Why Is Marijuana Illegal?

scamalert

For all the cloudy heads out there,its already legal to use cannabis in medicine for like 5-10 years,its ingredients used in inhalers and cancer patients,but only needed ingredients,there are factories across uk that grow weed and carefully process and prepare it for medical use.So skip the stone head excuses that it should be legalized for only reason that it would be easier and free to get high otherwise. As if it was legalized here as medical treatment mostly only those that really suffer with cancer and what not symptoms would get their hands on it,and yet it would most likely be synthesized ,so nothing would change for regular Joe Pot smoker,as it still wouldn't be close to legal. As for those who say US is legalizing cannabis across states,one doesn't need to look much to see how,ridiculously its being abused,watched videos on YouTube where you need to mention that you have troubles sleeping and away you go with free pot pass.Doesn't even take 5 minutes to obtain card for Medical marihuana,now they have those people who dont need it selling it to others.And even its became legal the amount of drugs haven't dropped being brought into states. Otherwise there are people that grow mushrooms and their own weed to treat their illnesses that are almost impossible to manage with medicine and no one stops them because their condition is so bad.

InTheTrees

smoking_kills wrote: »

I couldn't agree more....:)

But I will stand by my earlier statement, that long term studies need to be done, so we don't end up in a hole of our own making.

There have been quite a few long term studies. This quote is from a 30 year study in CA.

Not from the wiki article but Its also worth noting that while alcohol is responsible for 79,000 deaths in the US every year nobody has been able to document any deaths from Cannabis. None. Not a one.

"In the largest study of its kind, researchers found no cancer-cannabis connection.[89] Donald Tashkin, a pulmonologist at University of California, Los Angeles who studied marijuana for 30 years, "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". Instead, the study found "no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect".[89] The study, which involved a large population sample (1200 people with lung, neck, or head cancer, and a matching group of 1040 without cancer), with some of the most chronic marijuana smokers having smoked over 22,000 "joints",[90][91] found no correlation between marijuana smoking and increased lung cancer risk, with the same being true for head and neck cancers as well. The results indicated no correlation between long and short-term cannabis use and cancer, indicating a possible therapeutic effect."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_effects_of_cannabis

frag420

old hippy wrote: »

The Govt here in the UK are trying to do just that.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/03/lobbying-bill-corporate-prs-silence-protest

The "transparency of lobbying, non-party campaigning and trade union administration bill" will treat charities, thinktanks, blogs, community groups and activists of every hue as political parties. From tiny groups vocal on local matters to great national organisations, all risk being silenced in the year before a general election, to avoid falling under electoral law.

Anyways, back on topic - it's up to me what I put in my body - my body is my property - nobody elses. As for what demographic smokes weed?

Everybody. I've met police, doctors, monks and medics, couriers, receptionists, office folk, city boys, famers, labourers, life savers and lawyers who all partake.

So when's your next party, sounds awesome!

Mar Mar Marmalade

I can imagine it's going to be legal close-to worldwide in about 35-50 years.

tashiusclay

smoking_kills wrote: »

Thanks for proving my point about not watching crap on the internet.

I should have stopped watching when he said it was a gift from god....

But anyway a few min in he claims it Cures Cancer :eek:, and a Harvard University study said so....

So off we go to the page he shows on the video....


"Harvard University researchers have found that, in both laboratory and mouse studies, delta-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) cuts tumor growth in half in common lung cancer while impeding the cancer's ability to spread"

Oh that says nothing about curing cancer, also the study is using lab mice...

"According to the researchers, THC fights lung cancer by curbing epidermal growth factor (EGF), a molecule that promotes the growth and spread of particularly aggressive non-small cell lung cancers. "It seems to go to (EGF) receptor sites on cells and inhibit growth," said Horovitz, who was not involved in the study"

That says it curbs the growth of PARTICULAR TYPES of lung cancer????

"The findings are preliminary, however, and other outside experts urged caution.

"It's an interesting laboratory study (but) you have to have enough additional animal studies to make sure the effect is reproducible and to make sure that there are no overt toxic effects," said Dr. Norman Edelman, chief medical officer of the American Lung Association. "It's a little more than tantalizing because it's a compound that we know has been in humans and has not caused major problems."

Tantalizing, but still no "Cures Cancer" ....

Stopped watching there...






@ DrunkenMonkeys
I'll tell you what it does do, improve your spelling and grammar.

Well is that all you have??? Still nothing to support your <--- opinions eah... If I cant spell i must be wrong :eek:

Such a rant filled post full of waffle, good man/woman yourself, thanks for that, very enlightening.

Tell me this, since you're so adamant that it full-stop doesn't cure Cancer, can you tell me of a substance/treatment that does have good consistent success in curing Cancer?

Grayson

tashiusclay wrote: »

Such a rant filled post full of waffle, good man/woman yourself, thanks for that, very enlightening.

Tell me this, since you're so adamant that it full-stop doesn't cure Cancer, can you tell me of a substance/treatment that does have good consistent success in curing Cancer?

If the word treating had've been used instead of curing the discussion would have stopped a couple of pages back.

smoking_kills

tashiusclay wrote: »

Such a rant filled post full of waffle, good man/woman yourself, thanks for that, very enlightening.

Tell me this, since you're so adamant that it full-stop doesn't cure Cancer, Can you tell me of a substance/treatment that does have good consistent success in curing Cancer?

I never said it full-stop dosen't cure cancer. The study said that..The point was that video claimed it cured cancer. Thats nonsense. The study said nothing of the sort. Pro weed campaigners do more harm to their cause spouting crap like that, as it brings into question everything else they say.

Secondly whats the point of that question? Do tell?

Plenty of cancer treatments have excellent success rates, but it depends on a number of factors, like how early the cancer was diagnosed, age, general health, type of cancer. Its not a question of any sort, and nothing to do with anything...

smoking_kills

Grayson wrote: »

If the word treating had've been used instead of curing the discussion would have stopped a couple of pages back.

Correct.