Closure for the marijuana thread.

[cooltuba]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Dec 13 2004, 08:39 PM'] For example, the 'Gateway Effect' is a reality.  Almost 100% of other hard drug users, used marijuana first. 

One also has to consider the population in sub-sets that are prone to certain behaviours.  Once 100% percent of a sub-set is incorporated, one has to search all other sets to add members to the original sub-set.  For example, if all adults smoked ciggarettes, you would have 100% of the adults who were genetically susceptible to get cancer and 100% of the adults who could smoke 60 years and not get cancer.  But, if young people started smoking before they were adults, you would add the sub-set of adults who were susceptible to cancer only if they smoked 65+ years and started at pre-adolescence.



n-e-ways.  I should finish my response tonight.  As an interesting note, I will include Emergency Doctor statistics for patients who came in for marijuana caused problems.  These are just the instances where the people either willingly told they were there for pot, or circumstances actually caused testing for marijuana (which are very, very few because of the characteristics of marijuana).  Though nobody has probably died from THC overdose, many, many people have died and been injured BECAUSE they were under the influence of marijuana.  This is statistical fact and is quite logical.  Just consider the effects of THC which makes us want to be high and apply them in the wrong circumstance.  Just like alochol overdose is rare, many people are killed or injured while under the influence of alchohol.

More to come later... [/quote]
Take your time, I'm intrigued. Your example of how marijuana is a gateway drug does not hold water. Yes, something like 98% of the people who have tried cocaine have smoked marijuana. But 77% of marijuana users never try another illegal drug.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Main Findings 1990

To take the figure of hard drug users who have tried marijuana and try to draw a correlation is doing things backwards. What about the 77% of the marijuana smokers that never tried any other illegal drug? To infer that marijuana leads to hard drugs, you would need numbers like 77% of marijuana users move on to hard drugs. Now, you may be able to infer that hard drugs lead to marijuana based on the stats., but that's not the argument, is it?

There are 40 million people in this country (U.S.) who have smoked marijuana for a period of their lives -- why aren't there tens of millions of hard drug users, then? The gateway theory of drug use is no longer generally accepted by the medical community. Prohibitionists used to point at numbers which showed that a large percentage of the hard drug users `started with marijuana.' They had it backwards -- many hard drug users also use marijuana. There are two reasons for this. One is that marijuana can be used to `take the edge off' the effects of some hard drugs. The other is a recently discovered fact of adolescent psychology -- there is a personality type which uses drugs, basically because drugs are exciting and dangerous, a thrill.

On sociological grounds, another sort of gateway theory has been argued which claims that marijuana is the source of the drug subculture and leads to other drugs through that culture. By the same token this is untrue -- marijuana does not create the drug subculture, the drug subculture uses marijuana. There are many marijuana users who are not a part of the subculture.

This brings up another example of how marijuana legalization could actually reduce the use of illicit drugs. Even though there is no magical `stepping stone' effect, people who choose to buy marijuana often buy from dealers who deal in many different illegal drugs. This means that they have access to illegal drugs, and might decide to try them out. In this case it is the laws which lead to hard drug use. If marijuana were legal, the drug markets would be separated, and less people would start using the illegal drugs. Maybe this is why emergency room admissions for hard drugs have gone down in the states that decriminalized marijuana during the 70's.

Data gathered by the Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) show a recent increase in "marijuana mentions" by people seeking treatment in hospital emergency rooms. Using a one-page form, emergency-room personnel record "drug abuse episodes," note the presence or absence of alcohol as a contributing factor, and list up to four other drugs recently consumed by the patient.

Although DAWN began compiling data in the 1970s, recent changes in recording procedures, the hospital selection, and methods of statistical estimation prevent comparisons of data gathered prior to 1988 with those gathered recently. Thus, discussion of emergency-room trends is limited to the years 1988 to 1993.

The lowest number of marijuana-mentions, recorded in 1990, was 15,706 (7.1 mentions per 100,000 population). The highest was 29,166 (12.7 per 100,000 population), recorded in 1993.

Using these figures, an increase of 86% has been reported. However, if 1988 is used as the "base year" instead-a year in which there were 19,962 marijuana mentions-the increase is reduced immediately by more than half, to 42%.

Despite marijuana being the most frequently used illicit drug, in emergency rooms, it remains the least often mentioned illicit drug.

