<p>NB: Although the Lancet article referenced by 1of42 is only available from the Lancet site by subscription, a Google search will find websites, such as one in Italy, that have the corresponding pdf document openly available.</p>
<p>How dare someone oppose the legalization of weed on the grounds that some studies have shown it to be bad for the lungs?</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Yes, smoking anything is bad for the lungs, but cannabis opens up the lungs, making it a much safer substance to smoke than tobacco, salvia, oregano, or any other legal object I could find in my kitchen.</p></li>
<li><p>How is it your business, at all? An informed adult can weigh the benefits and drawbacks of marijuana and decide accordingly.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I just don’t understand at all! Marijuana doesn’t even have to be smoked - I challenge you to find any physical repurcussions to eating it.</p>
<p>I haven’t gotten high in 25+ years, but I will still defend people’s right to get high if they want to. Pot is the least harmful of all the addictive substances, and it should be nobody else’s business (as long as you don’t drive stoned). It just makes people stupid and apathetic, and if that’s what they want to do, then they should be able to. I can’t stand self-righteous people who criticize stoners, with beer in hand. How hypocritical.</p>
<p>I also agree that the bible is inherently harmful. It has been used as the excuse to promote WAR and violence and judgment and intolerance. It just blows my mind that people think it’s from God. I believe God is LOVING. Jesus was cool - I totally respect Jesus - but aside from his words (and who knows how accurately those were recorded) I think the bible is just a good history book. Maybe if we threw out the old testament, the world would be a better (and more peaceful) place.</p>
<p>—(author unknown)—</p>
<p>Dear President Bush, </p>
<p>Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I
have learned a great deal from you and understand why you would propose
and support a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. As you
said, “in the eyes of God marriage is based between a man a woman.” I
try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone
tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind
them that Leviticus
18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination… End of debate. </p>
<p>I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements
of God’s Laws and how to follow them. </p>
<ol>
<li>Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. </li>
</ol>
<p>A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not
Canadians. </p>
<p>Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians? </p>
<ol>
<li><p>I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair
price for her? </p></li>
<li><p>I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her
period of menstrual uncleanness - Lev15: 19-24. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>The problem is how do tell? I have tried asking, but most women take
offense. </p>
<ol>
<li>When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. </li>
</ol>
<p>The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to
them.
Should I smite them? </p>
<ol>
<li>I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2
clearly states he should be put to death. </li>
</ol>
<p>Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to
do it? </p>
<ol>
<li><p>A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality.
I don’t agree. Can you settle this?
Your browser may not support display of this image.
Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination? </p></li>
<li><p>Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a
defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here? </p>
<ol>
<li><p>Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by
Lev.19:27. How should they die? </p></li>
<li><p>I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me
unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? </p></li>
<li><p>My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different
crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of
two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). </p></li>
</ol>
<p>He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. </p>
<p>Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the
whole town together to stone them? Lev. 24:10-16. </p>
<p>Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we
do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) </p>
<p>I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy
considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and
unchanging.</p>
<p>I’ve known more than one person who ate pot in brownies who got into respiratory difficulties–it won’t leave your system at that point. I don’t know of anyone who died, but I’ve known of people who have had problems.</p>
<p>Respiratory difficulties? Was a tox screen done to rule out other contaminants or allergens? I only ask because pot is actually a bronchodilator, which would definitely not cause respiratory distress, and the level of marijuana that must be imbibed to reach systemic toxicity of the kind required to cause acute respiratory issues is staggering.</p>
<p>More likely their heart rate increased and they got anxious, which can in turn cause difficulty breathing. Pot can raise the heart rate.</p>
<p>“I’ve known more than one person who ate pot in brownies who got into respiratory difficulties–it won’t leave your system at that point. I don’t know of anyone who died, but I’ve known of people who have had problems.”</p>
<p>Yeah, I don’t think this was a cause of the brownies, but I’d be curious to hear more about it. Weed can increase your heart rate, but it does leave your system after a while (though it lasts longer when eaten). Eating weed should not cause any respiratory problems. Were they long term, or only while the person was high?</p>
<p>I heard that it is physically impossible to OD on weed by smoking or eating it (though maybe you could inject it!)</p>
<p>well, unregistered and 1of42, so nice to see us on the same side of this issue!</p>
<p>Hahaha. That post gets a big thumbs up. ;)</p>
<p>Ron Paul’s views support the legalization of marijuana. Vote Ron Paul 2008!</p>
<p>I don’t smoke anything but people should have the right to have a cigarette or a joint. They are both harmful but it’s all about personal choice.</p>
<p>HE CAN WIN!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I sell health insurance. If the person is overweight but not huge, they have to pay a higher premium. If they smoke cigarettes, or have high cholesterol, they have to pay a higher premium. If they are obese, I cannot sell them insurance at all.</p>
<p>One of the questions I have to ask them is 'Are you addicted to any drugs?"</p>
<p>Since pot is not physically addictive, and since the application is very legally precise, I would think that if pot were considered an increased risk, the application would explicitly include the question ‘Do you smoke marijuana?’</p>
<p>But it doesn’t.</p>
<p>Health insurance companies are all about risk assessment. I assure you, if there were scientific evidence for more health issues from pot, they’d test for it before insuring someone.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, isn’t that amazing! An old guy like him, too! But with young ideas! Awesome!</p>
<p>Oh no, Ron Paul’s ideas are actually quite old. Sometimes, the old ones are the best. 
