What are the pluses and minuses of marijuana

[Milky_Breasts]

Driving while impaired on alcohol is illegal, can pot intoxication be measured by LE? All of these heavy weed smokers want their cake and be able to eat it too, but when the shit hits the fan, do they want their surgeon, financial advisor, dentist, lawyer, pilots etc. to be dope smokers, whether it is the illegal or legal use of cannabis, I would think not. Work place productivity would go down even further, leading to further outsourcing of jobs likely. Could employers discriminate against employees who use? Legalization of marijuana will create huge work for lawyers and headaches for the medical establishment as so many unique problems will arise. The pressure from the American will make it impossible for the Canadian government to legalize pot anyway..

If someone is so high that they get pulled over while driving, they will fail the field sobriety test, along with usual smell and red eyes, so yes LE can 'measure' it. 'Cause if you fail the field test then clearly you are too intoxicated to drive. They will have breathalizers for pot if they don't have them already in the making.

So by making weed legal this will cause all professionals to run out and start toking irresponsibly? I can guarantee there is a very HIGH (pun intended) percentage of professionals that light up. I for one don't know even one cop that doesn't smoke it at least occasionally. Just like SP clients can be cops, lawyers, judges, mayors, doctors, denists etc... They can also smoke weed and do it responsibly and many already do.

It would not affect the workforce, because it would be regulated like alcohol. You can't work if your drunk/baked. Period, unless you have a medical card. Even then itd be like prescriptions, and you cannot do certain jobs under influence of certain scripts.

The american gov't is caving towards legalization, or at least decriminalization. The white house released an official and very clear statement a few days ago stating that federal laws will NOT trump the new state laws on legal recreational marijuana use. I will find and source the official statement later as I don't have the time right now.

 

[blackrock13]

Why do you think there would be more pressure from America on us than on Colorado and Washington, two states that have legalized recreational use of marijuana.

And you might not know it but every adult in Canada who wants to smoke pot is already smoking pot. Productivity will not go down, and if there were serious medical problems from smoking pot, the 1.5 million current users would be filling up our hospitals. But they are not.

Where was it ever posted that all the pot smokers will have the psychotic adverse affects, but no one knows to what extent the carcinogenic effects of it will play, but they are looking into it. Remember most doobes are unfiltered.

Donald P. Tashkin, MD, Director of the Pulmonary Function Laboratories at the University of California, Los Angeles, stated in his article "Effects of Marijuana on the Lung and its Immune Defenses," published in the Mar. 1997 "Secretary's Youth Substance Abuse Prevention Initiative: Resource Papers" by the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention:

"Analysis of the smoke contents of marijuana and tobacco reveals much the same gas phase constituents, including chemicals known to be toxic to respiratory tissue. Moreover, these gas phase components are present in somewhat similar concentrations in the smoke generated from the same quantity of marijuana and tobacco.
The particulate phase (tar) constituents of marijuana and tobacco smoke are also generally similar, with the major exception that marijuana contains tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and scores of other llIC-like (cannabinoid) compounds not found in tobacco, while tobacco tar contains nicotine not found in marijuana.
With regard to the carcinogenic potential of marijuana, it is noteworthy that the tar phase of marijuana smoke contains many of the same carcinogenic compounds contained in tobacco smoke, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, such as benz[a]pyrene, which was recently identified as a key factor promoting human lung cancer... Preliminary findings suggest that marijuana smoke activates cytochrome P4501A1, the enzyme that converts polycyclic hydrocarbons, such as benz[a]pyrene, into active carcinogens."


Mar. 1997 - Donald P. Tashkin, MD.


Sounds like a great plan, smoke you brains out, get lung cancer, and then smoke some more to help with the pain.

You have no way of knowing how the productivity will be affected. As far as the number of smokers remaining stable, since the population is increasing it would be more reasonable to think the numbers will also increase.

​

 

[WoodPeckr]

One of the good things about weed is that after smoking a few joints Blackcock starts to make sense.

That alone has to scare the crap out of you, making this one of the biggest minuses of marijuana!!!....:Eek:

 

[userz]

Where was it ever posted that all the pot smokers will have the psychotic adverse affects, but no one knows to what extent the carcinogenic effects of it will play, but they are looking into it. Remember most doobes are unfiltered.