In 1993, marijuana accounted for 6.25% of mentions, compared to 15.3% for cocaine and 9.8% for heroin. Even over-the-counter pain medications were mentioned more often than marijuana-comprising 9% of the total.

For youth aged 6 to 17, there were more mentions of marijuana than of heroin and cocaine-not because marijuana is more harmful to them but because these latter drugs are used so infrequently by young people. In this age group, mentions of over-the-counter pain medications were substantially higher than those for marijuana. While marijuana accounted for 6.48% of drug mentions by youth, over-the-counter pain medications accounted for 47%.

For the total population, not only is marijuana mentioned less frequently than other recreational drugs, it is seldom mentioned alone. In 1992, in more than 80% of the drug-abuse episodes involving marijunana, at least one other drug was mentioned; and, in more than 40%, two or more additional drugs were mentioned.

Of 24,000 marijuana mentions in 1992, more than 13,000 involved alcohol and nearly 10,000 involved cocaine.

Despite recent increases in marijuana mentions, hospital emergency rooms are not flooded with marijuana users seeking medical attention. In 1992, of 433,493 total drug mentions, only 4,464 -- about 1% -- involved the use of marijuana alone.

Looking forward to your full post, though.

Peace,

Tim

Edited December 14, 2004 by cooltuba

[jasJis]

I'm at work, so I don't have what I've written so far. But I want to address the logic you have used so far.

If 77% of marijuana users do not use coke, that means 23% do. If we take that sub-set of 23% and discover 90% started off with marijuana and then find that 90% of coke users started off with pot, that is the gateway effect. If society were to greatly reduce the usage of pot to 50% of current users, the largest % to be eliminated would be the casual user who smokes pot only. But we would begin to decrease those who started with pot before coke or crack. It's those who transition from pot to coke/crack that need help and prove the gateway effect. Just as all beer drinkers don't turn into alcoholics, a certain percentage does. During prohibition, alocholism and alcohol related deaths decreased. That is the same 'gateway effect' in reverse.

DAWN has much more current statistics. Over 26,000 people in 2000 sought emergency treatment for marijuana ALONE. That is whithout doing alot of blood testing & stuff becuase THC stays in the system. How many people seek treatment for injureis and stuff that don't volunteer that info or b.s. what helped make them stupid and hurt themselves. At the very least, you have to admit that statistics for injuries or deaths caused by people under the influence of marijuana are difficult to obtain because a blood test is needed and it isn't easy or legal to obtain a blood test to test for pot without the person's permission.

[cooltuba]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Dec 14 2004, 10:04 AM']If we take that sub-set of 23% and discover 90% started off with marijuana and then find that 90% of coke users started off with pot, that is the gateway effect. 

If society were to greatly reduce the usage of pot to 50% of current users, the largest % to be eliminated would be the casual user who smokes pot only.  But we would begin to decrease those who started with pot before coke or crack.  It's those who transition from pot to coke/crack that need help and prove the gateway effect.  Just as all beer drinkers don't turn into alcoholics, a certain percentage does.  During prohibition, alocholism and alcohol related deaths decreased.  That is the same 'gateway effect' in reverse.

DAWN has much more current statistics.  Over 26,000 people in 2000 sought emergency treatment for marijuana ALONE.  That is whithout doing alot of blood testing & stuff becuase THC stays in the system.  How many people seek treatment for injureis and stuff that don't volunteer that info or b.s. what helped make them stupid and hurt themselves.  At the very least, you have to admit that statistics for injuries or deaths caused by people under the influence of marijuana are difficult to obtain because a blood test is needed and it isn't easy or legal to obtain a blood test to test for pot without the person's permission.[/quote]
Look, I've already told you that you're looking at it backwards. Yes, 23% of marijuana users have tried coke, and 90% of coke users started with marijuana. To prove that marijuana inevitably leads to coke, though, you would need a majority of marijuana smokers trying coke. You're using a lof of "if"s and doubletalk. My points are simple to see and I stand by them. I don't have to say "If society were to greatly reduce the usage of pot to 50% of current users" That's like me saying "If we eliminated the 90% of cocaine users who started with marijuana" That's stupid, don't throw out the best 50% (the majority of the ones who don't use other illegal grugs) of the marijuana smoking population.

Your arguments to prove the gateway effect do not convince me, they're too speculative and even accepting the speculation, I still fail to see the logic. "But we would begin to decrease those who started with pot before coke or crack." What do you even mean by that sentance? You're floundering. Your mind tells you that there must be a gateway effect, so you mumble until you've convinced yourself. I'm not convinced. That is not a clear, well thought out argument.

