Marijuana is drug most often linked to crime, study finds

Soon, when it is legal there will be many products that will eliminate smoking vaporizing etc... all together except for the hard core pot smoker. Liquid THC has already made numerous products from candy to TV dinners, and no doubt there will be flavored beverages like wine coolers introduced so you will have a way of getting a buzz at the bar scene.

 

THC in food form is actually very dangerous. Since the effects of the drug when it's in it's food form are much stronger, many people are being sent to the emergency rooms in Colorado. Besides, since marijuana weakens the immune system, even without the smoke, consuming it will still weaken the immune system and raise somebody's risks for getting cancers.

 

The man is a complete idiot. He is using many arguments that have already been proven wrong by government studies, and he as many of the ding bats who are either afflicted with 'refer madness' syndrome, or a lobbyist for some corporate entity (pharmaceutical, alcohol, tobacco, textiles, farming, petroleum, etc... etc...) who see the legalization of hemp/cannabis as a direct threat to their profit margin.

Nobody who is in favor of legalization, as a legitimate product which has numerous uses, expects it to be handled for personal consumption any differently than alcohol, and this includes doctors/medical professionals as far back as the 1940's who have stated that it shouldn't be, who know and agree that alcohol and cigarettes are much more dangerous, and can "kill" you simply by usage alone. So you shouldn't be driving or operating machinery while under the influence (just like alcohol), and you shouldn't be at work under the influence (just like alcohols), and it isn't recommended for use by minors (just like alcohol). He also needs to take a remedial course on the dangers of alcohol and cigarettes.

 

What else was in their system at the time, and you definitely need to take into consideration their mental state at the time. Many of these people, will admit to anything if they think it will get them a lessor sentence or get them out early or get them preferential treatment. Why do you think so many of them find religion in jail? Because it is forced upon them as part of the AA requirements, which is not only unconstitutional but immoral.

Also who wouldn't want to get out of isolation or some kitchen/laundry duty to take a bias government study for a less than scientific political motivated survey?

 

If we had a sleep czar, he'd be saying sleep causes crimes and must be outlawed.

 

For children it has been found to be rather dangerous, and a few kids that have gotten a hold of laced brownies or the treats meant for adult consumption have been hospitalized for observation. Yes a lot of things weaken the immune system usually from excessive use, kinda like the bacon/egg cancer scares back in the 80's. If you eat too much bacon or eggs it can cause cancer because they used it on laboratory rats and proved it. Problem is that an individual would have to consume 2 million pounds of bacon a year or 50 eggs a day to reach the levels where cancer is inevitable in the human body. This isn't science this is junk marketing to make people scared into buying an alternative, usually chalked full of chemicals and impurities that are far worse for the human body than the items they are trying to demonize and vilify. Also on that topic, nothing and I mean nothing attacks a persons immune system worse than alcohol, there are unbiased literature of abundance on this topic both medical and scientific.

Again you are referencing to misuse and overuse or the use by under developed children or the elderly, as some sort of factual evidence that it is bad for you as a norm. It isn't so stop misinterpreting data for your own agenda and let's discuss this as adults. Excess use of most everything is bad for you. Hell you can die from drinking too much water, and raw potatoes can be more lethal than any strain of marijuana.

Oh and by the way marijuana is a racist slur that shouldn't be used as an alternative to cannabis or even pot. It means basically a Mexican who smokes pot, and it is a kin to other slurs like greaser or taco bender.

 

Why did those kids get sent to the emergency room? What exactly happened to them?

Also, what do you mean by this statement. "marijuana is a racist slur"?

No, it's not. Marijuana is the name of a plant which people use as a drug; how is the word "marijuana" even racist in the first place? Where are you getting your facts from?

 

That's quite a stretch there joe. Maybe in the 30's it would have been a slur, but not anymore. That's the first that I've heard that marijuana is a racist slur and I grew up in LA and smoked marijuana with many mexicans and they used the same term. It has been forgotten that it was orriginally derived as a racist term but now it has worked it's way into the mainstream lexicon. Not a slur.