Donald P. Tashkin, MD, Director of the Pulmonary Function Laboratories at the University of California, Los Angeles, stated in his article "Effects of Marijuana on the Lung and its Immune Defenses," published in the Mar. 1997 "Secretary's Youth Substance Abuse Prevention Initiative: Resource Papers" by the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention:

"Analysis of the smoke contents of marijuana and tobacco reveals much the same gas phase constituents, including chemicals known to be toxic to respiratory tissue. Moreover, these gas phase components are present in somewhat similar concentrations in the smoke generated from the same quantity of marijuana and tobacco.
The particulate phase (tar) constituents of marijuana and tobacco smoke are also generally similar, with the major exception that marijuana contains tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and scores of other llIC-like (cannabinoid) compounds not found in tobacco, while tobacco tar contains nicotine not found in marijuana.
With regard to the carcinogenic potential of marijuana, it is noteworthy that the tar phase of marijuana smoke contains many of the same carcinogenic compounds contained in tobacco smoke, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, such as benz[a]pyrene, which was recently identified as a key factor promoting human lung cancer... Preliminary findings suggest that marijuana smoke activates cytochrome P4501A1, the enzyme that converts polycyclic hydrocarbons, such as benz[a]pyrene, into active carcinogens."


Mar. 1997 - Donald P. Tashkin, MD.


Sounds like a great plan, smoke you brains out, get lung cancer, and then smoke some more to help with the pain.

You have no way of knowing how the productivity will be affected. As far as the number of smokers remaining stable, since the population is increasing it would be more reasonable to think the numbers will also increase.

​

May 1997? How about something more recent:

The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.

The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.

"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."

Federal health and drug enforcement officials have widely used Tashkin's previous work on marijuana to make the case that the drug is dangerous. Tashkin said that while he still believes marijuana is potentially harmful, its cancer-causing effects appear to be of less concern than previously thought.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html

 

[lomotil]

Canada is a resource exporting economy anyway, oil, lumber, wheat and marijuana anyway. America includes
Canada in with Mexico and Columbia with illegal drug exporting nations. Yes, practically anyone who wants to consume cannabis in Canada is doing so, but cautiously to avoid a criminal record, so what. If marijuana had been legal in Canada since the time of prohibition then things would be different, but Canada cannot suddenly legalize it now without very serious repercussions. The American states that have legalized recreational use are relatively insignificant economically. Countries with sophisticated manufacturing technologies such as Germany, Japan and rapidly growing econcomic powerhouses such as China would never allow mariijuana legalization. The Canadian economy is about 93% foreign owned anyway and non competitive in the manufacturing exporting sector on the world stage anyway. Our global competition would laugh at a nation of layed back potheads and we could expect more outsourcing of jobs and more foreign take overs of Canadian industries. Unlike tobacco cultivation or alcohol production, marijuana is so easy to grow. The government will derive no sin tax revenue from pot, the courts will be freed up from cannabis possession charges and maybe trafficking charges as a plus but the minuses out weigh the pluses for legalization. The border crossing times will also become much greater too. The legal system is too immature at present to handle legal recreational usuage. What about this scenario, a guy is smoking a joint and having a beer in the park, with the proposed laws, he gets a ticket for drinking in public only. CAMH will become busier too. The government will have a huge legal responsibility and have to post warnings about the health hazards about smoking. Many more studies about the medial-legal ramificatiions about legalization need to be done. Not everyone is capable of being a responsible weed smoker in todays society are they?

 

[userz]

Canada is a resource exporting economy anyway, oil, lumber, wheat and marijuana anyway. America includes
Canada in with Mexico and Columbia with illegal drug exporting nations. Yes, practically anyone who wants to consume cannabis in Canada is doing so, but cautiously to avoid a criminal record, so what. If marijuana had been legal in Canada since the time of prohibition then things would be different, but Canada cannot suddenly legalize it now without very serious repercussions. The American states that have legalized recreational use are relatively insignificant economically. Countries with sophisticated manufacturing technologies such as Germany, Japan and rapidly growing econcomic powerhouses such as China would never allow mariijuana legalization. The Canadian economy is about 93% foreign owned anyway and non competitive in the manufacturing exporting sector on the world stage anyway. Our global competition would laugh at a nation of layed back potheads and we could expect more outsourcing of jobs and more foreign take overs of Canadian industries. Unlike tobacco cultivation or alcohol production, marijuana is so easy to grow. The government will derive no sin tax revenue from pot, the courts will be freed up from cannabis possession charges and maybe trafficking charges as a plus but the minuses out weigh the pluses for legalization. The border crossing times will also become much greater too. The legal system is too immature at present to handle legal recreational usuage. What about this scenario, a guy is smoking a joint and having a beer in the park, with the proposed laws, he gets a ticket for drinking in public only. CAMH will become busier too.

