Bryan wrote:

> Ken wrote:
>
>> stuart wrote:
>>
>>> Ken <nospam@nowhere.org> wrote in message
>>> news:_-Cdnb-Wc6FVbOreRVn-oQ@comcast.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>> Rob Watson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> a drug is a drug is a drug is a drug
>>>>>
>>>>> plain and simple same as poison
>>>>>
>>>>> And, its illegal to grow the shit. that bein' besides him point he
>>>>> was
>>>>> trying to make in the last replie.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rob,
>>>>
>>>> Someone ought to tell that to all the nicotine and caffeine addicts at
>>>> 12-Step meetings. They aren't _really_ clean and sober.
>>>>
>>>> Marijuana is the same as poison? Try telling that to people who
>>>> use it
>>>> as a medication to prevent nausea from chemotherapy, control glaucoma,
>>>> fight muscular dystrophy and etc. and etc. that it is the same as rock
>>>> cocaine.
>>>>
>>>> Are you people who make such outrageous statements for real?
>>>>
>>>> Ken Ragge
>>>> http://www.morerevealed.com
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In other words, Ken, common sense must be applied. There is also a
>>> legal
>>> version of heroin. It's called morphine and its intended purpose is
>>> to help
>>> those in severe pain live as comfortably as possible. Those who
>>> shoot heroin
>>> are doing so because they want to get high. Same analogy as with
>>> marijuana.
>>> Marijuana is NOT a healthy thing to ingest for no other reason than
>>> to get
>>> high. There are a myriad of serious physical and psychological
>>> side-effects
>>> both seen acutely and with long-term usage which are well
>>> documented....
>>> The individual who made what you referred to as an "outrageous
>>> statement"
>>> was presumably speaking of the NON-medicinal uses of marijuana. But
>>> you knew
>>> that and you intentionally took it out of context, something you do
>>> on a
>>> regular basis.
>>>
>>>
>> Stuart,
>>
>> I'm not so sure about long-term harmful effects. While there are
>> many (Brain McCaffrey comes to mind) in the government who insist on
>> harmful effects just short of those in "Reefer Madness," I know of no
>> study that has show consequential results from moderate use. Of
>> course, you can probably dig something up on harm caused by marijuana
>> bought on the black market laced with a dangerous chemical.
>>
>> As far as immoderate use goes, immoderate use of "Big Macs" from
>> McDonald's kill. Are we going to outlaw them and jail people for
>> eating them? Are we going to profess purity of spirit because we
>> haven't had a Big Mac in 7 years, 4 months 22 days 3 hours and 7
>> minutes? Perhaps that is already done in O.A.
>>
>> Actually, the legal version of heroin used, heroin before heroin
>> became illegal, had far fewer consequences than heroin does today.
>> For one thing, being legal it was cheap and there was neither desire
>> nor need to inject it, which causes untold suffering in diseases like
>> hepatitis and HIV transmitted not only among heroin users, but also
>> their families. Moreover, when heroin was legal, doctors would try
>> to get people who were destroying themselves with alcohol to switch
>> over to heroin. This was for two reasons. One was that other than
>> constipation, there was little health effect. The other was that at
>> least if they were using heroin instead of alcohol, they would behave
>> appropriately as opposed to like drunken fools.
>>
>> Ken Ragge
>> http://www.morerevealed.com
>
> i hold my view anything inhaled in lungs is bad nothing more nothing
> less. we choose to smoke we buy cigarettes. I breathe harmful
> elements at work but yet my industry isn't outlawed. Keeping the job
> because best job i get around hewre. I'm so off track with this
> thread i'm going to shutup.

Bryan,

Of course breathing all sorts of weird chemicals is not good for the
lungs.

In any case, I'm glad I'm not the only one who sometimes feels he is
getting off track in these threads. :-)

Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com

Ken wrote:
> stuart wrote:
>
>> Ken <nospam@nowhere.org> wrote in message
>> news:3o2dnRYsZ_seneXeRVn-pg@comcast.com...
>>
>>
>>> stuart wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Ken <nospam@nowhere.org> wrote in message
>>>> news:_-Cdnb-Wc6FVbOreRVn-oQ@comcast.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Rob Watson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> a drug is a drug is a drug is a drug
>>>>>>
>>>>>> plain and simple same as poison
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And, its illegal to grow the shit. that bein' besides him point he
>>>>>> was
>>>>>> trying to make in the last replie.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Rob,
>>>>>
>>>>> Someone ought to tell that to all the nicotine and caffeine addicts at
>>>>> 12-Step meetings. They aren't _really_ clean and sober.
>>>>>
>>>>> Marijuana is the same as poison? Try telling that to people who
>>>>> use it
>>>>> as a medication to prevent nausea from chemotherapy, control glaucoma,
>>>>> fight muscular dystrophy and etc. and etc. that it is the same as rock
>>>>> cocaine.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you people who make such outrageous statements for real?
>>>>>
>>>>> Ken Ragge
>>>>> http://www.morerevealed.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In other words, Ken, common sense must be applied. There is also a
>>>> legal
>>>> version of heroin. It's called morphine and its intended purpose is to
>>>>
>>
>> help
>>
>>
>>>> those in severe pain live as comfortably as possible. Those who shoot
>>>>
>>
>> heroin
>>
>>
>>>> are doing so because they want to get high. Same analogy as with
>>>>
>>
>> marijuana.
>>
>>
>>>> Marijuana is NOT a healthy thing to ingest for no other reason than to
>>>>
>>
>> get
>>
>>
>>>> high. There are a myriad of serious physical and psychological
>>>>
>>
>> side-effects
>>
>>
>>>> both seen acutely and with long-term usage which are well
>>>> documented....
>>>> The individual who made what you referred to as an "outrageous
>>>> statement"
>>>> was presumably speaking of the NON-medicinal uses of marijuana. But you
>>>>
>>
>> knew
>>
>>
>>>> that and you intentionally took it out of context, something you do
>>>> on a
>>>> regular basis.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Stuart,
>>>
>>> I'm not so sure about long-term harmful effects. While there are many
>>> (Brain McCaffrey comes to mind) in the government who insist on harmful
>>> effects just short of those in "Reefer Madness," I know of no study that
>>> has show consequential results from moderate use. Of course, you can
>>> probably dig something up on harm caused by marijuana bought on the
>>> black market laced with a dangerous chemical.
>>>
>>> As far as immoderate use goes, immoderate use of "Big Macs" from
>>> McDonald's kill. Are we going to outlaw them and jail people for eating
>>> them? Are we going to profess purity of spirit because we haven't had a
>>> Big Mac in 7 years, 4 months 22 days 3 hours and 7 minutes? Perhaps
>>> that is already done in O.A.
>>>
>>> Actually, the legal version of heroin used, heroin before heroin became
>>> illegal, had far fewer consequences than heroin does today. For one
>>> thing, being legal it was cheap and there was neither desire nor need to
>>> inject it, which causes untold suffering in diseases like hepatitis and
>>> HIV transmitted not only among heroin users, but also their families.
>>> Moreover, when heroin was legal, doctors would try to get people who
>>> were destroying themselves with alcohol to switch over to heroin. This
>>> was for two reasons. One was that other than constipation, there was
>>> little health effect. The other was that at least if they were using
>>> heroin instead of alcohol, they would behave appropriately as opposed to
>>> like drunken fools.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Why would you quote a comical old movie about marijuana as a source?
>>
>>
> Stuart,
>
> I think referring to the old movie was appropriate in the context of
> supposed "law and order" types spouting harm that doesn't exist.
>
>> Marijuana causes lung damage including lung cancer, COPD, long term usage
>> also causes neural damage to the brain, the kidneys and bladde, just
>> to name
>> a few things.
>>
>>
> The smoke causing harm to the lungs is not at all surprising but my
> understanding is that it causes far less damage when compared to smoking
