Looks like the DEA is on another propaganda campaign
- Thread starter AGBeer
- Start date
lwien
Well-Known Member
For every study that shows that cannabis "can" be harmful, there are opposing studies that show just the opposite.
If we really look at this objectively, I'm not quite sure what to believe, realizing full well that my thoughts on this may not fair to well here or at any pro-cannabis site.
I know that all of us would like to believe that MJ is totally innocuous, and we can all point to studies to back up that thought, but like I said, there are also studies that show just the opposite.
It's kinda like the news outlets. Right wing conservatives watch Fox News exclusively because it supports their point of view. Left wing liberals may like to watch, CNBC for the exact same reason. Is the news on CNBC anymore valid than the news on Fox? In my mind, they're both full of shit. Like most things, the accurate news falls somewhere in the middle, and the same thing could be said here also in regards to the dangers or non-dangers of cannabis.
If we really look at this objectively, I'm not quite sure what to believe, realizing full well that my thoughts on this may not fair to well here or at any pro-cannabis site.
I know that all of us would like to believe that MJ is totally innocuous, and we can all point to studies to back up that thought, but like I said, there are also studies that show just the opposite.
It's kinda like the news outlets. Right wing conservatives watch Fox News exclusively because it supports their point of view. Left wing liberals may like to watch, CNBC for the exact same reason. Is the news on CNBC anymore valid than the news on Fox? In my mind, they're both full of shit. Like most things, the accurate news falls somewhere in the middle, and the same thing could be said here also in regards to the dangers or non-dangers of cannabis.
AGBeer
Lost in Thought
And Im right there with you L-Dubb. SMOKING of anything is inheirently bad. So yes, they definitely have a point there. However, my issue with this whole thing is WHY.
WHY is cannabis illegal? Is it to help keep us safe (from ourselves?) Maybe it was once upon a time, when we knew less than we did now. But fuck me running sideways - this is my biggest issue with asshats like this that are furthering their 'half truths' to continue their $$$ machine that has become from trying to protect us from ourselves.
I dont disagree with *some* of the points that the DEA pointed out in that paper, but like has been stated before, the side effects and health effects of consuming cannabis (smoked or not) pale in comparison to what the effects of prohibition are.
WHY is cannabis illegal? Is it to help keep us safe (from ourselves?) Maybe it was once upon a time, when we knew less than we did now. But fuck me running sideways - this is my biggest issue with asshats like this that are furthering their 'half truths' to continue their $$$ machine that has become from trying to protect us from ourselves.
I dont disagree with *some* of the points that the DEA pointed out in that paper, but like has been stated before, the side effects and health effects of consuming cannabis (smoked or not) pale in comparison to what the effects of prohibition are.
lwien
Well-Known Member
Vicki said:
I don't know how to reword that but I'll try.
I would think that most users of cannabis would dismiss the DEA report in whole just because it painted cannabis in a negative light without any regard to the possibilites that some of those studies, may in fact, be correct.
They would then counter with reports that showed that cannabis was totally innocuous.
If we take off our pro-cannabis glasses and looked at the issue totally objectively, we may not totally dismiss everything that the DEA has stated, nor would we fall, hook line and sinker, for all those reports that say that cannabis poses no health issues what so ever.
Fuck, just look at all of those things that at one time, the scientific community said was good for us, and they now state that it's bad for us............and.............visa versa.
AGBeer
Lost in Thought
I agree, and as an informed consumer (or at least Id like to believe) I try to see both sides of the argument. My biggest bitch is their underlying agenda and what I have been preaching for over (fuck, 2 decades now)
Its making more money being illegal than it would be if it were legal. Thats MY biggest bitch. Take for example my state - VA. We just had a proposed bill that was PBI (shot down) mainly by 3 characters on the sub-committee. While not unexpected, I found it TOO coincidental and TOO ironic that ALL 3 of these legislators were PARTNERS of a law firm (that dealt with CRIMINAL DEFENSE cases)
In seeing that the typical 'pot head' is an easy target for law enforcement, it makes no sense for them to make this law no longer a criminal offense. I mean, you cant defend someone who is no longer 'breaking the law' right?