Your argument has to be the most ridiculous ones yet. Companies would flee en masse because suddenly everyone would become an unproductive pothead? If the U.S. wants to have more through border checks as a result it's their prerogative, but I note that many U.S states have decriminalized marijuana meaning possession of small amounts gets you a ticket rather than a criminal record like it does in Canada. It's only a matter of time before sense prevails in both nations. I'm sure legislators will get around to things like making consumption in a public place an offence like it is for alcohol.

 

[blackrock13]

The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.

The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.

"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."

Federal health and drug enforcement officials have widely used Tashkin's previous work on marijuana to make the case that the drug is dangerous. Tashkin said that while he still believes marijuana is potentially harmful, its cancer-causing effects appear to be of less concern than previously thought.

New data helps, BUT the point is that it is still harmful, not that it is harmless or even less harmful than cigarettes, just less than first thought.

Not what I think you were hoping.

 

[blackrock13]

Your argument has to be the most ridiculous ones yet. Companies would flee en masse because suddenly everyone would become an unproductive pothead? If the U.S. wants to have more through border checks as a result it's their prerogative, but I note that many U.S states have decriminalized marijuana meaning possession of small amounts gets you a ticket rather than a criminal record like it does in Canada. It's only a matter of time before sense prevails in both nations. I'm sure legislators will get around to things like making consumption in a public place an offence like it is for alcohol.

Where exactly would they flee to. 'Everyone' would become unproductive? It's already been shown that smokers cost a company $6000 each. Maybe if that was taken out of smokers pay, they'd find a way to quite.

 

[userz]

The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.

The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.

"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."

Federal health and drug enforcement officials have widely used Tashkin's previous work on marijuana to make the case that the drug is dangerous. Tashkin said that while he still believes marijuana is potentially harmful, its cancer-causing effects appear to be of less concern than previously thought.



New data helps, BUT the point is that it is still harmful, not that it is harmless or even less harmful than cigarettes, just less than first thought.

Not what I think you were hoping.

I included that very part about it being less harmful than previously thought. Your assertion was "smoke you brains out, get lung cancer" which has been shown not to be the case.

 

[userz]

Where exactly would they flee to. 'Everyone' would become unproductive? It's already been shown that smokers cost a company $6000 each. Maybe if that was taken out of smokers pay, they'd find a way to quite.

You tell me where they would flee to. lotomil is the one who suggested it: "Our global competition would laugh at a nation of layed back potheads and we could expect more outsourcing of jobs and more foreign take overs of Canadian industries." as if Canada would suddenly be perceived as being a country of lazy stoners.

 

[blackrock13]

I included that very part about it being less harmful than previously thought. Your assertion was "smoke you brains out, get lung cancer" which has been shown not to be the case.

Considering 85% of all smokers get lung cancer, best scenario is 75%, so it's not really a stretch to call it smoking your brains out. Smoking makes it 6x more likely you'll get cancer, it's not rocket. science. Unless of course you don't believe the reams of science done to back that claim. Having had a family member at 43 die from lung cancer I can tell you it's an ugly way to die.

 

[nobody123]

Considering 85% of all smokers get lung cancer

I suppose pulling statistics out of your ass was easier before the interwebz. Unfortunately for you, all it takes is a ten second google search to show how wrong you are.

Estimates of smoking mortality and incidence rates were calculated based on Canadian rates observed over the period 1987 to 1989. It was found that 172/1,000 of male current smokers will eventually develop lung cancer; the similar probability among female current smokers was 116/1,000. . For those who never smoked on a regular basis the lifetime risk was substantially reduced. Only 13/1,000 males and 14/1,000 females in this category will develop lung cancer.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7895211

So between 16 and 17 percent for smokers, and 13.5 percent for non-smokers. An increased risk? Sure. And one that led me and many others to quit smoking. But 85%? Methinks you are 100% full of shit.