> tobacco. As far as neural, kidney and bladder damage, I simply do not
> believe it. At least not to any extend that numerous other legal
> behaviors can cause. Where are the studies of people smoking marijuana
> long term that isn't laced with things like PCP?
> As far as lung damage goes, it is my understanding that many people who
> use it for medical reasons use "vaporizors" to avoid the smoke. Of
> course, that would land most people in jail in most states in the
> interest of public morality and safety.
>
>> It is not the harmless drug we thought back in the days of the Ledain
>> Commission.
>>
>>
> Yes it is. And you can point to all the studies you want. If you want
> to prove something one way or the other, you need to point to
> methodologically sound studies, not studies that are put together in a
> way guaranteed to prove what the funders want "proven."
>
>> I could point you to piles of studies. I don't personally know any
>> physicians who smoke pot these days either, do you?
>>
>>
> I'm not sure I know anyone personally who smokes pot. I would imagine I
> do, but their brain function function hasn't given way yet due to the
> effects of marijuana leaving them readily recognizable. Perhaps most of
> the people I know, who are only in the 40-60 year range that do smoke
> just haven't been smoking this dangerous, brain-damaging substance long
> enough yet. :-)
>
>> Maybe its OK with you that the Captain on your next airline flight is a
>> recreational pothead?
>>
> Where did this stupid statement come from? Why are such stupid
> statements always thrown in as if they mean something? You wouldn't
> want the captain on your next flight to, say, have just had a stroke,
> would you? You wouldn't want the captain on your next flight to have
> lost his contacts and his depth perception along with it, would you?
> You wouldn't want the captain on your next flight to be a member of Al
> Qaeda on a suicide mission, would you? Of course no one wants any of
> those things and none of them have to do with whether marijuana causes
> an inordinate amount of harm or not. They are all just stupid
> statements like the one you made immediately above.
>
> Of course, now that I have reread your statement, of course I wouldn't
> care if he was a recreational user. I wouldn't care if he had three
> drinks with dinner two nights before either.
>
>> After hours of course. They don't call it "dope" for
>> no reason, Ken.
>>
>>
>>
> Well, they used to call it varying things back in the old days when it
> was a home remedy for various ills. It only got a bad reputation
> beginning with its use by the "lesser races" and a worse reputation by
> propaganda campaigns like the one in which "Reefer Madness" was a part.
> Without disliked minorities having used it and public propaganda
> campaigns, marijuana might be not be any better known than anything else
> used in folklore medicine 100 years ago.
>
>> As for comparing pot with big macs, I think your analogy, although
>> understandable, is however not entirely applicable because the
>> physiological
>> motive to eat hamburgers differs greatly from the non-medicinal
>> reasons to
>> smoke pot.
>
> So those who eat a whole lot of Big Macs to the point of weighing
> hundreds of pounds and needing two airline seats or even just clogging
> arteries and dying of heart attacks are much better than the motives of
> a teenager experimenting or an adult who smokes on occassion to relax or
> as recreation?
>
>> BTW, medicinal pot wil likely be dispensed as an atomized liquid
>> spray in the future due to the fact that human lungs are not a chimney
>> flue.
>>
>>
> It will likely be dispensed in a way in which pharmaceutical companies
> can make a handsome profit off of something that costs next to nothing
> to manufacture.
>
>> In fact, it would not surprise me to see THC in pill form before long.
>>
>>
>>
> It has been in pill form, which according to the drug warriors is okay
> and the pharmaceutical companies too are perfectly happy. The only
> problem with the pills for sick people is, if it is taken for people
> unable to keep food down, they throw them up, if taken for other
> problems, they can't get a consistent dose. They either overdose or
> underdose.
>
> Ken Ragge
> http://www.morerevealed.com
>
i find funny how they compare like one joint
causing more damage then like 2 cigs or whatever.
It's not like you smoke joints by the pack,
there is no analogy there.

