annoy.com

Gibe Home
Annoy.com

Message Forum
Search

Log into your account
Create an Identity

Moments
Terms of Use


Back ~ Post New Topic ~ Post a reply to this topic
Stoned Drivers are Safe Drivers

<< Previous | 1 2 3
Single Page Format / View all Replies

Author

Topic: Stoned Drivers are Safe Drivers

Streetboy

Posted: 6/28/1999 10:17:00 AM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer

However, the paragraph opens with:

Smoking marijuana has the potential to cause both bronchitis and cancer of the lungs, throat, and neck, but this is generally no different than inhaling any other burnt carbon-containing matter since they all increase the number of lesions (and therefore possible infections) in your airways

Snip ...

Smoking cigarettes and smoking marijuana negatively affect different areas of the body, and therefore cause different problems. But everything considered, marijuana-only smokers who average 3 - 4 joints per day show similar symptoms to cigarette smokers who polish off 20 in a day [74]. Although one well-done study tells us that frequent marijuana smokers have a 19% greater risk of respiratory diseases than people who smoke nothing at all [66], it seems that neck and throat cancers are much more likely to result than lung cancer or emphysema. This is because, unlike tobacco, marijuana does not penetrate deeply into the lung. In order to minimize the risk of acquiring neck or throat cancer from marijuana smoke, it is best to (1) avoid as much as possible cigarette-smoking and heavy drinking while smoking marijuana, and (2) eat plenty of vegetables (such as carrots, broccoli, squash, and sprouts) or vitamin supplements of beta carotene, vitamins A, C and E, and selenium [65]. These are believed to impede cancer's progress.

Semms to be remarkably comperable to a medium level smoker.

It still causes bronchial problems and can potentially cause cancer.

Smoke it, fine. But don't pretend that there is no potential for harm.

Additionally, nicotine is not additictive in the classical use of the word. In modern PC blaim game society, the definition has been warped to the point of stupidity. Internet addiction, food addiction, blah, blah, blah. Habit forming maybe, and habituized rituals are often extremely difficult to break.

No, I don't smoke cigs, so I am not rationalizing.

MasterReprisaler

Posted: 6/28/1999 10:53:00 AM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer

It is quite a stretch to assume that any drug that can induce any degree of addiction does not have some sort of negative effect upon the body. Seeing as how addictions are rooted in the central nervous system, within the brain, you do not need to consult some world-reknowned individual with alphabets after their name in order to comprehend that addictive drugs do indeed possess the ability to, at minimum alter, if not even damage the brain to some degree or extent to bring about the need for chemical dependancy.

That's just common sense. Ignoring the truth of the matter is simply asinine.

hogeye

Posted: 6/28/1999 11:03:00 AM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer

Right, MR - alter ... temporarily. Now, for the umpteenth time, for those who 'underestimate' nicotine:

Experts Rate Problem Substances

Withdrawal: Presence and severity of characteristic withdrawal symptoms.
Reinforcement: A measure of the substance's ability, in human and animal tests, to get users to take it again and again, and in preference to other substances.
Tolerance: How much of the substance is needed to satisfy increasing cravings for it, and the level of stable need that iseventually reached.
Dependence: How difficult it is for the user to quit, the relapse rate, the percentage of people who eventually become dependent,the rating users give their own need for the substance and the degree to which the substance will be used in the face of evidence that it causes harm.
Intoxication: Though not usually counted as a measure ofaddiction in itself, the level of intoxication is associated with addiction and increases the personal and socIal damage asubstance may do.



1 = Most serious  6 = Least serious



HENNINGFIELD RATINGS



Substance   Withdrawal Reinforcemt Tolerance Dependnce Intoxictn

----------- ---------- ----------- --------- --------- ---------

Nicotine        3           4         2           1          5

Heroin          2           2         1           2          2

Cocaine         4           1         4           3          3

Alcohol         1           3         3           4          1

Caffeine        5           6         5           5          6

Marijuana       6           5         6           6          4





BENOWITZ RATINGS



Substance   Withdrawal Reinforcemt Tolerance Dependnce Intoxictn

----------- ---------- ----------- --------- --------- ---------

Nicotine        3*          4         4           1          6

Heroin          2           2         2           2          2

Cocaine         3*          1         1           3          3

Alcohol         1           3         4           4          1

Caffeine        4           5         3           5          5

Marijuana       5           6         5           6          4



*equal ratings

UncleBob

Posted: 6/28/1999 11:05:00 AM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer

PS: The last thing you want to consume is a drug that dialates the bronchial passages while iritating the lungs at the same time.

As a long time suffer of asthma, there is nothing more dangerous than having garbarge accumulate in your lungs while they are chemically dilated, you thinks you're fine but when the drug wears off you can be in serious, serious trouble.

It's much better to have the lungs constrict a bit while your'e polluting your lungs than to be given a false sense of security.

Thats why ventolin can be deadly if used to artificially increase your tolerance to lung irritants, like smoking.

When it wears off, it's time to pay the piper in spades.

hogeye

Posted: 6/28/1999 11:15:00 AM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer

Streetboy> But don't pretend that there is no potential for harm.

I don't. I've simply pointed out that 'harmful' and 'harmless' mean nothing without a point of reference. I've stated all along that cannabis has approximately the same risk as caffeine.

It is a shame that current law exacerbates the health risk of cannabis by (in most states) outlawing devices that minimize the harm. If the Indian culture is any indication, after it is legalized and normalized, most people will eat it in candies and drink it.

Since lung cancer is a (if not the) major killer of nicotine addicts, I conclude that cigarettes are much more dangerous than joints, especially since nicotine is so much harder to quit. (See 'Dependence' in previous post.)

