Whitehouse.gov Responds to Petition to Legalize Marijuana - Polidicks

oh don't worry guys, it [I]only[/I] might cause cancer! [img]http://th09.deviantart.net/fs70/150/f/2010/355/0/4/blu_mentlegen_by_komodo22-d35ca33.png[/img] It's fine, the risks are minor!

[QUOTE=Electrocuter;33017726]Woah what, where did you get this from?[/QUOTE] Yea im pretty sure thats a myth as well

God dammit. I'm not that surprised at all though. While Democrats are generally not as conservative as Republicans, they still would be considered conservatives in other advanced nations.

[QUOTE=Septimas;33017681]You are a retard. Just saying. Marijuana has 3x more tar than tobacco, in weight. But you dont smoke a pack of cigarettes equivalent of weed in one day, not even near that at all. And the tar from marijuana's smoking, dissipates after around 2 months of no smoking whatsoever. Alchohol does cause major damage in moderate usage you idiot? Lol brain cells dying, you can get cancer and pretty sure its way more dangerous to drink and drive than smoke and drive. You're just a stubborn guy who is trying to seem intelligent without actually reading up on studies of marijuana, OR alcohol.[/QUOTE] If you assume that we are talking about marijuana vaporisation, then my point still stands. The tar content of smoking it is only one factor. If moderate alcohol consumption caused brain cells to die in excess, i'm sure that a large quantity of people would be suffering from brain cell death. Although i confess, i don't know what symptoms to look for. Might i take you for study, perhaps? And yes, drinking alcohol and driving is a terrible idea, who said it is or isn't worse that driving while high. Its about the dangers of the things themselves on your body

Brain cells regenerate, but new connections have to be formed. What is your point RE: vaporization?

[QUOTE=TehWhale;33017217]people make informed decisions to use drugs that they want?[/QUOTE] I don't mind Marijuana being legalized because it's very harmless. But legalizing addictive substances that destroys the body such as crack and cocaine is a one way ticket to idiotville, you'll fuck up the people who use it, causing a ripple through economy and society.

[QUOTE=Stormcharger;33017732]fuck if injuries, violence, foetal damage, certain forms of cancer, liver disease and hypertension are your form of minor risks Id hate to see your definition of major risks. [editline]29th October 2011[/editline] Ninjad[/QUOTE] The abstract states "Moderate drinking has small effects on health". Therefore the risks that it has outlined must be small. Injuries and violence are not long term effects. Foetal damage is easily avoidable by not drinking while pregnant (its a very well known risk), liver disease is normally only a problem in chronic alcoholics, and can be reversed if you stop drinking when you get it (remember, we are talking about moderate drinkers here, not chronics). Hypertension and cancer are the major two here. High blood pressure varies from person to person, and yes its something you have to be aware of. Cancer is something that id agree you want to avoid. Judging by the abstracts earlier statement though, id assume that this isnt a remarkably huge risk, and there are many, many other things in your life that also increase your risk of getting cancer as well. [editline]29th October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Contag;33017789]Brain cells regenerate, but new connections have to be formed. What is your point RE: vaporization?[/QUOTE] Im saying that weed may or may not be harmful irrelevant of how you consume it

[QUOTE=Icedshot;33017845]The abstract states "Moderate drinking has small effects on health". Therefore the risks that it has outlined must be small. Injuries and violence are not long term effects. Foetal damage is easily avoidable by not drinking while pregnant (its a very well known risk), liver disease is normally only a problem in chronic alcoholics, and can be reversed if you stop drinking when you get it ([b]remember, we are talking about moderate drinkers here, not chronics[/b]). Hypertension and cancer are the major two here. High blood pressure varies from person to person, and yes its something you have to be aware of. Cancer is something that id agree you want to avoid. Judging by the abstracts earlier statement though, id assume that this isnt a remarkably huge risk, and there are many, many other things in your life that also increase your risk of getting cancer as well. [editline]29th October 2011[/editline] Im saying that weed may or may not be harmful irrelevant of how you consume it[/QUOTE] So is the article.... Which means moderate drinking can cause it. Im saying that alcohol may or may not be harmful irrelevant of how you consume it

Suddenly, everyone stops using Whitehouse.gov

In my opinion, there are two outcomes that would happen if Marijuana was regulated: One would be a possible "cigarette effect" where companies that produce marijuana would compete against each other to try to make their brand more potent or longer lasting or "necessary". Whether this will increase the risk of possible harmful effects or not can be debated, but I contend that it will. A simple mixture of the nicotine from tobacco will make marijuana addictive and ensure return customers. If it's already allowed into cigarettes, why not marijuana? Some drug dealers already do that to ensure that their customers come back, albeit with more harmful substances. Safety usually takes the back seat when competing with pleasure. However, this brings me to my next predicted outcome, which I feel is more likely: Instead, what may take place is what I call the "McDonald's effect". What this means is that over-regulation due to health concerns will lead to marijuana of sub-par quality being sold, much like how a McDonald's burger is often considered inferior to one made medium-rare on a grill at home. My guess is that it would probably be more like the comparatively weaker stuff that was being smoked 30-50 years ago. People who already use and are used to the high that is caused by the stronger substance provided by drug dealers would still go to them for the good stuff.