Bryan wrote:

> Ken wrote:
>
>> stuart wrote:
>>
>>> Bryan <bekberg@charter.net> wrote in message
>>> news:VQSdf.7453$Cw4.142@fe03.lga...
>>>
>>>
>>>> stuart wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Ken <nospam@nowhere.org> wrote in message
>>>>> news:_-Cdnb-Wc6FVbOreRVn-oQ@comcast.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Rob Watson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> a drug is a drug is a drug is a drug
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> plain and simple same as poison
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And, its illegal to grow the shit. that bein' besides him point
>>>>>>> he was
>>>>>>> trying to make in the last replie.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rob,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Someone ought to tell that to all the nicotine and caffeine
>>>>>> addicts at
>>>>>> 12-Step meetings. They aren't _really_ clean and sober.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Marijuana is the same as poison? Try telling that to people who
>>>>>> use it
>>>>>> as a medication to prevent nausea from chemotherapy, control
>>>>>> glaucoma,
>>>>>> fight muscular dystrophy and etc. and etc. that it is the same as
>>>>>> rock
>>>>>> cocaine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you people who make such outrageous statements for real?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ken Ragge
>>>>>> http://www.morerevealed.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words, Ken, common sense must be applied. There is also a
>>>>> legal
>>>>> version of heroin. It's called morphine and its intended purpose
>>>>> is to
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> help
>>>
>>>
>>>>> those in severe pain live as comfortably as possible. Those who shoot
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> heroin
>>>
>>>
>>>>> are doing so because they want to get high. Same analogy as with
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> marijuana.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Marijuana is NOT a healthy thing to ingest for no other reason
>>>>> than to
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> get
>>>
>>>
>>>>> high. There are a myriad of serious physical and psychological
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> side-effects
>>>
>>>
>>>>> both seen acutely and with long-term usage which are well
>>>>> documented....
>>>>> The individual who made what you referred to as an "outrageous
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> statement"
>>>
>>>
>>>>> was presumably speaking of the NON-medicinal uses of marijuana.
>>>>> But you
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> knew
>>>
>>>
>>>>> that and you intentionally took it out of context, something you
>>>>> do on a
>>>>> regular basis.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> and every1 i know on morphine who have it
>>>> prescribe shoot that up too.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, there were a number of studies done in Birmingham England
>>> on the
>>> oral use of morphine on cancer patients who later went into
>>> remission. Their
>>> dosages were self-determined by subjective pain and most of them
>>> stopped
>>> after their disease went into remission. You are right, there are
>>> those who
>>> do get addicted as well.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Stuart,
>>
>> Actually, someone is much more likely to become addicted when they
>> are given insufficient medication for their pain. The study of
>> morphine in cancer patients is far from the first that has been done
>> showing people not getting addicted in surgical situations when they
>> are allowed to dose themselves.
>> Ken Ragge
>> http://www.morerevealed.com
>
> eehh, my study with my friends say your wrong on that. over half my
> friends i used to hang out with have bad addictions. BAD.. there
> junkies, and most of them were way overprescribed everything by pill
> docs in the first place. But overall, i can't say, and i have no
> faith in any studies whatsoever unless i know more about it. Most
> studies are so skewed one way or another they are unreliable.

Bryan,

I wonder if you are talking about how your friends would react and what
the drugs themselves actually do. While most certainly interrelated, it
is not so simple as "the drugs do it." For example, during the Vietnam
war, there was a big scare in this country about what would happen when
all the troops came home. Heroin addiction was big among the troops in
Vietnam. The thought of them coming home and roaming the streets
robbing and looting to get their fix was frightening. However, the
heroin addiction didn't work out quite as imagined.

Most of the troops, when they came home, simply quite. Most of the ones
who continued to "be addicted" were addicted _before_ they went to
Vietnam. That (as well as many other things) points to things within
people that at the very least powerfully counteract any addictive
effects of the drugs themselves.

It certainly is not difficult to imagine that being in a war zone, being
high on heroin was a lot more attractive to most people than after they
got away from the war zone and had the opportunity to resume a life they
_wanted to_ get back to.

Even with alcohol dependence, a lot of the time it is simply a matter of
severe depression. Of course, someone who has been depressed for most
of their life isn't going to "feel depressed" but rather feel "normal"
because depressed is what is normal for that person. Being drunk feels
a heck of a lot better than feeling depressed whether someone recognizes
the way they feel as depressed or not. How is one to compare internal
experience with that of other people anyway?

Quite often, when depression is dealt with, alcoholism fades away.

I've become convinced over the years that a lot of excessive
drug/alcohol use is a response to "unnoticed" unpleasant internal states
that alcohol wouldn't fix if there was nothing wrong in the first
place. I'm reminded of Bill Wilson telling of his first time getting
drunk. What if his "feeling so good" was not too far removed with how
most people feel _all the time_? Well, kind of sort of.

Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com

stuart wrote:

