only in america, part III

adnans · 07-02-2002 01:25AM #1

Pothead refused entry into US vs Cokehead in the White House.
discuss.

adnans

Goodshape · 07-02-2002 01:38AM

Number of American deaths per year that result directly or primarily from the following selected causes nationwide, according to World Almanacs, Life Insurance Actuarial (death) rates, and the last 20 years of U.S. Surgeaon Generals' reports. (figures are for 1988 from the federal government's Bureau of Mortality Statistics and the National Institute on Drug Abuse...

Tobacco

> 340,000 to 425,000

Alcohol (not including 50% of all highway deaths
and 65% of all murders)

> 150,000

Aspirin (Including deliberate overdose)

> 180 to 1,000+

Caffeine (from stress, ulcers and triggering
irregular heartbeats, etc)

> 1,000 to 10,000

'Legal' Drug overdose (Deliberate or accidental)
from legal prescribed or patent medicines
or from mixing with alcohol (eg. Valium with
Alcohol)

> 14,000 to 27,000

Illicit Drug Overdose (deliberate or accidental)
from all illegal drugs

> 3,800 to 5,200

Theopoline (Pharmaceutical Drug legally prescribed
for asthma)

> 50

Theopoline is also responsible for 6,500
hospital admissions and 1,000 cases of
permanent brain damage per year.

Marijuana

> 0 (ZERO)

....the fact its illegal in the first place is a bit mad. I'm through caring about what americans belive is "right for there children".

pat kenny · 07-02-2002 02:47PM

Marijuana is 4 times more carsonogenic than Tobacco.
Meaning it gives you cancer ,cancer kills you the same way Tobacco causes cancer which kills you.
Long story short, your talking utter sh1t Goodshape.

Cake Fiend · 07-02-2002 03:16PM

I smoke tobacco.
I don't smoke anywhere near as much cannabis as tobacco.
I don't know any other tobacco-smoker who does, or even anyone who smokes even 1/4 as much cannabis as I do tobacco.
Therefore that 'four times as carcinogenic' business kind of falls on its ass when you're comparing tobacco-smoking to marijuana-smoking.

the fnj · 07-02-2002 03:24PM

Originally posted by pat kenny
Marijuana is 4 times more carsonogenic than Tobacco.

Actually Pat you’re the one talking “utter sh1t”.

While it is true that the resin that is commonly available on the streets of Dublin may be more carcinogenic, it is hardly what people would be smoking if it were legal.

Ask any stoner and they will tell you the best way to smoke marijuana is in it’s purer grass form. That’s from a getting high point of view

Smoking grass is far better than smoking tobacco from a health conscious point of view.

So by smoking grass you’d be getting a better buzz and doing yourself less damage.

So if marijuana were legal in Ireland most people would be smoking grass not resin and would probably not even be mixing it with tobacco because it would be far cheaper than what is paid on the streets at the moment.

pat kenny · 07-02-2002 04:09PM

Originally posted by Goodshape

Marijuana
> 0 (ZERO)

My main point was that the above statement is False.
Although noone has instantaniously dropped dead from smoking
marijuana it has contributed to people getting cancer and dying.
If we applied the same logic to Tobacco we could easily claim that noone has ever died from smoking tobacco.

I didnt want to get into a dissussion about wheather it should be leagalised or not.

WhiteWashMan · 07-02-2002 04:19PM

Originally posted by Goodshape
[B....the fact its illegal in the first place is a bit mad. I'm through caring about what americans belive is "right for there children". [/B]

the fact is its still illegal in most places.
and holland is only decriminalised, not legal.
sorry, i wasnt aware it was only americans who did not allow open drug use of illegal narcotics.
must have woken up in the wrong world again.
silly ol me....

bonkey · 07-02-2002 04:42PM

Originally posted by pat kenny
My main point was that the above statement is False.
Although noone has instantaniously dropped dead from smoking
marijuana it has contributed to people getting cancer and dying.
If we applied the same logic to Tobacco we could easily claim that noone has ever died from smoking tobacco.

This is blatantly untrue.

The cause of death is typically assigned to the *largest* contributing factor.

In no known medical case, has marijuana been shown to be the largest contributing factor. In fact, unless you are smoking pure grass, then in a typical joint, the carcinogenic effect of the tobacco will already be far higher than the carcinogenic effect of marijuana.

Follow this up by relative quantities. You will find very few people who smoke marijuana in quantities approaching 1/4 of the average daily tobacco intake of smokers. You will find even fewer who smoke it in quantities approaching 1/4 that of the average of smokers who have contracted lung cancer.

In short, although marijuana is carcinogenic, it is not consumed in sufficient quantity for it to pose any proven risk.

I would also point out that carcinogens are not necessarily cumulative. This, smoking marijuana with tobacco is not necessarily increasing your risk of contracting llung cancer.

AS for the Bush on Cocaine allegations - I'm stayin schtum. I'll only get called a conspiracy-theorising anti-American lefty again
:rolleyes:

jc

Goodshape · 07-02-2002 05:03PM

Originally posted by WhiteWashMan
sorry, i wasnt aware it was only americans who did not allow open drug use of illegal narcotics.
must have woken up in the wrong world again.
silly ol me....

Sorry so, WWM... completely my fault... must have misread the topic or something.

Oh, wait. No I didn’t.

Originally posted by adnans
only in america , part III

My point was, that in America we have a nation that will refuse admission for an ages old marijuana charge, a drug which - as I said - shouldn’t be illegal in the first place, and yet they turn a blind eye to there own presidents former cocaine conviction.

That’s pretty f*cked up right there.

bonkey · 07-02-2002 06:25PM

Originally posted by Goodshape

yet they turn a blind eye to there own presidents former cocaine conviction.

Alleged conviction.

And, if his family got the charges quashed, then either he has no conviction, or first the family must be proven to have broken the law to have any claim that there was a conviction.

In short - the law is being applied correctly and fairly, if a little stupidly.

jc

WhiteWashMan · 07-02-2002 06:54PM

Originally posted by Goodshape
Sorry so, WWM... completely my fault...

no problem....

RasTa · 08-02-2002 12:56AM

in the 70's ganja was legal in 4 states in the u.s.a than ronald regan became president and banned it all again with his "we will save your children from drugs" campaign

kiffer · 08-02-2002 05:21PM

Originally posted by bonkey

Alleged conviction.

And, if his family got the charges quashed, then either he has no conviction, or first the family must be proven to have broken the law to have any claim that there was a conviction.

In short - the law is being applied correctly and fairly, if a little stupidly.

jc

yup totaly fair for rich important people to use power and wealth to squash charges.
if God wanted them to go to jail or face the same fate as normal people they would'nt be rich in the first place.

Victor · 08-02-2002 10:55PM

Whos to say that no accidents (car, fire or otherwise) have not had marijuana as a contributing factor (these deaths would be recorded are car deaths and fires).

Goodshape · 09-02-2002 04:46PM

Originally posted by Victor
Whos to say that no accidents (car, fire or otherwise) have not had marijuana as a contributing factor (these deaths would be recorded are car deaths and fires).

well, they did do this test.

Studies conducted under the auspices of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) suggests that fatal accidents resulting solely from cannabis consumption occur rarely, if ever. One study of 1,882 drivers killed in crashes in 1990-91 found alcohol in more than half of the cases, but cannabis traces in just 6.7 percent - the majority of whom also had intoxicating levels of alcohol in their systems at the time of the crash.

Monkey · 09-02-2002 07:12PM

Would they refuse the Rolling Stones admission or Paul Mc Cartney or Ringo Starr or other rock stars or film stars who've made no secret of their drug use ?

Mr.Applepie · 10-02-2002 05:03PM

When did this turn into the humanities board???

adnans · 10-02-2002 09:52PM

Originally posted by Mr.Applepie
When did this turn into the humanities board???

it didnt. parts I and II of the topic "only in america" were featured in the After Hours boards so i decided to keep the ball rolling in the same board.

adnans

kiffer · 12-02-2002 03:51PM

Originally posted by Goodshape

Studies conducted under the auspices of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) suggests that fatal accidents resulting solely from cannabis consumption occur rarely, if ever. One study of 1,882 drivers killed in crashes in 1990-91 found alcohol in more than half of the cases, but cannabis traces in just 6.7 percent - the majority of whom also had intoxicating levels of alcohol in their systems at the time of the crash.

Hum I would read that as 6.7% of drivers in car crashes , crashed because they where stoned ... now how many more people are drunk at any one time then are stoned?

Dr. Loon · 12-02-2002 03:59PM

Originally posted by kiffer

Hum I would read that as 6.7% of drivers in car crashes , crashed because they where stoned ... now how many more people are drunk at any one time then are stoned?

No. They were stoned, but also had intoxicating levels of alcohol in their system, which would mean they'd be pretty whacked, and probably if they hadn't smoked marijuana would have been over the limit anyway. That's how I read it, and most other sane people do too.

bonkey · 12-02-2002 04:16PM

Originally posted by kiffer
Hum I would read that as 6.7% of drivers in car crashes , crashed because they where stoned ... now how many more people are drunk at any one time then are stoned?

I would have read it that 6.7% had a THC content which was above the accepted "zero" limit. Without specifying the level of THC, this tells us no more than that 6.7% of drivers tested had consumed/imbibed/smoked some THC-containing substance in the previous 3-4 weeks (which I believe is the duration the traces will stay in your system for THC).

On the other hand, the majority of these people were also over the alcoholic limit.

