worth of horseshit.[/QUOTE] And let's not forget you can make napalm with just some gas and polystyrene. If the government was really so concerned for our safety that they'll ban something without many negative side-effects, 1: why can we still make this shit and 2: why haven't we banned fucking everything and developed alternatives?

Who are they to say what I can and can't do to my body? No government should have that power.

[QUOTE=Micr0;33029549]But bongs aren't even the healthiest way to smoke weed. [b]If you use a vaporizer or bake it into edibles than there is literally not a single negative health risk associated with it.[/b] The government's claims in this answer to the petition are completely baseless and honestly, I'm not surprised.[/QUOTE] As much as I'd love to agree with you on this, I can't. Bringing out predisposed mental illness and worsening anxiety are still health risks.

[QUOTE=Whitebowl;33029741]As much as I'd love to agree with you on this, I can't. Bringing out predisposed mental illness and worsening anxiety are still health risks.[/QUOTE] Alcohol does that too. In fact ANY mind altering drug has the potential to worsen a already bad mental health.

[QUOTE=Van-man;33029916]Alcohol does that too. In fact ANY mind altering drug has the potential to worsen a already bad mental health.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying marijuana is worse than any other drug, and in most cases it's actually safer, but saying it has zero health risks is wrong.

[QUOTE=Whitebowl;33029991]I'm not saying marijuana is worse than any other drug, and in most cases it's actually safer, but saying it has zero health risks is wrong.[/QUOTE] You can however say that it will have zero health risks when taken in a responsible manner by mentally stable and healthy individuals. The main reason the government is against legalising marijuana is the public outcry that would follow from the further right side of the population. They would either lose power; or lose the chance to be re-elected. That is why drugs officers who resign later support the legalisation of pot.

[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;33030019]You can however say that it will have zero health risks when taken in a responsible manner by mentally stable and healthy individuals.[/QUOTE] Correct.

[QUOTE=Cone;33029584]And let's not forget you can make napalm with just some gas and polystyrene. If the government was really so concerned for our safety that they'll ban something without many negative side-effects, 1: why can we still make this shit and 2: why haven't we banned fucking everything and developed alternatives?[/QUOTE] Because our government has our best interests at heart.

Alright, so the first thing I consider when reading something I strongly disagree with is that I myself may be wrong. I love weed and smoke it all the time. So when I first read this article I had a number of problems with it. First off, this answer says that even though they're approaching the issue scientifically rather than politically, they've found that weed is still "dangerous." [quote]According to scientists at the National Institutes of Health- the world's largest source of drug abuse research - marijuana use is associated with addiction, respiratory disease, and cognitive impairment[/quote] [b]Addiction-[/b] [b]MENTAL[/b] addiction! There's a huge difference between being "addicted" to weed and addicted to cocaine. [b]Respiratory Disease-[/b] The one danger of weed is how horrible it is for your lungs. This is an acceptable argument against weed, but this alone doesn't take the cake for me. I knew so many smokers who ran track back in high school, it doesn't seem to be holding them back much. [b]Cognitive Impairment-[/b] I have trouble focusing while I'm stoned. Horrifying. A few Google searches and I've also found that it's believed that weed makes you dumber in the long run too. I can't prove this isn't the case, but I really would love to see what research was done to prove this before I get a final word in. I can't figure out if science is for weed or against it. Maybe science is schizophrenic for weed, because it seems like I get a 50/50 mix of positive and negative "breakthroughs." I did a few Google searches for scientific studies on weed and found articles which contradict each other. One scientific study shows that THC may help cure cancer and another says it regrows brain cells, while other studies seem to say that THC causes lung cancer and kills brain cells. Obviously science isn't getting the job done here, at least not yet. When I can't rely on internet articles to tell me what the truth actually is, I tend to take what I see about drugs. I've seen people who smoke a lot of weed and they are noticeably less "intelligent", probably because they're always high. I agree with that smokers can be no lives who don't like to think too much, making them somebody you would not want to be working in your office, but if a smoker is going to let themselves get carried away then its their problem to begin with. Let potheads choose their own path, life is about living and making mistakes. My thoughts on this debate is that the issue is a bit blown out of proportion. I don't think marijuana is a dangerous drug to the extent of making it illegal. If this is how far we have to go to make people be more responsible with their lives, then maybe we should rethink how we're approaching that problem.

[b]Facepunch Cannabis Legalization Debate V1,386 "The naive, the informed, and the trolls"[/b] If you don't know anything about cannabis, can you please stop going off of what your stupid friends say. Whatever the White House's agenda is, it doesn't include caring what The People think or say.

[quote]Preventing drug use is the most cost-effective way to reduce drug use[/quote] No its not. Whenever a country legalized drugs its use (especially hard drugs) went down.

[QUOTE=teslacoil;33211667][b]Facepunch Cannabis Legalization Debate V1,386 "The naive, the informed, and the trolls"[/b] If you don't know anything about cannabis, can you please stop going off of what your stupid friends say. Whatever the White House's agenda is, it doesn't include caring what The People think or say.[/QUOTE] Even if the White House did anything about drugs, the House of Representatives wouldn't even put it into their agenda. Then they'd call Obama a communist Nazi hippy who abuses drugs, and their audience would fall for it. It's a smart move to pretty much say that "we ain't gonna do shit" because the repercussions would be far too large. Especially with elections just around the corner. Maybe Obama could tackle the issue more effectively if and when he gets reelected.

I personally don't care about the people on the receiving side of the drugs, but what I do care about is all the people involved is the creation, transfer and sale of these drugs. Thousands of people are killed every year in the war on drugs, and some of these governments need to do something about it, and making them illegal is not going to do that. What the US needs to do is to legalise, and regulate most reasonably safe drugs, so I'm not talking about heroin or anything like that. If they were to do this, real and knowledgeable farmers and retailer would be the ones distributing the drugs, and the end product would be a lot safer considering there wouldn't be anywhere near as much pointless stuff they put in drugs to make it weigh more. It would also cause things like drug cartels to move on to something new, possibly something more manageable. All the killing is just stupid, it needs to end, and banning drugs is not the way to go. We saw this during the prohibition.

I just wish they'd legalize pot so that I don't have to hear stoners complain about it.

[QUOTE=A B.A. Survivor;33212590]I just wish they'd legalize pot so that I don't have to hear stoners complain about it.[/QUOTE] Well that's a pretty selfish reason. Have you ever stopped to think that people can complain about the farce that is prohibition could be people that aren't "stoners"?

I never really understood why the government didn't just legalize it anyway. They would save about million a year if they stopped trying to prevent drug use.

The reason they don't make alcohol and tobacco illegal is because it's a big business. You can't just make something like that illegal in a day, it would make everything worse than it already is. So despite the fact that it's not as bad as tobacco or alcohol, they don't want the same thing occurring.

Wouldn't it be awesome if you could buy a 300 gram brick stuffed full of ganja nuggets for about 5 dollars like as if you bought a "brick" of caffeine?