>Ken <nospam@nowhere.org> wrote in message
>news:8aidnQm8jN_lheXeRVn-qA@comcast.com...
>
>
>>stuart wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Ken <nospam@nowhere.org> wrote in message
>>>news:3o2dnRYsZ_seneXeRVn-pg@comcast.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>stuart wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Ken <nospam@nowhere.org> wrote in message
>>>>>news:_-Cdnb-Wc6FVbOreRVn-oQ@comcast.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Rob Watson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>a drug is a drug is a drug is a drug
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>plain and simple same as poison
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And, its illegal to grow the shit. that bein' besides him point he
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>was
>
>
>>>>>>>trying to make in the last replie.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Rob,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Someone ought to tell that to all the nicotine and caffeine addicts at
>>>>>>12-Step meetings. They aren't _really_ clean and sober.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Marijuana is the same as poison? Try telling that to people who use
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>it
>
>
>>>>>>as a medication to prevent nausea from chemotherapy, control glaucoma,
>>>>>>fight muscular dystrophy and etc. and etc. that it is the same as rock
>>>>>>cocaine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Are you people who make such outrageous statements for real?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ken Ragge
>>>>>>http://www.morerevealed.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>In other words, Ken, common sense must be applied. There is also a
>>>>>
>>>>>
>legal
>
>
>>>>>version of heroin. It's called morphine and its intended purpose is to
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>help
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>those in severe pain live as comfortably as possible. Those who shoot
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>heroin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>are doing so because they want to get high. Same analogy as with
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>marijuana.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Marijuana is NOT a healthy thing to ingest for no other reason than to
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>get
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>high. There are a myriad of serious physical and psychological
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>side-effects
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>both seen acutely and with long-term usage which are well
>>>>>
>>>>>
>documented....
>
>
>>>>>The individual who made what you referred to as an "outrageous
>>>>>
>>>>>
>statement"
>
>
>>>>>was presumably speaking of the NON-medicinal uses of marijuana. But you
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>knew
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>that and you intentionally took it out of context, something you do on
>>>>>
>>>>>
>a
>
>
>>>>>regular basis.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Stuart,
>>>>
>>>>I'm not so sure about long-term harmful effects. While there are many
>>>>(Brain McCaffrey comes to mind) in the government who insist on harmful
>>>>effects just short of those in "Reefer Madness," I know of no study that
>>>>has show consequential results from moderate use. Of course, you can
>>>>probably dig something up on harm caused by marijuana bought on the
>>>>black market laced with a dangerous chemical.
>>>>
>>>>As far as immoderate use goes, immoderate use of "Big Macs" from
>>>>McDonald's kill. Are we going to outlaw them and jail people for eating
>>>>them? Are we going to profess purity of spirit because we haven't had a
>>>>Big Mac in 7 years, 4 months 22 days 3 hours and 7 minutes? Perhaps
>>>>that is already done in O.A.
>>>>
>>>>Actually, the legal version of heroin used, heroin before heroin became
>>>>illegal, had far fewer consequences than heroin does today. For one
>>>>thing, being legal it was cheap and there was neither desire nor need to
>>>>inject it, which causes untold suffering in diseases like hepatitis and
>>>>HIV transmitted not only among heroin users, but also their families.
>>>>Moreover, when heroin was legal, doctors would try to get people who
>>>>were destroying themselves with alcohol to switch over to heroin. This
>>>>was for two reasons. One was that other than constipation, there was
>>>>little health effect. The other was that at least if they were using
>>>>heroin instead of alcohol, they would behave appropriately as opposed to
>>>>like drunken fools.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Why would you quote a comical old movie about marijuana as a source?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Stuart,
>>
>>I think referring to the old movie was appropriate in the context of
>>supposed "law and order" types spouting harm that doesn't exist.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Marijuana causes lung damage including lung cancer, COPD, long term usage
>>>also causes neural damage to the brain, the kidneys and bladde, just to
>>>
>>>
>name
>
>
>>>a few things.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>The smoke causing harm to the lungs is not at all surprising but my
>>understanding is that it causes far less damage when compared to smoking
>>tobacco. As far as neural, kidney and bladder damage, I simply do not
>>believe it. At least not to any extend that numerous other legal
>>behaviors can cause. Where are the studies of people smoking marijuana
>>long term that isn't laced with things like PCP?
>>
>>As far as lung damage goes, it is my understanding that many people who
>>use it for medical reasons use "vaporizors" to avoid the smoke. Of
>>course, that would land most people in jail in most states in the
>>interest of public morality and safety.
>>
>>
>>
>>>It is not the harmless drug we thought back in the days of the Ledain
>>>Commission.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Yes it is. And you can point to all the studies you want. If you want
>>to prove something one way or the other, you need to point to
>>methodologically sound studies, not studies that are put together in a
>>way guaranteed to prove what the funders want "proven."
>>
>>
>>
>>>I could point you to piles of studies. I don't personally know any
>>>physicians who smoke pot these days either, do you?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I'm not sure I know anyone personally who smokes pot. I would imagine I
>>do, but their brain function function hasn't given way yet due to the
>>effects of marijuana leaving them readily recognizable. Perhaps most of
>>the people I know, who are only in the 40-60 year range that do smoke
>>just haven't been smoking this dangerous, brain-damaging substance long
>>enough yet. :-)
>>
>>
>>
>>>Maybe its OK with you that the Captain on your next airline flight is a
>>>recreational pothead?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Where did this stupid statement come from? Why are such stupid
>>statements always thrown in as if they mean something? You wouldn't
>>want the captain on your next flight to, say, have just had a stroke,
>>would you? You wouldn't want the captain on your next flight to have
>>lost his contacts and his depth perception along with it, would you?
>>You wouldn't want the captain on your next flight to be a member of Al
>>Qaeda on a suicide mission, would you? Of course no one wants any of
>>those things and none of them have to do with whether marijuana causes
>>an inordinate amount of harm or not. They are all just stupid
>>statements like the one you made immediately above.
>>
>>Of course, now that I have reread your statement, of course I wouldn't
>>care if he was a recreational user. I wouldn't care if he had three
>>drinks with dinner two nights before either.
>>
>>
>
>Yes you would if you were a pilot yourself, as I am. My experience in the
>flight arena, with all due humility, absolutely pales in comparison to other
>pilots whose comments I have taken heed of. One chap, in particular with
>over a half century of flying experience, actual flight time almost
>totalling two solid years in the air if you added it all up. With ANY
>student he taught, he could easily spot the recreational pot smoker. He
>confirmed this in my mind in several instances. He stated that students and
>even experienced pilots who smoked pot made far more mistakes in the cockpit
>than anyone else.
>
>Another senior ATP Captain made a similar observation. IN FACT they actually
>test airline pilots and DO NOT allow them to fly if they test positive for
>pot usage AT ALL.
>
>You have NO argument here Ken. Sorry, but it doesn't fly with anyone..
>
>
>
Stuart,

