<p>The San Diego bust shows why pot is not a cool thing to be around. When it gets lumped with things like guns and cocaine, it tells you what kind of company the stuff, its dealers, users, buyers keep. It is entirely possible to get into trouble just hanging around this sort of thing. </p>
<p>The health issues of using pot are a whole thing altogether.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You just made possibly the most convincing argument for legalizing marijuana, though you probably don’t realize it:</p>
<p>By keeping marijuana illegal and cracking down on it so hard and so often, it forces otherwise very legitimate, clean members of the community into dealings with the criminal underground, with all its attendant consequences. This is the very same problem that made Prohibition such an abject failure, and it continues to fail with marijuana.</p>
<p>You must understand very clearly that the criminal element and shady/immoral dealings associated with marijuana is not the fault of the drug, but the fault of the laws that make it illegal. Pure and simple.</p>
<p>It does not matter if there are convincing arguments for legalizing pot. I have stated very clearly that the illegality is the MAIN issue with pot. I don’t even want to go into the physical/mental health issues of smoking pot. I can tell you that I am against smoking completely, so adding another agent to smoke with mind addling properties is not going to be on my agenda. The fact is that it IS illegal and it IS connected with shady/immoral dealings. This is something a highschool kids should know if he wants to smoke pot regularly. I think you ar missing the point of the purpose and question of this thread, 1of42. There are threads, I’m sure, argue whether pot should be legal. This thread is about what the problems are when you associate with pot, use pot, sell pot, buy pot with pot being illegal RIGHT NOW, and the ramifications of it. That it is the fault of the laws, is not going to help someone who gets caught breaking them.</p>
<p>cptofthehouse: You’re right. And I wouldn’t have even gotten involved if posters had used the line I consider most accurate and balanced:</p>
<p>“Though marijuana is from a health perspective relatively innocuous, and your son would likely not suffer many - if any - ill effects from it, it is still illegal, and choosing to use it could result in him getting arrested and getting a criminal record, not to mention all of the possible consequences for people who are associated with him and might also be punished for actions he committed.”</p>
<p>But that’s not what posters said. Posters cast aspersions on those who chose to use the substance, repeated patently false myths about marijuana and its effects and so forth. That’s what I’m disagreeing with, and until people stop repeating falsehoods, I will continue to.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m sure there are some very legitimate, clean members of the community forced into dealing with the criminal underground to get their occasional fix of ecstasy, meth, cocaine, etc…</p>
<p>BunsenBurner: Indeed. And the argument works just as well for those substances, which I am also in favor of legalizing, though much less strongly than marijuana. However, we’re not talking about those substances, we’re talking about marijuana, and the fact that the argument also works for them in no way makes it less legitimate.</p>
<p>We’re also not talking about legalizing marijuana here, but why smoking it is a bad choice to make if you are a highschool student.</p>
<p>1of42, I don’t think I was dumping on the ill effects of marijuana. I was harping on its illegality and the problems of using an illegal substance. Any aspersions I cast on those using it are because of the risks involved its use, and the downplaying of those risks. </p>
<p>However, I come down hard on smoking cigarettes, and it is NOT an illegal activity. I don’t think marijuana and its attendent particles are particularly healthy being smoked either. Don’t think smoking is healthy at all. Just what we need; another thing to smoke that has an effect of addling the brain and causing a desire of the effect. Though marijuana may not be as addictive as many substances, the fact that kids can’t stay away from it, kids like the OP’s kid, despite all of the possible consequences, and the current situation of his family very upset over this use, tells me that it may be more addictive than one thinks. Right now the price and risks make it a drug difficult for many to smoke often and in large quantity, but that can change if it is made legal. Aren’t we trying to cut out smoking?</p>
<p>Here is one website that should be of interest to parents:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[InfoFacts</a> - Marijuana](<a href=“http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html]InfoFacts”>Cannabis (Marijuana) DrugFacts | National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA))</p>
<p>Not as harmless as one might think.</p>
<p>To be fair, marijuana quality is impaired by the fact that it is illegal. However, two people I know who smoked medicinal both got lung issues, one a fungal pneumonia and the other some other lung infection, and died in part from the problems. Smoking is not advisable when lungs and immune system are compromised, and the pain relief you may get from smoking pot may not be worth it, especially if you are still in active treatment mode. </p>
<p>An area where I am hearing some noises about legalization of pot, is as a substitute for anti depressants and anti anxiety meds, including some sleep aids. Also for anorexics. These uses have not undergone the clinical trials yet to establish any usefulness. However, I can see where a niche for pot use in those venues might exist. </p>
<p>Also there are many things that will hurt your lungs worse than pot and are legal. It’s just that they do not cause the euphoria, well being, drowsiness and all the other effects that make it desirable to smoke pot. You can feel mighty good after smoking pot.</p>
<p>I am wondering if the OP’s son has some mood/anxiety issues that the pot is addressing, and if he can get help in those areas via some legal meds, that he does not feel he has to regularly smoke pot.</p>
<p>BunsenBurner: NIDA is a notoriously unreliable source on this matter. Among other things, there are numerous errors of omission (for example, citing a study that marijuana contains more carcinogens than tobacco, and therefore concluding that marijuana smoking causes cancer without citing the huge studies that show no increase in cancer incidence, nor the studies that show that the cancer-inhibiting effect of THC may outweigh any carcinogenic activity on the part of the tar in marijuana). It’s always good to get more information, but try a little harder to find a better source.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>1950s: "Kissing your boyfriend outside of marriage is a bad choice to make if you’re a women’s college student … "