 

[userz]

Considering 85% of all smokers get lung cancer, best scenario is 75%, so it's not really a stretch to call it smoking your brains out. Smoking makes it 6x more likely you'll get cancer, it's not rocket. science. Unless of course you don't believe the reams of science done to back that claim. Having had a family member at 43 die from lung cancer I can tell you it's an ugly way to die.

This thread has nothing to do with tobacco smoking.

 

[blackrock13]

This thread has nothing to do with tobacco smoking.

Are you saying that smoking dope is healthier than smoking tobacco? The research you and I cited said that certainly wasn't the case, just that smoking dope was as unhealthy as first thought.

 

[blackrock13]

I suppose pulling statistics out of your ass was easier before the interwebz. Unfortunately for you, all it takes is a ten second google search to show how wrong you are.



So between 16 and 17 percent for smokers, and 13.5 percent for non-smokers. An increased risk? Sure. And one that led me and many others to quit smoking. But 85%? Methinks you are 100% full of shit.

No, actually considering the number of times cancer has visited my immediate family and killed more than one of them, colon cancer, ovarian cancer, lung cancer and breast cancer, I've learned the stats the hard way. Are you saying the numbers are wrong?

 

[nobody123]

No, actually considering the number of times cancer has visited my immediate family and killed more than one of them, colon cancer, ovarian cancer, lung cancer and breast cancer, I've learned the stats the hard way. Are you saying the numbers are wrong?

Not at all. I'm saying the numbers are right and you are wrong.





edited to add: and I missed a decimal place in my earlier post. So smokers are between 16 and 17 percent likely to get it and non smokers are around 1.35% (and NOT 13.5%, yeeesh!). This is what is called admitting a mistake. Don't worry though, Blackrock. I do not expect you to learn anything from the example. So carry on.

 

[MattRoxx]

Okay I'll say it: I smoke maybe 4 joints in a year, and yes that is less unhealthy (or "healthier" if you want to have something semantic to continuing arguing about) than smoking 20-25 cigarettes a day, which is the typical dosage for a nicotine addict.

This thread has nothing to do with tobacco smoking.

blackrock has a bizarre manner of posting. He agrees that marijuana should be legalized for adults so instead of continuing to agree with that point, he plays devils advocate and finds other arguments to make that are only tangentially related.

 

[blackrock13]

Okay I'll say it: I smoke maybe 4 joints in a year, and yes that is less unhealthy (or "healthier" if you want to have something semantic to continuing arguing about) than smoking 20-25 cigarettes a day, which is the typical dosage for a nicotine addict.


blackrock has a bizarre manner of posting. He agrees that marijuana should be legalized for adults so instead of continuing to agree with that point, he plays devils advocate and finds other arguments to make that are only tangentially related.

Not at all. Wanting it legalized and regulated is just fine, but smoking it without understanding or caring about its consequences is not. I don't like smoking cigarettes either, but will allow an adult to fuck up his/her own life smoking them. After all he's an adult. The problem is he will also affecting others around him. The same with alcohol. I am not asking for the prohibition on any of them.

 

[lomotil]

I agree, the government has backed itself into a corner, Trudeau lite, is a light weight with his comments, but Harper is protecting himself by trying to make himself look current. The government will have to supply Canadians with extensive literature on the health risks of cannabis to protect itself from medical-legal liability. It will take just one individual who smokes recreationally, develops some ailment and sues the government claiming that smoking cannabis legally caused the problem.

Not at all. Wanting it legalized and regulated is just fine, but smoking it without understanding or caring about its consequences is not. I don't like smoking cigarettes either, but will allow an adult to fuck up his/her own life smoking them. After all he's an adult. The problem is he will also affecting others around him. The same with alcohol. I am not asking for the prohibition on any of them.

 

[userz]

Are you saying that smoking dope is healthier than smoking tobacco? The research you and I cited said that certainly wasn't the case, just that smoking dope was as unhealthy as first thought.

The evidence suggests that smoking marijuana isn't as hazardous as smoking tobacco. Your own biases and assumptions are meaningless.