Was that pun intended?

Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com

Bryan wrote:

> Ken wrote:
>
>> stuart wrote:
>>
>>> Ken <nospam@nowhere.org> wrote in message
>>> news:3o2dnRYsZ_seneXeRVn-pg@comcast.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>> stuart wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Ken <nospam@nowhere.org> wrote in message
>>>>> news:_-Cdnb-Wc6FVbOreRVn-oQ@comcast.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Rob Watson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> a drug is a drug is a drug is a drug
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> plain and simple same as poison
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And, its illegal to grow the shit. that bein' besides him point
>>>>>>> he was
>>>>>>> trying to make in the last replie.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rob,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Someone ought to tell that to all the nicotine and caffeine
>>>>>> addicts at
>>>>>> 12-Step meetings. They aren't _really_ clean and sober.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Marijuana is the same as poison? Try telling that to people who
>>>>>> use it
>>>>>> as a medication to prevent nausea from chemotherapy, control
>>>>>> glaucoma,
>>>>>> fight muscular dystrophy and etc. and etc. that it is the same as
>>>>>> rock
>>>>>> cocaine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you people who make such outrageous statements for real?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ken Ragge
>>>>>> http://www.morerevealed.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words, Ken, common sense must be applied. There is also a
>>>>> legal
>>>>> version of heroin. It's called morphine and its intended purpose
>>>>> is to
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> help
>>>
>>>
>>>>> those in severe pain live as comfortably as possible. Those who shoot
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> heroin
>>>
>>>
>>>>> are doing so because they want to get high. Same analogy as with
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> marijuana.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Marijuana is NOT a healthy thing to ingest for no other reason
>>>>> than to
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> get
>>>
>>>
>>>>> high. There are a myriad of serious physical and psychological
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> side-effects
>>>
>>>
>>>>> both seen acutely and with long-term usage which are well
>>>>> documented....
>>>>> The individual who made what you referred to as an "outrageous
>>>>> statement"
>>>>> was presumably speaking of the NON-medicinal uses of marijuana.
>>>>> But you
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> knew
>>>
>>>
>>>>> that and you intentionally took it out of context, something you
>>>>> do on a
>>>>> regular basis.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Stuart,
>>>>
>>>> I'm not so sure about long-term harmful effects. While there are many
>>>> (Brain McCaffrey comes to mind) in the government who insist on
>>>> harmful
>>>> effects just short of those in "Reefer Madness," I know of no study
>>>> that
>>>> has show consequential results from moderate use. Of course, you can
>>>> probably dig something up on harm caused by marijuana bought on the
>>>> black market laced with a dangerous chemical.
>>>>
>>>> As far as immoderate use goes, immoderate use of "Big Macs" from
>>>> McDonald's kill. Are we going to outlaw them and jail people for
>>>> eating
>>>> them? Are we going to profess purity of spirit because we haven't
>>>> had a
>>>> Big Mac in 7 years, 4 months 22 days 3 hours and 7 minutes? Perhaps
>>>> that is already done in O.A.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, the legal version of heroin used, heroin before heroin
>>>> became
>>>> illegal, had far fewer consequences than heroin does today. For one
>>>> thing, being legal it was cheap and there was neither desire nor
>>>> need to
>>>> inject it, which causes untold suffering in diseases like hepatitis
>>>> and
>>>> HIV transmitted not only among heroin users, but also their families.
>>>> Moreover, when heroin was legal, doctors would try to get people who
>>>> were destroying themselves with alcohol to switch over to heroin.
>>>> This
>>>> was for two reasons. One was that other than constipation, there was
>>>> little health effect. The other was that at least if they were using
>>>> heroin instead of alcohol, they would behave appropriately as
>>>> opposed to
>>>> like drunken fools.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Why would you quote a comical old movie about marijuana as a source?
>>>
>>>
>> Stuart,
>>
>> I think referring to the old movie was appropriate in the context of
>> supposed "law and order" types spouting harm that doesn't exist.
>>
>>> Marijuana causes lung damage including lung cancer, COPD, long term
>>> usage
>>> also causes neural damage to the brain, the kidneys and bladde, just
>>> to name
>>> a few things.
>>>
>>>
>> The smoke causing harm to the lungs is not at all surprising but my
>> understanding is that it causes far less damage when compared to
>> smoking tobacco. As far as neural, kidney and bladder damage, I
>> simply do not believe it. At least not to any extend that numerous
>> other legal behaviors can cause. Where are the studies of people
>> smoking marijuana long term that isn't laced with things like PCP?
>> As far as lung damage goes, it is my understanding that many people
>> who use it for medical reasons use "vaporizors" to avoid the smoke.
>> Of course, that would land most people in jail in most states in the
>> interest of public morality and safety.
>>
>>> It is not the harmless drug we thought back in the days of the Ledain
>>> Commission.
>>>
>>>
>> Yes it is. And you can point to all the studies you want. If you
>> want to prove something one way or the other, you need to point to
>> methodologically sound studies, not studies that are put together in
>> a way guaranteed to prove what the funders want "proven."
>>
>>> I could point you to piles of studies. I don't personally know any
>>> physicians who smoke pot these days either, do you?
>>>
>>>
>> I'm not sure I know anyone personally who smokes pot. I would
>> imagine I do, but their brain function function hasn't given way yet
>> due to the effects of marijuana leaving them readily recognizable.
>> Perhaps most of the people I know, who are only in the 40-60 year
>> range that do smoke just haven't been smoking this dangerous,
>> brain-damaging substance long enough yet. :-)
>>
>>> Maybe its OK with you that the Captain on your next airline flight is a
>>> recreational pothead?
>>>
>> Where did this stupid statement come from? Why are such stupid
>> statements always thrown in as if they mean something? You wouldn't
>> want the captain on your next flight to, say, have just had a stroke,
>> would you? You wouldn't want the captain on your next flight to have
>> lost his contacts and his depth perception along with it, would you?
>> You wouldn't want the captain on your next flight to be a member of
>> Al Qaeda on a suicide mission, would you? Of course no one wants any
>> of those things and none of them have to do with whether marijuana
>> causes an inordinate amount of harm or not. They are all just stupid
>> statements like the one you made immediately above.
>>
>> Of course, now that I have reread your statement, of course I
>> wouldn't care if he was a recreational user. I wouldn't care if he
>> had three drinks with dinner two nights before either.
>>
>>> After hours of course. They don't call it "dope" for
>>> no reason, Ken.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Well, they used to call it varying things back in the old days when
>> it was a home remedy for various ills. It only got a bad reputation
>> beginning with its use by the "lesser races" and a worse reputation
>> by propaganda campaigns like the one in which "Reefer Madness" was a
>> part. Without disliked minorities having used it and public
>> propaganda campaigns, marijuana might be not be any better known than
>> anything else used in folklore medicine 100 years ago.
>>
>>> As for comparing pot with big macs, I think your analogy, although
>>> understandable, is however not entirely applicable because the
>>> physiological
>>> motive to eat hamburgers differs greatly from the non-medicinal
>>> reasons to
>>> smoke pot.
>>
>>
>> So those who eat a whole lot of Big Macs to the point of weighing
>> hundreds of pounds and needing two airline seats or even just
>> clogging arteries and dying of heart attacks are much better than the
>> motives of a teenager experimenting or an adult who smokes on
>> occassion to relax or as recreation?
>>
>>> BTW, medicinal pot wil likely be dispensed as an atomized liquid
>>> spray in the future due to the fact that human lungs are not a
>>> chimney flue.
>>>
>>>
>> It will likely be dispensed in a way in which pharmaceutical
>> companies can make a handsome profit off of something that costs next
>> to nothing to manufacture.
>>
>>> In fact, it would not surprise me to see THC in pill form before long.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> It has been in pill form, which according to the drug warriors is
>> okay and the pharmaceutical companies too are perfectly happy. The
>> only problem with the pills for sick people is, if it is taken for
>> people unable to keep food down, they throw them up, if taken for
>> other problems, they can't get a consistent dose. They either
>> overdose or underdose.
>>
>> Ken Ragge
>> http://www.morerevealed.com
>>
> i find funny how they compare like one joint causing more damage then
> like 2 cigs or whatever. It's not like you smoke joints by the pack,
> there is no analogy there.