Prove to me that the majority of people who smoke marijuana move on to harder drugs, or admit there is no "gateway". You cannot claim causation unless a majority of users experience that causation. That is a common principle in the scientific community.

"At the very least, you have to admit that statistics for injuries or deaths caused by people under the influence of marijuana are difficult to obtain because a blood test is needed and it isn't easy or legal to obtain a blood test to test for pot without the person's permission."

Yeah, the stats are hard to come by. Have you not read my other posts, though? Do you not see the problem with relying on blood and urine tests? For the last time:

THERE IS NO TEST TO DETERMINE IF SOMEONE IS CURRENTLY UI OR SMOKED IN THE LAST MONTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm about done with this thread. People don't listen, and I've yet to see anything of substance from you, Jas.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

Please, please, let's all be done with this thread...soon.

[Socrates]

Ditto!

(The Pot Thread That Will Not Die! ARRRGHHH!)

[point5]

Cooltuba...I enjoy reading your posts...keep up the good work homie. Truth is Truth whether you like it or not, and the truth is that many people spread lies about Marijuana.

That being said I don't smoke it anymore, but applaud you for your attempt to clear up misconceptions.

-peace

-Kiel

[cooltuba]

[quote name='point5' date='Dec 14 2004, 03:19 PM'] Cooltuba...I enjoy reading your posts...keep up the good work homie. Truth is Truth whether you like it or not, and the truth is that many people spread lies about Marijuana.

That being said I don't smoke it anymore, but applaud you for your attempt to clear up misconceptions.

-peace

-Kiel [/quote]
Thanks, man. It's nice to know at least someone appreciates it. It's really hard to find non-biased research using plausible-scenario studies; most of what I have I had to get hard copies of. The lies all started in 1937, when marijuana was first prohibited. I'll post the entire story later, but long story short:

During the depression, people in the south wanted a federal law passed that in some way discriminated against the Mexican population that was doing the menial jobs (that the whites needed now because unemployment was so high). They pushed for a law banning marijuana, but at that time the common opinion was that the govt. could not tell us what we can and cannot put in our bodies, so they passed a law requiring someone to purchase stamps in order to posses, sell, or traffic marijuana. They then didn't issue any stamps. Timothy Leary challenged the law in '69 I believe, on the basis that the law stipulated that one must have the marijuana in-hand to get the stamps, and having it in-hand without stamps made it illegal, therefore the law was illegal. The supreme court agreed, but by then the government had decided that it could in fact tell us what we couldn't put in our bodies, and added marijuana to the banned substances list the next day.

The most famous propaganda was "Reefer Madness" in which a young boy is depicted bludgeoning his mother to death with a frying pan because he was "insane on the reefer". PARENTS WARN YOUR CHILDREN!!!!!1 Haha. Ahh, propaganda. Good times.

On a more personal note, Jas, sorry about the all caps and large font earlier. I was in a pissy mood this morning. I'm still kinda in a bad mood, but I shouldn't have taken it out on you. Again, my sincerest apologies.

Kiel, thanks again. I shall continue with the debate whenever Jas posts his full report.

Peace all,

Tim

[cooltuba]

[quote name='Kilroy the Ninja' date='Dec 14 2004, 02:50 PM'] Please, please, let's all be done with this thread...soon. [/quote]
I'm gonna keep posting every day just to annoy you. J/k. I'll see it through until the debate is over. Be that tomorrow, next year, 2008, whenever. I'm persistent, and I've devoted a lot of my time to getting the real facts on marijuana, and I'll continue to expose the biased research and non-plausible studies and give results of scientifically sound studies until there is no more to discuss.

Peace,

Tim

Edited December 14, 2004 by cooltuba

[cooltuba]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Dec 13 2004, 08:39 PM'] Though nobody has probably died from THC overdose

Just like alochol overdose is rare [/quote]
Not probably, never. It's physically impossible, unless ingecting pure, synthesized THC. One would have to inject 15 grams of pure THC (something like 1500cc; I don't recall the weight of one cc of thc) or smoke 5 pounds in an hour. The lungs do not have the capacity to breathe in the smoke from 5 pounds of marijuana in an hour, even if marijuana smoke was all that was breathed (in which case the person would die of suffocation before THC overdose).