Its making more money being illegal than it would be if it were legal. Thats MY biggest bitch. Take for example my state - VA. We just had a proposed bill that was PBI (shot down) mainly by 3 characters on the sub-committee. While not unexpected, I found it TOO coincidental and TOO ironic that ALL 3 of these legislators were PARTNERS of a law firm (that dealt with CRIMINAL DEFENSE cases)
In seeing that the typical 'pot head' is an easy target for law enforcement, it makes no sense for them to make this law no longer a criminal offense. I mean, you cant defend someone who is no longer 'breaking the law' right?
lwien
Well-Known Member
Vicki said:
I believe that also, but that surely doesn't mean that cannabis is TOTALLY safe. It just means that it's "safer" and if there is anything that I take issue with regarding that DEA report, it's that EVERY drug and medication has negative side effects and that one has to weigh the risk/reward ratio, regardless what medication we are taking, and that included cannabis. Hell, did ya ever hear the disclaimers on the television ads on Ambian/Lunestia? Are those risks really worth a good nights sleep? Maybe for some, but wow.......
.
herbgirl
cannabis aromatherapist
what a load of crap.
fucking reefer madness. it isn't medicine unless it's FDA approved??? REALLY????? what about the thousands of years of safety of a lot of herbs? but noooo, unless it has been studied in a double blind placebo trial by an FDA funded lab it's CRAP and USELESS. even the placebo trials have been shown to be skewed because of the actions of you guessed it - that pesky placebo - a common sugar pill!
Jeez, just as a libertarian (but not wackily so) herbalist this blows me away. when will they tell me that chamomile is not a safe plant to be giving my kids because thousands of years of recorded safety just isn't up to par? FUCK THAT!
dude, they don't want to see what pharmaceuticals do to my bipolar, it ain't pretty and may even cost the state some $$ when i get all wacky and need to be hospitalized because their beloved FDA approved pills don't work for me and in fact made me worse!
Let's see what is the FDA's track record is like? hmmmmmmm......
Thalidomide comes to mind, and Avandia, Bextra (which actually worked very well for my hubby's worn knees) all approved and then later banned for various reasons. partly to blame is our litigious society with it's legal system that it's not 'Loser Pays' - but partly also the FDA'S fault for allowing these drugs to market to unsuspecting patients despite the nasty side effects.
My youngest son was initially denied a medicine that he needed (reglan) because it has some very negative side effects, luckily it wasn't banned (at the time, it was banned previously but was brought back because it does work so well) and my son was able to take it without a problem, but it really took a struggle and me telling the docs repeatedly that i fully understood the risks of the drug for them to even prescribe it. I really didn't want my kid on a drug that could cause 'rapid tongue thrusting movements' or 'tremors' or 'tardive diskenisia', but it was best for him and because of the studies that existed i was able to make an informed decision about putting him on this medication. all in all it worked out for him, it did what it was supposed to do and left no lasting side effects that we are aware of. but the point is that i had the opportunity to decide what was best for him. FDA didn't take that right from us.
Here's one for ya FDA, How bout presenting the facts about the negative side effects of a drug and letting responsible adults choose for themselves? wouldnt that cost a lot less too??
AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH. Makes me want to live in a fucking cave somewhere with the government out of my life!!!
fucking reefer madness. it isn't medicine unless it's FDA approved??? REALLY????? what about the thousands of years of safety of a lot of herbs? but noooo, unless it has been studied in a double blind placebo trial by an FDA funded lab it's CRAP and USELESS. even the placebo trials have been shown to be skewed because of the actions of you guessed it - that pesky placebo - a common sugar pill!
Jeez, just as a libertarian (but not wackily so) herbalist this blows me away. when will they tell me that chamomile is not a safe plant to be giving my kids because thousands of years of recorded safety just isn't up to par? FUCK THAT!
dude, they don't want to see what pharmaceuticals do to my bipolar, it ain't pretty and may even cost the state some $$ when i get all wacky and need to be hospitalized because their beloved FDA approved pills don't work for me and in fact made me worse!
Let's see what is the FDA's track record is like? hmmmmmmm......
Thalidomide comes to mind, and Avandia, Bextra (which actually worked very well for my hubby's worn knees) all approved and then later banned for various reasons. partly to blame is our litigious society with it's legal system that it's not 'Loser Pays' - but partly also the FDA'S fault for allowing these drugs to market to unsuspecting patients despite the nasty side effects.
My youngest son was initially denied a medicine that he needed (reglan) because it has some very negative side effects, luckily it wasn't banned (at the time, it was banned previously but was brought back because it does work so well) and my son was able to take it without a problem, but it really took a struggle and me telling the docs repeatedly that i fully understood the risks of the drug for them to even prescribe it. I really didn't want my kid on a drug that could cause 'rapid tongue thrusting movements' or 'tremors' or 'tardive diskenisia', but it was best for him and because of the studies that existed i was able to make an informed decision about putting him on this medication. all in all it worked out for him, it did what it was supposed to do and left no lasting side effects that we are aware of. but the point is that i had the opportunity to decide what was best for him. FDA didn't take that right from us.