Streetboy

Posted: 6/28/1999 11:33:00 AM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer

Wasn't ventolin pulled from the market? Or was it just more severly warning labeled?

Hog, if nicotine were as 'addictive' as you are claiming in your lists, the gov. (FDA or FTC don't recall, don't feel like finding) wouldn't have spanked the nicotine patch sellers so severly for false claims on efficacy due to addictiveness.

The fact is, if it were as addictive as you claim, the rate of cessation by patch for smokers would be much higher. It's about 10%, very similar to all drug placebo rates (except viagra, that's 20%).

The ritualized habit is significantly greater than the addiction level of nicotine. The other part that questions your little table is the fact that use of cigs by people reaches a set level and stays there, it doesn't increase as would be expected from classical tolerance due to repeated use, such as alcohol users, etc, experience.

Clarification on my bronchial contriction. I meant, and should have stated, long term. Long term lung capacity is decreased. UB, thanks for the tip. Temporary bronchial expansion would be bad since pot smokers tend to hold smoke longer an4d inhale deeper.

hogeye

Posted: 6/28/1999 7:53:00 PM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer

Streetboy> Hog, if nicotine were as 'addictive' as you are claiming in your lists, the govt ... wouldn't have spanked the nicotine patch sellers so severly for false claims on efficacy due to addictiveness.

I don't see how that follows. The main hassle with cigs is not addiction per se, but lung cancer and emphysema. Someone on a patch is better off than someone who smokes. (I can't wait for the cannabis patch!) Actually, I think you are probably right that nicotine, like pot, is not addictive by the classic medical definition. But then again, neither is cocaine as it fails the tolerance condition also - or at least whatever tolerance there is, is limited like nicotine.

One of the criteria in the "Relative Addiction" article which nicotine came out quite bad on was Dependence. i.e.

"A central property of addiction is the user's control over the substance. With all drugs. including heroin, many are occasional users. The addictive property of the substance can be measured by how many users maintain a casual habit and how many are persistent, regular users.

According to large Government surveys of alcohol users, only about 15 percent are regular. dependent drinkers. Among cocaine users, about 8 percent become dependent. For cigarettes, the percentage is reversed. About 90 percent of smokers are persistent daily users, and 55 percent become dependent by official American Psychiatric Association criteria, according to a study by Dr. Naomi Breslau of the Henry Ford Health Sciences Center in Detroit. Only 10 percent are occasional users. "

I've had both ex-junkies and ex-alcoholics tell me that cigarettes were in their opinion harder to quit. Nevertheless, "ritualized habit" as you call it may explain it.

RC, I took the title from the original article. What that experiment indicated was that the driving of alcohol drinkers was significantly impaired. The pot-smokers drove even better than the control group(!), but not significantly. Nevertheless, FTR I do not recommend driving while stoned. I recommend walking.

MasterReprisaler

Posted: 6/28/1999 9:48:00 PM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer

NOW you say that...

Streetboy

Posted: 6/29/1999 6:31:00 AM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer

The main hassle with cigs is not addiction per se, but lung cancer and emphysema.

But the government is using the addiction criteria as part of the reason why the cig manufacturers must pay in the tobacco settlement. The argument goes that the additictiveness of cigs is why people (using a legal substance) won't stop. Again, personal responsibility is irrelevant. Therefore, we (gov) must recover huge sums of money (feed at the trough of corporate success) for health care (much data shows this to be false due to decreased life expenctancy).

The true colors come out now. Look and see where all this money is going. It sure as hell ain't all going to the prevent smoking, blah, blah blah shit.

That is why I harp so severely on the addiction issue.

Conspiracy time. The same legal tactics are now going to be used to sue gun manufacturerers. And the best for last. Paint. Gotta sue over that lead paint (I can't link it, the article is over two weeks old. Reported in the Wash. Post).

Who get's rich? The lawyers, the gov. Who get's fucked? Us.

Streetboy

Posted: 6/29/1999 6:54:00 AM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer

That was supposed to be 'decreased life expectancy and the already massive taxation'

Another point. The last thing in the world the gov wants is to totally proscribe smoking. The lost tax revenue would cripple. That's why nothing really serious is done to cause people to stop. But, the gov will quiietly chew away at the liberties of people, using the tobacco issue as a smoke screen.

The reason I mentioned the patch. What other system to quit an addiction goes by a decreasing dosage over time? Alcohol? NO! Heroin? NO! It's all a fucking money making scam that is perpetuated on the idea of 'addicition'.

Then look at Zyban. Side effects include Seizures, nausea, etc. All concoted on the idea that you need help to get over your addiction. The cure is worse than the fucking disease.

There, rant over. I think.

hogeye

Posted: 6/29/1999 8:08:00 AM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer

Streetboy> What other system to quit an addiction goes by a decreasing dosage over time? Alcohol? NO! Heroin? NO!

I don't believe it. I think that tapered withdrawal (as opposed to cold-turkey) has been used for both alcohol and heroin (or at least morphine) in the past. True, the most popular methods today (like AlAnon) take the cold-turkey approach, but that is definitely not the only way. There exist alcohol recovery groups that attempt to turn alcoholics into social drinkers (rather than teetotalers like AA).

I agree that the government has made tobacco and alcohol into a taxation scam. Also I agree that many of the cures are worse than the 'addiction.' At the turn of the century, the morphine addicts were 'cured' by letting them buy clean medicinal morphine legally. People were able to lead normal productive lives, unlike their brethren hooked on alcohol. (Alcohol is more debilitating and long-term unhealthy than medicinal quality morphine. cf: Licit and Illitic Drugs by Consumer Union.)

RichardCranium

Posted: 6/29/1999 7:39:00 PM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer