Would everyone agree that deliberately injuring oneself may or may not be Christian? Good.

Well, this poor-effort question is actually a shameless way of getting in some "health news" into this Catholic board, but if you'll overlook that for a minute, new research is showing that smoking pot @ three joints a day is as hard on someone's airways as smoking a pack of cigarettes per day, so I'd say sometime over the next few years we'll start hearing about MJ induced lung cancers too. Link Quit your pot habit.

Pot as Tough on Lungs as Tobacco

Today's Cannabis Stronger, With More Carcinogens, Than in the 1960s By Jeanie Davis Reviewed By Michael Smith, MD WebMD Medical News

Nov. 12, 2002 -- Strong words of warning for those who smoke pot: British researchers have found that smoking pure cannabis harms your lungs as much as tobacco does.

Smoking three cannabis joints a day causes the same damage to the lining of the airways as 20 cigarettes. In fact, the tar from a joint contains 50% more cancer-causing substances than tobacco, says the report, published by the British Lung Foundation.

"These statistics will come as a surprise to many people, especially those who choose to smoke cannabis rather than tobacco in the belief that it is 'safer' for them," says Mark Britton, MD, chairman of the British Lung Foundation.

The report surveys all current medical and scientific research into the direct effects of smoking marijuana -- both alone and with tobacco -- on the smoker's respiratory health.

Among the findings:

The cannabis smoked today is much more potent than that smoked in the 1960s -- more than 15 times as potent. People who smoke cannabis have significantly more respiratory symptoms such as chronic cough and mucus production, wheezing, and acute bronchitis. Smoking three or four cannabis cigarettes a day causes the same degree of damage to the lining of the airways as 20 or more tobacco cigarettes a day. Cannabis tends to be smoked in a way that increases the puff volume by two-thirds and the depth of inhalation by one-third. There is an average fourfold longer breath-holding time with cannabis than with tobacco. This means that there is a greater respiratory burden of carbon monoxide and smoke particulates such as tar than when smoking a similar quantity of tobacco. As with tobacco smoking, the research also shows a possible link between cannabis smoking and emphysema.

A survey earlier this year showed that 79% of children believe that cannabis was 'safe,' according to the British Lung Foundation's news release. Only 2% understood correctly that there are health risks associated with smoking pot.

SOURCES: News release, British Lung Foundation • Mark Britton, MD, chairman, British Lung Foundation.

© 2002 WebMD Inc. All rights reserved.

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 27, 2002

Answers

top

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 27, 2002.

Frank no disrespect but I think everyone knows smoking dope aint too good for you. Anyone who has smoked a bit will know its much harsher on the throat, yet personally Id rather take my chances with a natural herb with no additives than 400 toxic nasties and addictive substances packed into a cigarette by companies to get you addicted.

The damage these chemicals do to you both short and long term the tip of which is only started to be revealed. "Which is worse" is rather academic anyway, what is clear is that in western socities both alcohol and smoking cause more harm in our socities both in terms of individual health and social ills in such an exponentialy greater factors that such comparisons are rendered worthless. Perhaps you should use your obvious medical knowledge to draw attention to the far more common and widespread problems associated with legal drugs before begining on a reffer maddness campaign. Just MHO but Im guessing that most of the forum people are well versed on the "evils" of illegal drugs yet blissfully unaware of the real risks involved with drinking and smoking.

ps Im a rather big drinker, very occasional smoker(1 or 2 a month) and dont take any illegal substances. also.. rent the dvd "the insider" ;-)

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), November 28, 2002.

time for me to do a usdual "flip flop" whatever that means . Ignore me please Frank Im ranting, still got libertarian blood flowing in my viens and the illegal drug issue tends to get my back up, and a few BEERS always makes one quicker to anger and less thoughtful ;). If a moderator reads this could they please delete my above post. Thankyou.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), November 28, 2002.

Alcoholics Anonymous is waiting ---

So is cirrhosis of the liver.

-- time to get (on@the.wagon), November 30, 2002.

Kiwi,

No, the point is every street-corner know-it-all says, "pot is safe" compared to cigarettes. I've always thought that wrong for no other reason than smoking is putting the same stresses on the lining of your lungs from inhaling the smoke.

As a related example, alcoholics, gastric reflux people, smokers and people who drink *very* hot liquids, people who try to kill themselves by drinking lye, etc. all are risk factors for esophageal cancer. I'd suspect as they have nothing in common, what IS common to all of them is a repeated or serious injury to the local cells. For me it's nice to be able to say "see, that pot you're smoking is NOT safe compared to cigarettes"!