Alcohol, while at "over tyhe limit" levels, will effect your ability to drive. Even when over the limit on the morning after, it will have an impact on your ability, although not as great as when you were actually drunk. THC, on the other hand, remains traceable for ages, despite being effectively inactive after a relatively short period of time.

Thus, the findings are correct. Fatal accidents resulting solely from cannabis occur rarely if ever. Even accidents where cannabis is a contributing factor would be rare, as the 6.7 percent would include a large number of people where the drug was traceable but no longer effective.

jc

kiffer · 13-02-2002 04:27PM

oops in my haste i did'nt spot the also had smeg loads of alcohol in their system at the timne bit sorry.

all of which lead me to believe that , in fact we should ban Alcohol.
I mean it's causing insane numbers of deaths ... lets ban it, or better yet instead of using the road death stats to argure for the banning of a dangerous drug , we'll try and get another (less dangerous) drug in to common use ... because it's not like you can have enough drugs...

if alcohol is a greater danger than hash, then thats not really a reason to legalize hash but a reason to ban alcohol, for being more dangerous than a banned substance ...
I will no shut up . and stop repeating my self over and over
.

Goodshape · 13-02-2002 08:19PM

Originally posted by kiffer
I will no shut up . and stop repeating my self over and over

Thats probobly for the best.

Did you notice that these people all died while driving?... prehaps we should ban that.

Prohibition is a bad thing.

kiffer · 13-02-2002 11:24PM

they also all died after breathing oxygen...
lets ban that ...

Prohibition is a bad thing?
no it's not... there are things that are prohibited that should stay prohibited and a lot of things that should be prohibited...

Zero · 14-02-2002 01:37PM

Off topic first, but Kiffer, I assume you know that your nick is the South African version of the word "****", and you choose to use it?

On the whole dope thing, I watched a documentary on Discovery one night about hash/cannabis/marijuana etc (lets just call the whole lot grass). The way it became banned and illegal etc went somethin along the lines of this:
In the 50s. some big wheel in the FBI (I always forget names, must be the smoke) started a huge anti-drug campaign in America, illegalising all drugs bar smokes and drink. The reason grass was one of these drugs was because they didnt actually know fúck all about it at the time. Nowadays we know its reasonably harmless apart from the obvious fact that smoking causes cancer and intensive dope smoking fúcks up your memory etc. Back then they regarded it as being as bad as coke etc purely because they didn't know, and as far as this guy was concerned, a drug is a drug is a drug.
So, this Knobend did his great job of "cleaning" up the streets (yeah right) and got a big award and international recognition so he pushed it on the UN, who were takin it up the ass from the states at the time. The UN recognised and agreed with the states on the matter, and slowly but surely each of its member nations adopted the yanks laws on illegalising grass x amount of years for dealing etc yada yada. It got so bad in the states that a guy got 10 years for being caught with 2 joints in his pocket, the John Lennon song "10 for 2" was based on him.
So Grass basically, was blown out of all proportions when the laws concerning drugs were intially passed, and thats why its so hard to get it decriminalised now. Clinton apparently made it clear that he still stood by these archaic drug laws while he was in power, an thus the US still has it's knickers in a twist whenever some stoner says "uh yeah i smoked it once". Needless to say, their double-standards allow them to ignore bush's cocaine incident. Don't say you're surprised.

kiffer · 15-02-2002 12:52AM

Originally posted by Zero
Off topic first, but Kiffer, I assume you know that your nick is the South African version of the word "****", and you choose to use it?
<SNIP>
So Grass basically, was blown out of all proportions when the laws concerning drugs were intially passed, and thats why its so hard to get it decriminalised now. Clinton apparently made it clear that he still stood by these archaic drug laws while he was in power, an thus the US still has it's knickers in a twist whenever some stoner says "uh yeah i smoked it once". Needless to say, their double-standards allow them to ignore bush's cocaine incident. Don't say you're surprised.

First off the nick is Kiffer not Kaffer ... different word, totaly different meaning.
but other than to ask why would it matter, i'll not say anymore about your mistake there.

on the whole grass thing and my ban Oxygen thing...
the point was that grass (THC) is a drug ... one that is less dangerous than alcohol ...
is this a pro - Grass statement or a anti alcohol statement?
left as it is its pro grass
but bundle with alcohol death stats it screams at me ... ALCOHOL IS MORE OF A DANGER THAN GRASS.
not grass is ok, non damaging , and should be legal .
i'm not saying grass should be banned I'm saying that if there is any reason to ban grass then there is a hugh reason to ban Alcohol, and even if there is no reason to ban grass there is still reasons to ban alcohol...
to which the reply came ...

Did you notice that these people all died while driving?... prehaps we should ban that.

which set off the oxygen comment ...

as for the whole double standards thing ... that does piss me off ... not surpirse me ... but really piss me off.

as can be seen elsewhere in the thread...

only in america, part III

Comments