[QUOTE=Stormcharger;33017732]fuck if injuries, violence, foetal damage, certain forms of cancer, liver disease and hypertension are your form of minor risks Id hate to see your definition of major risks. [editline]29th October 2011[/editline] Ninjad[/QUOTE] Oh by the way, if you want to know Death, suicidal tendencies, blood clots, inability for blood to clot, nerve degeneration, bleeding out of various orifices, insanity, heart attacks, multiple organ failures, retinal detachment, the one where your lungs fill with blood (i forget), you know, those ones that kill you instantly or generally screw you up completely. Also, minor risks does not mean that the risks themselves are minor, but that the chance of it happening are minor. Its like saying "there is a minor risk of you having a heart attack". Heart attacks are pretty awful, it just means in this case they're unlikely

[QUOTE=Hidole555;33017878]In my opinion, there are two outcomes that would happen if Marijuana was regulated: One would be a possible "cigarette effect" where companies that produce marijuana would compete against each other to try to make their brand more potent or longer lasting or "necessary". Whether this will increase the risk of possible harmful effects or not can be debated, but I contend that it will. A simple mixture of the nicotine from tobacco will make marijuana addictive and ensure return customers. If it's already allowed into cigarettes, why not marijuana? [b]Some drug dealers already do that to ensure that their customers come back, albeit with more harmful substances[/b]. Safety usually takes the back seat when competing with pleasure. However, this brings me to my next predicted outcome, which I feel is more likely: Instead, what may take place is what I call the "McDonald's effect". What this means is that over-regulation due to health concerns will lead to marijuana of sub-par quality being sold, much like how a McDonald's burger is often considered inferior to one made medium-rare on a grill at home. My guess is that it would probably be more like the comparatively weaker stuff that was being smoked 30-50 years ago. People who already use and are used to the high that is caused by the stronger substance provided by drug dealers would still go to them for the good stuff.[/QUOTE] Yea like 0.000001 percent of them. It is not cost effective and is stupid.

[QUOTE=Stormcharger;33017872]So is the article.... Which means moderate drinking can cause it. Im saying that alcohol may or may not be harmful irrelevant of how you consume it[/QUOTE] Err.. but thats wrong. The wikipedia article says that 1-2 units does fuck all (therefore how much, and in general how you consume it [i]does[/i] affect). Moderate (undefined) has risks, those risks being small (unlikely, not non dangerous), including the ones stated. What i was talking about is that with liver damage, if you are a non chronic drinker, can be reversed by not drinking (if caused by drinking). Sorry if i phrased that poorly!

In all honesty, someone should start a petition to ban alcohol and see what B.S. response they get.

Saying that weed is harmful is a bullshit reason to keep it illegal. Nobody fucking cares if you poison yourself by consuming legal toxic materials. Nobody should care if you inhale weed. It's a fucking plant. Imagine if people made soda illegal because it's unhealthy. That pretty much is the logic going here. All drugs need to be legalized.

[QUOTE=pdp;33017943]Saying that weed is harmful is a bullshit reason to keep it illegal. Nobody fucking cares if you poison yourself by consuming legal toxic materials. Nobody should care if you inhale weed. It's a fucking plant. [b]Imagine if people made soda illegal because it's unhealthy[/b]. That pretty much is the logic going here. All drugs need to be legalized.[/QUOTE] I think boston did that :v:

[QUOTE=Stormcharger;33017950]I think boston did that :v:[/QUOTE] Just from buildings the gov't controlled. You can still walk into a gas station and get a Mello Yello.

[QUOTE=pdp;33017943]Saying that weed is harmful is a bullshit reason to keep it illegal. Nobody fucking cares if you poison yourself by consuming legal toxic materials. Nobody should care if you inhale weed. It's a fucking plant. Imagine if people made soda illegal because it's unhealthy. That pretty much is the logic going here. All drugs need to be legalized.[/QUOTE]But saying that weed is non-harmful is not a good enough reason to legalize it.

[QUOTE=Octave;33017979]But saying that weed is non-harmful is not a good enough reason to legalize it.[/QUOTE] Why?

[QUOTE=Stormcharger;33017992]Why?[/QUOTE]Because why make such a big change if it won't have positive effects?

My dad uses it. He just sleeps all day. That and he bitches about not eating.

[QUOTE=Octave;33018000]Because why make such a big change if it won't have positive effects?[/QUOTE] ..Because why not? And because people will enjoy it, it will help cancer patients, and it will stimulate the economy, as well as generate tax revenue?

What I got from the answer was "Don't serve steak because a baby can't chew it"

The whole '3 times as potent over the past twenty years' thing is bullshit. If anything, it makes cannabis safer. Having a higher potency makes one not have to smoke as much for the same effect.

THis website sucks, every single "response" is just a fucking cop-out answer we've all heard before, talking the path of least resistance every time.

[QUOTE=Octave;33018000]Because why make such a big change if it won't have positive effects?[/QUOTE] It wouldnt really make that much of a big change, the people who smoked it would continue to smoke it, just without any fear of being caught, and maybe a very small percentage of people who wouldnt have otherwise tried it would try it.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;33018030]..Because why not? And because people will enjoy it, it will help cancer patients, and it will stimulate the economy, as well as generate tax revenue?[/QUOTE]As an answer to "why not": Because they don't have solid enough proof that it will do any of those things. The stuff they have now isn't going to convince the congressmen and women that it should be legalized. [editline]28th October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Stormcharger;33018076]It wouldnt really make that much of a big change, the people who smoked it would continue to smoke it, just without any fear of being caught, and maybe a very small percentage of people who wouldnt have otherwise tried it would try it.[/QUOTE]It's a big change because it's been illegal for a number of decades, and it has a huge stigma about it.

Cool, it has good sources, unlike most of the marijuana threads on here.

[QUOTE=Octave;33018089]It's a big change because it's been illegal for a number of decades, and it has a huge stigma about it.[/QUOTE] Well holy shit People can get over it

[QUOTE=pdp;33018211]Well holy shit People can get over it[/QUOTE]That won't get it passed through legislation.