(NOT THE ONE ABOUT THE FED THOUGH ;))</p>
<p>!of42: LOL! I KNEW you would come right back and say that yes, you did it, and all the addiction counselors you spoke to verified exactly what you said. You really are funny. You made my morning.</p>
<p>lealdreagon: Does the insurance application ask specifically, substance by substance, if you are addicted to those things? Or did you just pick out marijuana as an example?</p>
<p>1of42: "Unfortunately, since Princeton is too small a town to have any significant addiction centers handy, I might have to wait a bit to take up your suggestion to visit. "</p>
<p>The Carrier Clinic and Fair Oaks are close enough to Princeton - no worries if you need to contact them (for any reason). Princeton is not too small to have major treatment centers in the area. You are very close to both Philly and New York, by the way. You can hop on a train at the Princeton station and get to either place quickly if you need to. Open up the yellow places in you would like to find other options (smaller facilities) which are even closer.</p>
<p>My depth of contacts and knowledge in this subject area is way beyond your own personal experiences smoking pot. You are lucky that is hasn’t been a problem for you - so far, anyway.</p>
<p>1of42: “I asked her about this issue and her response was that marijuana rarely causes problems itself, but can be an issue in people predisposed to addiction to substances, in the same way that almost any substance is a problem for those people. She also said that normally those people present with much more serious issues related to other, harder substance abuse. This seems to tally with what I’ve been saying.”</p>
<p>That does not tally at all with what you have been saying. The whole reason to make any substance controlled is because some people can get addicted to it. If even MOST of the people would not become addicted to it, we still as a society choose to control the substance. For most of us, it would be fine to stock the oxycontin on the store shelves right next to the shaving cream and the Q-tips. Because having it readily available can be a problem for a lot of people, we don’t do that.</p>
<p>Furthermore, the fact that people are presenting with addiction to harder substances aligns quite nicely with the claim that marijuana is a gateway drug.</p>
<p>spideygirl: You knew I’d say that I knew an addiction psychologist who disagrees with you? Well then, either you’re a very good guesser, in which case congratulations, or you’re accusing me of lying, in which case you’re acting extremely offensively.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe if I get a spare day in the near future, I might. I wouldn’t hold my (or your) breath, though.</p>
<p>Might drop them an email, though.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, it’s a matter of scale. Oxycontin is far, far, far more addictive than marijuana. It is also physically addictive in a way that marijuana is not. It only takes a few days on oxy for pain to become addicted, and I know people who had to go into rehab to get rid of opiate addictions they developed just from using routine post-op painkillers.</p>
<p>If the reason to control substances was that people could get addicted we should be controlling caffeine, tobacco and alcohol with much greater restrictions than weed. We’d also need to add video games and fatty foods to the list.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or with the idea that the people who use marijuana are more predisposed to drug use anyways. Since tobacco and alcohol users have many, many times greater statistical predisposition to hard drug use, even if we assume the gateway drug effect is valid (which most studies have proven false, though I’m sure you’ll discount them all), marijuana is one of the least powerful gateway drugs.</p>
<p>This is besides the point though. I’m still waiting for you to read the aggregate study of addiction experts that contradicts what you’re saying. Since your argument so far seems to have been “I don’t care what the statistics say, I don’t care what peer-reviewed studies of the pharmacological effects of marijuana are, I don’t care about any of that, I care about the people in clinics”… well, I"m giving you a study that precisely surveys the people who deal with the masses of marijuana addicts who you apparently believe swarm every drug clinic. And they say you’re wrong. Ball’s in your court.</p>
<p>The ball has been put away. When debates begin to include name-calling I will no longer participate (that post exchange was deleted).</p>
<p>I suppose implying that I’m a liar doesn’t count as name calling in your books. Not that I called you any names anyways… unless you were calling me a liar. Fun how that works, no?</p>
<p>Anyways, I’m not particularly surprised you’re refusing to answer the question, since given your arguments so far you don’t have an answer.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, it just asks if there is any drug addiction. But my point is that, since meth and heroin are classified as physically addictive, and the person indulges in those substances, they would have to answer ‘yes’ (assuming they are being truthful) whereas they COULD legitimately answer ‘no’ even if they smoke pot, because they could rationalize that, even though they use it, they aren’t ADDICTED to it since it is classified as a non-addictive substance.</p>
<p>Tobacco is listed as a separate case altogether, even though it IS addictive. They did not lump it in with the other drugs but require the agents to ask about it explicitly, because the risks for it are so undisputed.</p>
<p>My argument is that if pot were as harmful as tobacco, being that pot use is very common, I believe they would require we ask that question and maybe even require a urine test (since it’s illegal and people might not want to admit it) like they do for job applications.</p>
<p>Since they don’t, I consider that to be supportive of what I’ve read, that pot has not had any major health issues to be associated with it. The tired old line about it having more tar, and 1 joint = a whole pack of cigarettes, turned out to be propaganda. Even though it has more tar, the bottom line is that it has never been linked to lung cancer as has tobacco (aside from a slight increase if the person smokes both pot AND cigarettes.)</p>