From [url="http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/PEOPLE/outreach/safesobr/15qp/web/idalc.html"]http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/PEOPLE/outreach/s.../web/idalc.html[/url] :

Until the 1990’s, deaths due to alcohol poisoning were largely ignored by the media. Families who lost a child due to AOD (alcohol overdose) suffered in silence. College campuses, where a great many of the deaths occurred, sought to avoid adverse publicity. Death certificates said “cardiac arrest” or “asphyxiation.” Medical examiners sometimes chose to tell a grieving family, “It was a freak accident,” rather than “Your son/daughter drank him/herself to death.”

In 1994, a Federal law was passed requiring colleges to publish all student deaths. Finally, these tragic AOD stories are in newspapers and on national television; stories like the one about a 16-year-old cheerleader in Illinois who died after drinking a bottle of schnapps on a friend’s dare.

Remove Intoxicated Drivers (RID) began working on the problem of AOD in 1992. Based on discussions with victims’ families and county medical examiners, RID estimates as many as 4,000 deaths occur each year from alcohol overdosing: drinking too much alcohol too fast. Families learn, in the most difficult way, that alcohol can be a lethal drug.

Teenagers are particularly vulnerable to AOD. Of the first 8 cases RID discovered, half were 16 years old or younger. At least half were first-time drinkers and had never been drunk before. Five were put to bed by friends or their own parents to “sleep it off,” only to be found dead in the morning. Their friends or parents didn’t know that if a person drinks too much alcohol quickly before falling asleep, the alcohol will shut down breathing and heart functions and kill a person within a few hours.

Until now, the lack of public information about AOD has been a national failure. The following information literally saves lives. It could save a friend or maybe even you.



4000 deaths/year isn't exactly "rare". You just don't hear about it too often.

Peace,

Tim

*edit* please go to that page and read the whole article. BTW...all of the pictures of teens/kids on that page are people who died from AOD. Tell their families it's "rare".

Edited December 14, 2004 by cooltuba

[Kilroy the Ninja]

I'm just sick of you guys justifying vices.

I've known people who have screwed their lives up with alcohol. I know people who have screwed their lives up with tobacco.

My own sister has screwed her life up with weed.

I'm just sick of the justification of vice and gluttony.

Yes, yes, in moderation ANYTHING can be a pleasure, an occasional clove cigarette, the once-in-a-while, or even once-a-day sniffer of brandy, and, as some of my other friends like to, the occasional doobie.

But enough is enough! This is not the place to fight about drugs! Not a Catholic website! If you really want to devote your life to that sort of thing, do so, but I can't see why it should be here.

Nobody is going to be brought over to either side here. It's reached a stalemate.

The title of the thread is "Closure". The only closure I see left here is the agreement to disagree.

[cooltuba]

[quote name='Kilroy the Ninja' date='Dec 14 2004, 06:01 PM'] I've known people who have screwed their lives up with alcohol. I know people who have screwed their lives up with tobacco.

Yes, yes, in moderation ANYTHING can be a pleasure, an occasional clove cigarette, the once-in-a-while, or even once-a-day sniffer of brandy, and, as some of my other friends like to, the occasional doobie.

But enough is enough! This is not the place to fight about drugs! Not a Catholic website! If you really want to devote your life to that sort of thing, do so, but I can't see why it should be here.

Nobody is going to be brought over to either side here. It's reached a stalemate.

The title of the thread is "Closure". The only closure I see left here is the agreement to disagree. [/quote]
I agree with you that (mostly) anything in moderation is not a bad thing. I also agree that tobacco and alcohol and marijuana and a host of other things can screw up lives.

I disagree that this is not the place to [i]discuss[/i] (not fight about) this issue. This is the debate section of the phorum, and this kind of discussion is what it is meant for.

I don't devote my life to marijuana; I am in school to become an RN, and before that, I devoted two years of my life to God studying at Holy Trinity Seminary. The origin of my interest in the subject stems from a paper I wrote while I was in highschool about propaganda. Some of the best examples I could find were what people claimed to be propaganda about marijuana. I looked into it further, and before I knew it, I was awash in false statements and outright lies about the harmful effects of the drug. I won't lie, I've tried it (after highschool and before Seminary), and I never had the urge to do another drug, didn't have a problem quitting, and if it were legal, I'd probably smoke occasionally. I'm not really interested in arguing the legalization issue, Jas Jis is. I just want to point out the lies circulating about the health risks.