And I don't mind a drunken rant or two.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 30, 2002.

ha ha very clever "time to get...a life" though bugger the therapy Im no alcoholic. I can go weeks without a drink sometimes! The poor old liver takes a bashing every now and then, but so far so good all organs intact. Frank what can you tell forum readers about the liver,what does it do, doesnt it do a whole range of things? Someone tells me that even if you damage it by drinking,if you stop drinking it will repair itself. True? Im kind of countinmg on this ;-)

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), December 01, 2002.

Kiwi,

The liver does a lot. It secretes bile to absorb fats from your diet, and when you eat most of the blood from your digestive tract goes through the liver before returning to general circulation. The liver pulls out the big bolus of food and titrates out the proper amount of nutrients to be released into the blood stream at a given time. It also acts as a filter and purification plant so that any toxins you ingest are broken down in the liver, and functions as a recycling/ excretion plant for cellular material. It pretty much maintains homeostasis for the blood stream, which is VERY important as our biology depends on chemical reactions, and with the proteins in the body may or may NOT work well depending on the patient's pH.

You can't live without a liver, but the liver *is* very regenerative, and can grow back large parts of itself after removal or damage. A binge a week or so can for most people probably be repaired, but people who drink a bottle of vodka a day sooner or later usually end up with some liver damage (and other damage!!). If this gets really bad the liver gets scarred and shrunken and oozes fluid into the peritoneal cavity. This is usually non-reversible, but even at this stage if the person stops drinking the liver tends to regenerate "islands" of good, functional tissue. If your liver gets *too* shot (and this point is different for different people) though, you die.

Frank

P.S. As an aside, this is compared with the lung which has 2 main types of cells, conveniently named "type 1&2". The first type is a very thin cell that allows for O2 and CO2 tranfer, and the type 2 is a helper cell that is NOT good at gas transfer. Unfortunately, our bodies only reproduce type 2 cells after damage, so that smokers never can really repair the damage done to their lungs. One doesn't notice this damage for *many years* due to the large reserve capacity of the lungs, but once it occurs, it's there for good. The other main damage of smoking is a change in the surface epithelium in the bronchi, but I'll leave that for next time.

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 01, 2002.

Kiwi,

I know some people that take "Milk Thistle" to help repair their liver. Go to google.com and type it in, and you will read what I am talking about. It can be bought at a gnc, or a wallmart. Just a thought, bro. ;-)

-- Lou (fighting@Irish...), December 01, 2002.

Thanks Lou. Frank fascinating stuff. Im especially intrested in how our bodies respond to different types of exercise and how to develop an all round balance between power, strength and endurance for rugby without trading off one factor too much (unlike American football players we have to have a high base level fitness as well as just explosive power and upper body strength) but Im getting a bit old for an All Black call up although Im forever hopeful ;-).

I sometimes wonder about diet and smoking advice we are constantly bombarded with. I think about the Italian and French diet, high in saturated fats and calories, consider their wine intake and smoking habits and wonder why they are not all dying like flies at 50. I think highly processed foods is more damaging than natural foods and I think stress is a bigger killer than anything else, but have absolutley NO proof for this just a belief that if you enjoy life youll live longer!

Thanks again Frank.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), December 01, 2002.

Topic drift... Dad died of liver failure brought on by a diabetes medicine.

Afterwards I went to my favorite herbal medicine book. I read that such and such remedy would “cleanse the liver”, but that the User of such a remedy may get raised bumps on the skin. Well those raised bumps were one of dad’s terminal symptoms. So be careful about herbal stuff.

On topic, Agree that alcohol and marijuana are both equally destructive. I have seen a marijuana ‘junkie’. Dude had a rather distressing lack of motivation and expression. But also agree that both are better than the harder stuff (heroin, acid, speed, cocaine).

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@juno.com), December 02, 2002.

I don't smoke and don't drink; however, one of the things I love about the Catholic Church is that it does NOT forbid these things, provided they are done in moderation and don't take money or time away from your duties to family and church.

If marijuana were to become legal, I would not smoke it, but would defend the moral right of others to do so - just as I defend the rights of tobacco smokers and those who enjoy a few beers before, during and/or after a football game.

All this is NOT to say that marijuana can't be very dangerous to your health - but just to remind us, in discussing these issues, that we are Catholics, not Puritans!

-- Christine L. :-) (chris_tine_leh_man@hotmail.com), December 02, 2002.