Here's one for ya FDA, How bout presenting the facts about the negative side effects of a drug and letting responsible adults choose for themselves? wouldnt that cost a lot less too??
AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH. Makes me want to live in a fucking cave somewhere with the government out of my life!!!
Vicki
Herbal Alchemist
lwien said:Vicki said:
I believe that also, but that surely doesn't mean that cannabis is TOTALLY safe. It just means that it's "safer" and if there is anything that I take issue with regarding that DEA report, it's that EVERY drug and medication has negative side effects and that one has to weigh the risk/reward ratio, regardless what medication we are taking, and that included cannabis. Hell, did ya ever hear the disclaimers on the television ads on Ambian/Lunestia? Are those risks really worth a good nights sleep? Maybe for some, but wow.......
I always listen to the side effects during a drug commercial. It's insane how many, and how severe they can be, including death. At least cannabis has never killed anyone.
aesthyrian
Blaaaaah
To me there is no argument as long as Alcohol and Tobacco are treated the way they are. Both proven to be deadly and fatal. http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/01/alcohol.harm/index.html?hpt=C2
This plant is safer than coffee, soda, even some tea's. Caffeine kills 5000 people a year.
And like the article above points out, football, boxing, and martial arts are all legal. I'm pretty sure people get injured by participating in those activities, so why don't we outlaw those sports? This is a fucking joke. I watch people cram more toxic shit down their throats everyday during lunch break, where's the war on food?
This plant is safer than coffee, soda, even some tea's. Caffeine kills 5000 people a year.
And like the article above points out, football, boxing, and martial arts are all legal. I'm pretty sure people get injured by participating in those activities, so why don't we outlaw those sports? This is a fucking joke. I watch people cram more toxic shit down their throats everyday during lunch break, where's the war on food?
lol Calm down folks its just propaganda. The DEA is the single most corrupted policing agency in the United States of America. Did you know there are DEA agents that just said fuck it to the DEA and stayed working for the violent cartels south of the border simply cause the money was better. The drug war is a smoke screen to cover up poverty in America. As long as they are busting poor people with drugs they wont have to do anything about that poverty. Make no mistake about it people POVERTY is the #1 cause of all crime in America. When you have nothing you will do what you have to to get something. Hope doesnt keep your childrens belly full. The war will never be won much like Vietnam. Due to the fact that SO MUCH MONEY IS MADE ACTING LIKE YOUR FIGHTING IT! THink about it. If you got rid of every drug on Earth tomorrow how many people would be out of a job the next day? MILLIONS Not to mention all the Billions in federal funds. Its just to much money. Money is the SOLE DECIDING factor in all choices the US Government makes. If the bottom line is right(oil rich states have wars) send the troops! If its not (African genocide goes on unhindered) then nothing will get done. Its actualy quite simple and VERY SAD! You will eventually notice that all the states who make the most money from the government fighting marijuanna will be the last of the states that adopt medical marijuanna for its citizens. The formula for your state will be this when GF<TG+IG=MM Translation when the total of taxes generated plus the industry growth is greater than the government funds given to combat you get medical marijuanna in your state.
djonkoman
Well-Known Member
you are right(however I don't know about fox etc, no expert on american tv-channels), but I do believe the truth is more towards weed is harmlesslwien said:
ofcourse it isn't completely harmless but physically that's mostly because of the ways you ingest it
psychologically I do think it's harmfull for some people
but so far the pro-weed movement is much more believable:
-anti-weed researches are often easily debunked, while the anti-weed side completely ignores almost every pro-weed argument and research
-so far the pro-weed research/articles I read looked way more trustworthy/reliable and scientific(written in a scientific style, lots of footnotes with refernces to other scientigic papers etc, vs. the anti-weed side wich is usually way more populistic/adlike/propaganda like in nature/appearance)
ofcourse it could still be that we haven't discovered/proven some negative sides of weed, but as long as those effects are only rumour and not backed by hard reluable scientifgic evidence I think we should addept the core principle of justice: not guilty untill proven otherwise
Goodlife101
Living The Good Life
all 
Goodlife101
Living The Good Life
l
wilf789
Non-combustion-convert
A lot of the problems they highlight to do with the medical marijuana system seem to me to just support an argument for fuller legalisation. In the documentary The Union they make a good point about how decriminalisation, although a step in the right direction in many senses, can actually fail to solve one of the most important issues to do with narcotics - namely the black market. While it's decriminalised it still leaves the manufacture and distribution up to people outside the law, and therefore can't regulate many of the biggest problems that arise from the drug trade.
I also concede the DEA's point, to some extent, that the medical system has been abused by many, despite my belief that the great help it provides to those who need it is worth that in many ways.
Like lwien said the report could have been a lot shorter if they hadn't had to use smoke-related health issues, it could also have been a lot shorter if I could just pop over to the shops to buy my cannabis in a similar way to how I could buy my alcohol or cigarettes as an adult making my own decisions in a free market society.
They also talk a bit about so-called 'skunk' over here in the UK - basically just strong marijuana, but most of it nowhere near as good as Californian or Dutch standards - and how there's a growing amount of evidence linking 'skunk' with mental health issues in adolescents in particular. While I would love to say that weed is great for everyone, I do know a number of people who have had to stop using after they became concerned with the effect it was having on their minds.
While this isn't the case with the majority of users, it is still an issue with marijuana use. This again to me just provides another argument for full legalisation. If they're spending more and more every single year on funding the efforts against illegal marijuana manufacture/distribution etc. but more and more people, according to them, are smoking it, then surely that proves that prohibition doesn't affect usage in the slightest, if anything making more people use. If it were to be regulated and taxed properly and publicly, the revenue raised could be used to educate adolescents in particular about the potential dangers of using 'skunk' and the like, just like how they could be informed about how vodka is different from beer or how if you have a milk allergy you don't drink milk.
Drugs' illegality makes them so much more dangerous than they need to be.
I also concede the DEA's point, to some extent, that the medical system has been abused by many, despite my belief that the great help it provides to those who need it is worth that in many ways.
Like lwien said the report could have been a lot shorter if they hadn't had to use smoke-related health issues, it could also have been a lot shorter if I could just pop over to the shops to buy my cannabis in a similar way to how I could buy my alcohol or cigarettes as an adult making my own decisions in a free market society.
They also talk a bit about so-called 'skunk' over here in the UK - basically just strong marijuana, but most of it nowhere near as good as Californian or Dutch standards - and how there's a growing amount of evidence linking 'skunk' with mental health issues in adolescents in particular. While I would love to say that weed is great for everyone, I do know a number of people who have had to stop using after they became concerned with the effect it was having on their minds.
While this isn't the case with the majority of users, it is still an issue with marijuana use. This again to me just provides another argument for full legalisation. If they're spending more and more every single year on funding the efforts against illegal marijuana manufacture/distribution etc. but more and more people, according to them, are smoking it, then surely that proves that prohibition doesn't affect usage in the slightest, if anything making more people use. If it were to be regulated and taxed properly and publicly, the revenue raised could be used to educate adolescents in particular about the potential dangers of using 'skunk' and the like, just like how they could be informed about how vodka is different from beer or how if you have a milk allergy you don't drink milk.
Drugs' illegality makes them so much more dangerous than they need to be.
thedeserttortoise
Well-Known Member
Pot is big money only if it remains illegal. The DEA spends about 78% of its budget combating pot. That's nothing compared to both public and private industry involved in the incarceration of pot smokers. And, since when have any of you started believing anything that comes out of the federal bureaucracy.... this government is corrupt....period. The FDA has been bought off by the big pharmaceuticals, the DEA is a big business that knows no bound's, the American Cancer Institute, the American Heart Assoc. and on and on. Dig into the facts folks..... big business is your master all the way. There's so many proven carcinogens passed on to you through the FDA and drug companies that's its frigging unreal. Money moves everything now days... until you get the giants out of the way you will never see a true democracy.
Blackthoven
Shaolin Master
I especially liked the part about legalization corrupting the youth, thus leading to a society with more people using harder drugs, I think the premise for that argument was that "today's marijuana is not the marijuana it used to be" and that the potency is way higher... Nice!
But, for the most part I'd have to agree with lwien, but I think they're being a little bias as well! Also, I was trying to find their methods but couldn't find that, so if someone can link me, or give me the page numbers for that I'd be grateful ^.^
But, for the most part I'd have to agree with lwien, but I think they're being a little bias as well! Also, I was trying to find their methods but couldn't find that, so if someone can link me, or give me the page numbers for that I'd be grateful ^.^