If Jas has no arguments that I want to refute in his full post, then fine, it will be over. But, if he posts misleading or false information, I will refute it. Why don't you just ignore the thread from now on; no-one is forcing you to read it.

Peace,

Tim

[Kilroy the Ninja]

[quote name='cooltuba' date='Dec 14 2004, 06:35 PM'] Why don't you just ignore the thread from now on; no-one is forcing you to read it.

[/quote]
Actually, as a Moderator on this Phorum, it [b]is[/b] my responsibility to read the threads posted here.

Yeah, cause ignoring problems makes them go away.

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='Kilroy the Ninja' date='Dec 15 2004, 12:41 AM'] Actually, as a Moderator on this Phorum, it [b]is[/b] my responsibility to read the threads posted here.

Yeah, cause ignoring problems makes them go away. [/quote]
Ditto. Other posters here have the option of ignoring threads, we don't.

[cooltuba]

[quote name='Kilroy the Ninja' date='Dec 14 2004, 11:41 PM'] Yeah, cause ignoring problems makes them go away. [/quote]
Sorry, I didn't know you were a mod. Just because this thread is a problem for you doesn't mean that it's a problem for everyone else. Please show some charity and don't be condescending to me. I have nothing but respect and love for you, at least try and give me the respect of not mocking me. I prayed for your sister when I read that she has problems with marijuana, and come back to find you being condescending to me about my suggestion that you don't look at something that causes you pain/frustration/whatever. Not cool.

Thanks,

Tim

[Kilroy the Ninja]

Try not to be so flippant about illegal drugs.

It doesn't really bother me. I've never been considered cool.

Thank you for your prayers. You are in mine.

[cooltuba]

[quote name='Kilroy the Ninja' date='Dec 15 2004, 12:33 AM'] Try not to be so flippant about illegal drugs.

It doesn't really bother me. I've never been considered cool.

Thank you for your prayers. You are in mine. [/quote]
I am not flippant about illegal drugs. I do not approach the subject with disrespectful levity or casualness. I realize that this is a serious matter, and I am trying to discuss it with the seriousness it deserves. I certainly have never advocated the use of illegal drugs in any of my posts.

I'm not trying to say that you're "uncool" or anything; I've never been considered cool, either.

Thank you for your prayers, also.

Peace,

Tim

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='cooltuba' date='Dec 15 2004, 01:23 AM'] Sorry, I didn't know you were a mod. Just because this thread is a problem for you doesn't mean that it's a problem for everyone else. [/quote]
Just try to keep in mind that as mods we also have to make a judgement call at times as to whether or not threads are turning into problems and put a stop to it before it gets worse. Just because its not a problem for you doesn't mean it isnt for other people--people will message mods and use the report button and not post publicly that they have a problem with a particular thread or comment. dUSt has trusted us with that duty and if we feel that its best to close a thread (even if you don't like it) we're just doing our jobs. Kilroy is doing her job when she points out that this has come to a stalemate, etc.

[cooltuba]

[quote name='IcePrincessKRS' date='Dec 15 2004, 12:49 AM'] Just try to keep in mind that as mods we also have to make a judgement call at times as to whether or not threads are turning into problems and put a stop to it before it gets worse. Just because its not a problem for you doesn't mean it isnt for other people--people will message mods and use the report button and not post publicly that they have a problem with a particular thread or comment. dUSt has trusted us with that duty and if we feel that its best to close a thread (even if you don't like it) we're just doing our jobs. Kilroy is doing her job when she points out that this has come to a stalemate, etc. [/quote]
I do realize that you have jobs to do. Has this thread in particular been reported? Just curious.

This has not come to a stalemate, though. I'm still waiting for a reply from Jas Jis.

This thread was never meant to be of the magnitude it has grown to. I started the thread to put some closure to the other thread, and to ask people to stop spreading lies about marijuana. If you read my first post, you can see that that was my intent. Jas Jis wanted to discuss it, though, so that is what we are doing.

Please don't close this thread because it has come to a "stalemate". All I'm trying to do is point out that this issue is clouded by bad science and ingrained lies that people have been taught since childhood. Marijuana is not the harmful drug it's been made out to be by our government and various special interest groups since the late '30s.

From the bottom of my heart, thank you for your moderatorship; I know it takes time and effort.

Peace,

Tim

[point5]

what is the problem with this thread?

[cooltuba]

I don't know, but apparently they've been pm'ed or it's been reported using the "report" button. *says a Hail Mary for non-closure*