 

From what I heard they, went to sleep and didn't respond, they also said something about their blood pressure elevating, but they kept them for observation and once the effects wore off they were fine. It did cause a scare, and a good reason to not have THC candy or treats lying around because kids just think they are candy. At our last family reunion one of the kids got a hold of some of those energy bars. The person who bought them for him thought it was just a candy bar. That also caused the scare only he wasn't sleeping he was bouncing off the walls, and his mom thought he had just drank too many sodas. That stuff isn't meant for kids either and again too much of anything can be dangerous.

"Marijuana "is" a racist slur."

It's also the word used by the congressmen in bed with DuPont, pharmaceutical companies, and the lumber industry, to keep the other congressmen who many of which were hemp/cannabis farmers, from realizing they were about to criminalize their own crops, when the USA officially made cannabis/hemp illegal.

You need to do a search on and read the history of hemp/cannabis, and read other literature other than the best government corporate money can buy propaganda, and the religious nut jobs literature, that is basically pulled out of their ass for the most part. There has been numerous legitimate studies done by the medical and scientific community, that conclude that pot should be treated no differently than alcohol since it is much much more safe than alcohol or tobacco. While you are at it read the Laguardia Report/MJ Papers;

http://www.drugtext.org/The-Marijuana-Papers/laguardia-summary.html

Most of which was and has been discarded by the best government corporate money can buy, to please their corporate bosses, and even the majority of government tests/studies done since the 70's confirms them more than they discredit them. The criminal element is created by the effects of prohibition (and as of recently the corporate prison lobbyists are the one's pushing the hardest for harsher sentences and enforcement, go figure), and people with addictive personalities will always find something to do even if the government could properly control the flow of pot, which it has been proven for decades it can't, like alcohol, or harder drugs that are available. The worse thing that can happen to average person who smokes pot is what the government prohibition does to them. And anybody who thinks that having laws against pot protects the kids, hasn't been on a school campus since the 1950's. Pot is and has always been present, and in fact easy to obtain. This so called "war" was lost before it started, and the billions of dollars spent on it since the war started, and some estimates say as much as $42 billion annually in this country spent on the enforcement/support of the pot war alone.

 

For an interesting etymology of the word marijuana, see:

The Mysterious Origins of the Word 'Marihuana'
Alan Piper BA (Modern Arts) History of Ideas
Kingston University, Surrey, (UK)

 

Just because it has become widely used it doesn't take away from the original meaning. It's good for people to understand the truth about the war on pot and how and why it was started. The first pot laws were introduced in Utah as a way of keeping Mexicans from entering the area, and arresting them for deportation. The slur was directed towards them, but was used earlier than that in the Mexican Revolution, as a slur directed towards Mexican soldiers who smoked pot. Funny thing was until the Drug acts of the early 20th century, cannabis/pot was sold over the counter in any local drug store and it was smoked as well as used as an herbal medicinal aid for many of the same things that it is being used for today. Nausea, sleep disorders, digestion problems etc...

Call it what you want but I call it cannabis or pot. Marijuana is a racial slur, and Negroes/blacks/African Americans (whatever is appropriate) folks use the 'n' word too, but that doesn't mean white people should be.

 

You believe that pot is illegal because of Dupont and the lumber industries during the 1930s. However, this is not true, and here's why.

http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/hemp_conspiracy.htm

 

Everything you said there is true and it is important for people to know the history of cannabis, I agree. However, only in academia and in history is marijuana considered a racial slur. Modern, everyday people, no matter the race, do not see marijuana as a racial slur. Ask any mexican pothead in Southern CA about marijuana being a slur and they would have no clue what you're talking about, maybe the some of the older generations may know but it's use as a racial slur has died off. Let it die.

 

Most of those laws dealt with two main concerns. The tainting of agriculture, since the pot was being brought in from Mexico, there was a concern for local crops becoming contaminated by diseases from outside the country, and as in Utah and California it was used as a means to deal with illegal immigration.

Those laws didn't make pot illegal simply illegal to be transported into the country for any other use than medical purposes. Prescriptions for pot had been written in this country for different medical needs from the 1920-1971 when the practice was officially stopped. After that the US Government was the only body that could write legal prescriptions for study purposes that went into the 21st century and probably still going on today.


