okay i highly disaprove of drugs these are the pros and cons of legalizing drugs
pros:the industry will go up
cons:many people will die the economy will be destroyed and the stock market will crumble
keep adding stuff to my list and if the pros go way up higher than the cons then I MIGHT change my mind but dont count on it
THC and cannabidiol, both compounds found in marijuana, are potent antioxidants which can prevent brain damage from strokes, head trauma and even nerve gas. Now, further research shows that THC can be used to fight brain tumours, and also seems to offer protection against a variety of other cancers.
Cell studies performed by researchers at Madrid’s Complutense University have demonstrated that high concentrations of THC can induce cell death in a variety of brain tumor cells, without damaging the surrounding healthy cells. Brain tumour cells such as glioma and neuroblastoma were induced to die upon exposure to THC in a process called "apoptosis", a "self-programmed" death. In contrast, healthy brain cells were not harmed even after 15 days exposure to extremely high concentrations of THC.
The researchers noted that they hoped their work "might provide the basis for a new therapeutic application of cannabinoids."
THC prevents cancer
This study echoes the findings of a 1994 US study, which documented that THC may protect against malignant cancers. The $2 million federal study involved injecting rats and mice in the stomach with extremely high doses of THC, hoping to find a connection between THC and cancer.
What the researchers found was exactly the opposite of what the feds had hoped for. Their study showed that rats given high doses of THC suffered from fewer cancers than their non-injected pals. The feds buried the study for almost 3 years, and it became known only after it was leaked to AIDS Treatment News in January of 1997. The Boston Globe broke the story nationwide days later.
Anandamide fights breast cancer
Another study, published in the July, 1998 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that anandamide, a molecule which resembles cannabinoids but is formed naturally in the body, can inhibit the growth of breast cancer cells by interfering with their DNA production cycle. The study was done by the Italian National Institute for the Chemistry of Biological Systems, in Naples.
The amounts of THC used in these studies were all hundreds or even thousands of times greater than that found in the blood of even the heaviest cannabis users.
13 Oct, 1999, Dana Larsen (Sneak Peak from Cannabis Culture #21 (Nov/Dec)))
Dr Andrew Weil wrote a long article in the July issue of Self Healing, called "Why I support medical mairjuana". In it, the influential naturopath wrote "It's unbelievable to me that it is still illegal to use marijuana medically in this country. When I published a study in Science on the physiological and psychological effects on humans in 1968 while I was still a student at Harvard Medical School, I thought that medical use of the plant would be legalized within five years."
Weil complained of "decades of obstruction" by the US Department of Health, and backed immediate change so "that physicians be able to prescribe marijuana to individual patients with debilitating or terminal conditions."
Weil also explained how "many patients have told me that marijuana eased the discomforts of multiple sclerosis, cancer chemotherapy, migraine headaches, severe menstrual cramps, and fibromyalgia," adding "I'm frustrated that as a physician I cannot write them prescriptions or refer them to a reliable source."
now after that go and read this : http://www.cannabisculture.com/backissues/cc05/healing.html
If you would like to know more this site is very good, http://www.pot-tv.net/
I have no idea what you just said but remember pot is extremely hard on the lungs although it could cure cancer it also has other chemicals.
most of those chemicals are dangorous i think it seems you know a lot about medical stuff peloquin correct me if im wrong. also if we legalized some drugs im not sure the amount of people taking them would skyrocket but they will undoubtfully increase by some. also the people arguing that tobbaco and booze are more dangorous keep in mind that pot is almost equally as bad as tobbacco and beer is something mild and not very dangorous at all as long as you dont drink 7 beers plus and I would not trust anyone drunk behind the wheel but I would not trust anyone behind the wheel who was high
Homer_Clone... Where did you get your information? have you yourself researched this or are you just chanting with the crowd?. I'm not saying this in a harsh tone. To tell you the truth I'm actually quite saddened by the lack of education on this and many other topics, well the lack of education in general. I've been researching this for 10 years and over, in relation to medical benifits and the effects on the human mind. I will tell you this: 90% of 'nay sayers' have never and will never research what they're against. (because of FEAR). 96% of all those who do research the medical use of marijuana support it 100%. Ask yourself the question..."have you PERSONALLY researched this and came to your own PERSONAL conclusion?"
Please don't let people use you, research, think, educate, learn, experience and then express your opinion about it.
Just that statement you said " pot is almost equally as bad as tobbacco "
Wrong wrong wrong wrong!!!! look it up.
oh and just to get a point through because I DID read what you had to say.
You said: "I have no idea what you just said but..."
(90% of 'nay sayers' have never and will never research what they're against.)
You said: "pot is almost equally as bad as tobbacco"
From an uneducated point you have made up your mind and spat out that statement. The cycle of fear continues. Please break it.
Originally posted by Peloquin
Homer_Clone... Where did you get your information? have you yourself researched this or are you just chanting with the crowd?. I'm not saying this in a harsh tone. To tell you the truth I'm actually quite saddened by the lack of education on this and many other topics, well the lack of education in general. I've been researching this for 10 years and over, in relation to medical benifits and the effects on the human mind. I will tell you this: 90% of 'nay sayers' have never and will never research what they're against. (because of FEAR). 96% of all those who do research the medical use of marijuana support it 100%. Ask yourself the question..."have you PERSONALLY researched this and came to your own PERSONAL conclusion?"Please don't let people use you, research, think, educate, learn, experience and then express your opinion about it.
Just that statement you said " pot is almost equally as bad as tobbacco "
Wrong wrong wrong wrong!!!! look it up.
Well said and well researched!! Im totally impressed. 👆
Homer_Clone> Mind telling me what POINTS have been raised by people who’re against legalising all drugs that I haven’t discussed – mind you in a far more civilised manner than, say, El Barto?
Do you really think insulting ME and my literary skills will make YOUR point the truth?
Sheehs. What a kindergarten.
Regarding your “bum”, you’re the one who resorts to namescalling and ignoring my reply. You’re supposed to make your point clear – I am not supposed to know what you mean.
You obviously didn’t get the POINT of my previous post. Namely that Peloquin had “a point”. A point is something worth discussing, an argument which – in this case – hasn’t been dealt with.
Peloquin> Ah, it WAS true. I thought I’d heard that somewhere. Thank you for that bit of information.
El-Barto and Homer_Clone> Please READ Peloquins post on WHY pot was banned.
Just goes to show, the government doesn’t care about our health. The Bush-administration just blocked a W.H.O. move to inform better about the dangers of too much fat and sugar, saying it hasn’t been proven there’s a link between eating too much fat and sugar and obesity. 75 % of the US population is fat now, we in Europe are catching up. Fat and sugar, too, are bad for you.
I’ve yet to see a researched, educated argument, backed up with statistics, to show me why I should be against legalising drugs. I’m not gonna take them anyways. Already now I do smoke pot once or twice a year with some friends, we die laughing, party and that’s it. I will smoke no more or no less if it’s legal or not.
All I hear from you are, to quote Peloquin, “chanting”. You repeat yourself over and over again.
Originally posted by homer_clone
okay i highly disaprove of drugs these are the pros and cons of legalizing drugs
pros:the industry will go up
cons:many people will die the economy will be destroyed and the stock market will crumble
keep adding stuff to my list and if the pros go way up higher than the cons then I MIGHT change my mind but dont count on it
Did re-legalizing alcohol destroy the economy? did it make the stock market crumble? NO. Legalizing drugs will turn a multi-billion dollar a year industry into a multi-trillion dollar a year industry. People like you who don't do drugs should be happy that drugs are legalized because different job opportunities will be available to you than to others. You'll out perform people at work and in school. I don't think it should be legalized because part of the allure to it is that it is illegal.
As far as health reasons. I don't see any of you saying "don't drink soda and don't eat fast food." If drugs are so bad for your body, then what is caffine? or greasy fast food? Just because something stimulates your mind doesn't mean it's terrible for you.
Like i said a couple of posts ago. I don't think drugs are for everyone, and i don't recommend that anyone do them outta habit. but trying some of the lighter drugs once or twice during your life time will be an experience that may be enjoyably or eye opening if you will.
I know it' s long but I think it' s worth reading it.
By James Q. Wilson
Illegal drugs—and here I refer chiefly to cocaine, heroin, PCP, and methamphetamine—have three prices that are much higher than what they would be if the sale were legal.
First, under legalization the cash price would be lower. No one knows by how much, but the most cautious scholar says by a factor of three, the boldest one says by a factor of 20. Now take a powerfully addictive substance, one that not only operates on but modifies the human brain by producing compelling effects that often can only be achieved again by increasing the dosage, and ask how many more people would buy it if its cash price were only 30 percent or even 5 percent of its current price. Unless you think that everybody who wants the drug is already using it, a most unlikely possibility, then the answer must be—a lot.
Second, under legalization the quality price would be lower. Drugs are now purchased in most cases from people who offer no meaningful promise of quality. You can buy cocaine or heroin that has been cut five times or 20 times, and cut with sugar or rat poison. The Food and Drug Administration does not require accurate labeling, and unless you are a repeat customer, you probably have no idea what you are getting. Feel like taking a chance? Buy a drug from the furtive fellow on the street corner.
Third, under legalization the search price would be zero. You would not have to search or run risks of being mugged or arrested. Maybe you would be able to buy it in the local pharmacy, but you would get it from some dealer operating in the open with no risk to you.
Cut all of these three prices—the cash cost, the risk of not getting a decent quality, and the absence of searching and running risks—and the total price reduction would not be by a factor of 20 but probably by a factor of 50. Consumption will go up dramatically.
Now what happens? Here is where the only meaningful debate can exist. Do you think that there will be a decrease in drug crime? Maybe—if the crime committed by users seeking money to buy drugs and the dealers protecting their right to sell drugs falls by an amount greater than the increase in crime committed by addicted users who are no longer capable of holding a job. Not all coke or heroin addicts are incapacitated, but a significant fraction—perhaps one-fifth, perhaps more—are. Say we have 1 million users now, with 200,000 of them so dependent on the drug that they are useless for any activity, including holding a job. Now suppose after legalization we have 5 million users, with 1 million totally zonked.
We can support the 1 million on welfare, though I think the political chance of that is utterly remote. Or we can let them fend for themselves by stealing. They may well steal more than the 200,000 steal when the price of drugs is much higher. Take a guess. But remember that after we create the 1 million, we can't turn the clock back. We shall have them forever.
Or to take another example. Suppose we have 15,000 people killed by drunken drivers. How many will be killed by coke- or heroin-addicted drivers if access to those products becomes as easy as access to alcohol is now? There is no way to tell, but it would be foolish to assume that the number would be trivial.
Or ask how many marriages, now afflicted by alcoholism, will be afflicted by drug abuse when drugs become legal. Or how many pregnancies that now are harmed by fetal alcohol syndrome will be harmed by fetal drug syndrome.
Recall also that most people in drug treatment are there because of some form of coercion. Very few walk in on their own. Take away coercion, and you take away treatment for all but a few burned-out addicts.
John Stuart Mill, the father of modern libertarians, argued that people can only restrict the freedom of another for their self-protection, and society can only exert power over its members against their will in order to prevent harm to others. I think that the harm to others from drug legalization will be greater than the harm—and it is a great harm—that now exists from keeping these drugs illegal.
all of you who think its okay for cocaine to be legal go here:
http://www.nida.nih.gov/ResearchReports/Cocaine/Cocaine.html
see how many ppl could get hooked?
and also here for speed:
http://www.dancesafe.org/documents/druginfo/speed.php
it reduces food and sleeping habits good? I think not!