1860s: “Suscribing to the theory of evolution is a bad choice if you want to get into any college …”
1840s: “Being an abolitionist is a bad idea if you want to go to law school…”
1760s: “Being a Jesuit is a choice to make if you want to go to the Sorbonne…” </p>
<p>That society forbids an action does not mean the forbidding is necessarily just. </p>
<p>Eventually there comes a point where citizens should not be hesitate to be civilly disobedient.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Quantity of types of carcinogens is quite irrelevant when you’re doing cellular biology, unless you have some standard scale that also compares toxicity per unit mass … </p>
<p>Did you know? Your common lettuce leaf contains more types of toxins (enough to kill young babies if ingested) than your heavy-duty rat poison. Heck, one bite contains far more toxins (IN TOTAL MASS) than a dozen LSD doses.</p>
<p>But luckily, the sheer majority of toxins are neutralised by intestinal flora (which babies don’t have, at least not well-developed ones). </p>
<p>For all I know, the carcinogens cited could simply be cellular growth factors that the body produces itself, or the same carcinogens produced when you grow chickens on artificial growth hormone.</p>
<p>But none of those actions are going to mean arrest, criminal attorney, court, fines, jail. There is a big difference. </p>
<p>Also there are times when something is worth risking jail. But to get into that kind of trouble for smoking a weed seems rather foolish to me. And to make that kind of decision when you are still living in your parents’ pocket is immature. Also throwing away a highschool diploma is foolish. Wait till you can take the full consequences of your action. There are some folks who have made a big commitment to the legalization of marijuana, and this might be something they want to do, but as an 18 yearold high school kid??? There are so many other more worthy causes.</p>
<p>Also some of the above items may not be worth pushing depending on what you want to do in the near future.</p>
<p>Galoisen, I think it is pretty much known that smoking anything is not good for the lungs and respiratory system. We are trying to curb smoking for that reason. Not only does it affect the smoker, but anyone else who gets a lungful of that stuff. As someone who has a family history of cancer and weak lungs, smoking anything is a foolish choice. Smoking cigarettes has been legal for a long time and it’s difficult if not impossible to get momentum to pull the carpet on this. Don’t see any reason to add another substance that people are going to want to smoke.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It seems foolish only because it hasn’t been endorsed by mainstream society (though it’s starting to get there). </p>
<p>Suppose the trouble was for immigrant students speaking in their own native langauge even though they could speak English fairly fluently? “How dumb is that?” you might question. (This is what happened to many indigenous populations in Alaska, or European migrant students as well … ) </p>
<p>Suppose the trouble was a law that declared, “you may not even <em>browse</em> Wikipedia, or use an uncensored version of Google.” How dumb is it to make that sort of decision? Just avoid using Google. </p>
<p>Or a law against bad-mouthing a teacher in your own private life. How dumb is it to make such a decision? Just never badmouth them.</p>
<p>If there are laws against listening to death metal, better not sacrifice your high school diploma just to be able to listen to it. It’s easy to say because not much of society listens to death metal anyway.</p>
<p>if there were laws for girls against showing their faces in public, how stupid is it for a girl to do that? 18-year-old girls in societies such laws should simply devote their time to more worthy causes.</p>
<p>To be dismissive of a right because of its perceived triviality as opposed to its disproportionate penalty seems convenient. But of course the chiding never takes into account the disproportionate penalty. </p>
<p>The biggest reason that the authorities win often in the Prisoner’s Dilemma is that each individual is looking out for his own immediate interests. I mean, how stupid is it not to betray?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not even as an activist?</p>
<p>Not for pot. Especially with the company it currently keeps. And when you are out of your parent’s pockets, you will be better able to truly understand the cost of your action, and maybe decide a bit more intelligently if it is worth the price.</p>
<p>galoisien, your gibberish sound like something written by a person pretending to be a scientist. It is 50-70 % by weight. If it were by the number of types, the authors would have said so.</p>
<p>There are many references in Medline pointing to the harmful effects of pot smoking on the human lungs. Those studies that say that THC inhibits cancer growth use purified substances in cell cultures. If THC is indeed cancer inhibiting (and it sounds believable), it should be reviewed by the FDA and approved in that form for that particular indication.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The thing could have been said for sexual freedom, or the ability to hang out with minorities, freedom of religion (darn Protestant heathens) all in their respective times.</p>
<p>It’s easy to say it out of retrospect. </p>
<p>The law doesn’t stop me from sympathising.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Now you clarify it’s by weight. I didn’t know what 50-70% more meant. It could have meant a lot of things. </p>
<p>Besides, weight still means nothing, unless you have some objective scale to quantify the effects with, since I expect each carcinogen has different effects. As far as carbohydrate carcinogens go, they sound like signals and factors that the body can already make itself, as opposed to some sort to some sort of cytotoxin.</p>
<p>
Never pretended to be one … I’m just a high school senior. Just using evidence that I’ve known for a good portion of my life. </p>
<p>The fact remains that having more carcinogens by mass may be quite irrelevant just like 50 grams of weed may seem like way more than 5 grams of LSD, when that 5-gram dose is far more powerful (and lethal).</p>