And yes DuPont was concerned not because of nylon but because of their newest invention, polyester. The lumber companies were also extremely concerned USDA documents showed that hemp produces four times more paper per acre than trees can. One newspaper mogul who started a propaganda campaign against hemp/cannabis, by slandering marijuana and it's users had two grievances. He had purchased huge forests of trees in Mexico he no longer had access to, so he hated Mexicans, and he had a lot of other money invested in the lumber industry to support his newspaper empire raising his individuals profit margin.

Then by the 1904's the oil industry jumped on the bandwagon when Henry Ford develops a car that runs on hemp ethanol fuel. Ford also builds an experimental car body made with hemp fiber, which is ten times stronger than steel and four times stronger than metal. Everything about hemp/cannabis is a direct threat to many industries that were considered the mainstays by WWII.

 

That newspaper mogul which you speak of is a man named William Randolph Hearst, who started the Spanish American War, and he was one of the inventors of yellow journalism. He's also known as Citizen Kane. To quote Brian from Family Guy, he did run a smear campaign against marijuana during the 1930s to protect his interests in the timber industry. However, Hearst ran a smear campaign against pot during the 1930s. 30 American states had made pot illegal long before the 1930s. If Hearst never existed, do you believe that marijuana would still be legal nationwide today, or not?

 

The Henry Ford hemp car isnt exactly a hemp car. The car was made from 70% cellulose fiber of which only 10% of that contained hemp.

This link has period newspapers explaining the car.

 

And with the current economy and job situation, this is bad because?

 

Yeah, but if it were legal, then jobs wouldn't be testing you for it would they? Of course, I guess they could and not hire you if you smoke it, even it is legal...I mean, we are seeing some companies hav ea no-smoker policy and won't hire people that smoke cigarettes.

Whatever. I still say legalize it.

 

They dont test you because they care about you. They dont.

They test you because it lowers their insurance rates.

 

It wasn't just the influences of Hearst, it was an orchestrated effort from racist religious nut jobs as well as the money people or AKA greedy racist corporate nut jobs that brought it to the floors of congress. And no I don't believe it would have been completely illegal if not for the money involved with having it made illegal. If money never came into the issue it probably would have been decriminalized in most states but it would have remained perfectly legal with a prescription everywhere. The campaign to make it illegal is what stirred up all the BS and the lies of mythical proportions to take root. JMHO.

 

Are you aware that if marijuana is legalized, usage will increase, and there will be much more traffic fatalities from people driving while stoned? This is the main reason why I am against legalizing pot. Who cares about what happened during the 1930s. It's totally irrelevant to today's world.

And besides, another reason why pot should stay illegal is because if it's illegal, more kids will think it's dangerous and they won't use it. The statistics have shown that more kids drink alcohol (which is legal), than smoke marijuana (which is illegal). What do these statistics tell you?

 

Given the fact that marijuana is already readily accessible and broadly used, that is speculation. It is certainly speculation whether any increase in use or DUI will outweign the great savings from repealing prohibition.

Reefer madness redux?

How many kids do you suppose think it is dangerous now? Why would they think it is less dangerous after legalization if appropriate warnings are included with every purchase?

 

They tell me that it's easier to get alcohol than marijuana.

 

Thanks for the info, but I never claimed it was made entirely or mostly of hemp, only that it was indeed made 'with' hemp.That was an experimental product and the fuel was the most concerning item of the car. Hemp fuel could be made at home, which wasn't anything new, ethanol made from hemp had been made for over 50 years at that time, he was just bringing an old technology to the forefront. There is a lot of experimenting going on today for the electric vehicles that are turning to hemp too. Versatile, light weight, and extremely strong. I don't see any excuse for being so negative to such a versatile product, it is believed that hemp/cannabis can have as many as 25,000 uses from it's fibers, oils, and/or seeds. It's organic, renewable, it can be grown in abundance, where is all the negativity coming from? Oh yea, people who do not want to compete with it, and the misinformed, by the people who don't want to compete with it.

http://naihc.org/hemp_information/hemp_facts.html

 

If more kids drink alcohol than smoke pot, doesn't this show that there's a less perception of harm with alcohol, than with marijuana, and that more kids are willing to use alcohol than marijuana?