Bryan,

No, there is not. Nor am I sure that many people would actually be
smoking if marijuana wasn't illegal. As I've noted elsewhere, people
who use medical marijuana in states where it is legal buy "vaporizers."

And besides, much of the testing would be like testing people who ate a
dozen Big Macs with large fries and shake against a "random sample"
coming out of a health-food grocery store to prove that ever eating a
Big Mac is taking your life in your hands. Not that I'm a fan of Big
Macs, either.

Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com

Thanks for adding a little sanity to the post Bob.Reefer Madness lives on!
lol
"Robert McGregor" <robert_mcgregor@knickers.yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:4378042a_1@news.iprimus.com.au...
>
> "stuart" <fred@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:4PSdf.195651$ir4.4858@edtnps90...
>>
>> Ken <nospam@nowhere.org> wrote in message
>> news:_-Cdnb-Wc6FVbOreRVn-oQ@comcast.com...
>>> Rob Watson wrote:
>>>
>>> >a drug is a drug is a drug is a drug
>>> >
>>> >plain and simple same as poison
>>> >
>>> >And, its illegal to grow the shit. that bein' besides him point
>>> >he was
>>> >trying to make in the last replie.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> Rob,
>>>
>>> Someone ought to tell that to all the nicotine and caffeine
>>> addicts at
>>> 12-Step meetings. They aren't _really_ clean and sober.
>>>
>>> Marijuana is the same as poison? Try telling that to people who
>>> use it
>>> as a medication to prevent nausea from chemotherapy, control
>>> glaucoma,
>>> fight muscular dystrophy and etc. and etc. that it is the same as
>>> rock
>>> cocaine.
>>>
>>> Are you people who make such outrageous statements for real?
>>>
>>> Ken Ragge
>>> http://www.morerevealed.com
>>
>>
>> In other words, Ken, common sense must be applied. There is also a
>> legal
>> version of heroin. It's called morphine and its intended purpose is
>> to help
>> those in severe pain live as comfortably as possible. Those who
>> shoot heroin
>> are doing so because they want to get high. Same analogy as with
>> marijuana.
>> Marijuana is NOT a healthy thing to ingest for no other reason than
>> to get
>> high. There are a myriad of serious physical and psychological
>> side-effects
>> both seen acutely and with long-term usage which are well
>> documented....
>
> Well documented Hahahaha. Your undocumented claim is a neat reminder
> of the time cops first proved illicit drug use caused asthma. The
> intrepid investigators found Ventolin at the scene of most every
> bust That was about the time a kiddie cop put on his sternest face
> before proclaiming, "We know you lot are shooting up marijuana here!"
>
> Bob;-)
>
>
>