Christine,

Yes, "all things in moderation". Personally, I kind of flip-flop on whether or not to legalize pot. On the one hand, I don't think if used *occasionally* it would be more harmful than alcohol. On the other hand, society has a Major problem with people abusing alcohol that might be magnified with a whole new set of legal abusers.

This is, of course, leaving out the issue of personal freedom...

Kiwi,

I've actually been a weightlifter for years, although don't have the time to get to it more than a couple times a week now, it's enough to maintain a *reasonable* amount of strength. My main advice on that would be concentrate on large muscle groups first, small later if you have time, or "start at the center, work outwards". For example, concentrate on squats, deadlifts: upright rows, lats, shoulders: bench but work in other leg stuff, curls, and tris at the end of your workout. Studies have shown that focusing on large muscle groups does build bulk faster.

Every sport has a *prefered* work out regimen, and I'm sure your pro or college rugby teams can advise you on a build up program. When I had more time I'd do a 3 routine weights work out legs, chest & tris, back, shoulders, bis, with running every other day, usually skipping Sunday. Now I take less time and alternate running three times per week and doing chest, tris,and squats one day with back, shoulders and bis the other. It works pretty well if you stick to it, and if you get busy just pick up where you left off.

Don't over-train, getting a weight work out 7 days a week is counter- productive.

There are many *styles* of doing things, from a lot of sets of few reps to many exercises per day, etc. I've at least half-heartedly tried a lot of them, and what works best for me is to pyramid up in weight, doing 10 reps of a light warm-up weight, 10 of the heaviest weight I can do 10 of, then decresing 6-8, 4-6, 2-3 1-2, and back down. When I consistently break these numbers, I add weight to get back in range. I really believe doing more sets of a given exercise each day is better than doing less sets of more exercises.

Also, don't try and go up in weight too fast! Form is everything, and the idiots you see wiggling all over a bench to press up some weight too heavy for them are fools. Think of lifting as a process, and no given weight as the end (easier said than done, goals help too), but don't try to be a he-man one-upping the next guy, worry about yourself. There will *always* be someone stronger than you, don't sweat it. If you get your form down, you'll be much stronger a year from now than the bozos who are trying to cheat.

Hope this helps, a good weight work out for bulk/power and running for stamina is a pretty good all-around build up program.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 02, 2002.

Did you know that marijanna intollerance is the main cause of racist breeding?

This leads to low birth rates, mutancy, sodemy and slavery. The Church of Rome must beg forgiveness if they want angels for Italy.

-- Rita Hill of Earth (leouna@yahoo.com), December 03, 2002.

Rita, darling Sister!
Haha! We love you, and want you to keep coming here. But don't blame everybody for slavery or racial injustice. Our Lord loves the dark peoples and some whites He will condemn to the flames someday. Others black will enter hell too, while God-fearing dark people will enter His kingdom. -- Works for any color.

Tell you a story, it's true. Long ago, my Uncle Henry told us this, about his wife Carmen.

''The bell rings; I'm in the bathroom. Carmen opens the front door. A big black womman is standing here. She's got a cab waiting in the driveway. I come out, and see:

My wife lets this lady use our telephone. Her call is maybe for five minutes. She puts one foot up on the arm of our sofa, and chats away. Then hangs up and goes out saying- ''Yo; Thanks!''

I ask Carmen. ''Are you crazy? How do you let a stranger like that into our house? No manners, etc., look-- Don't EVER do this again!''

He goes on: ''Her face is real sad; she says to me: --''Well I had to let her come in our living room, Henry. You can't really know sometimes. She might've been Our Blessed Mother in disguise; how do you KNOW??? ''

That aunt of mine was a pure-D saint!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 03, 2002.

Thanks Frank I meant to reply sooner but got sidetracked. Im actuially an old bugger (in contact sports terms anyway) being closer to 30 than 20.Like yourself I used to do a serious amount of weights splitting the body up and taking all the supplements normally gaining about 5 kgs muscle over the summer bulking up.Time to show off... I used to bench 130 kgs BUT and this is where I thought I was pretty special ;-) also could run a half marathon in 1.20 hour. I am but a shade of my former self, I blame this site but the reality is the older I get the harder I find it to get off the couch. I sound completley self absorbed, no more talking about myself! See you.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), December 04, 2002.

Kiwi,

Well, at least you blame yourself for sitting on the couch, *I* usually put the blame squarely on my wife for cooking nutritious meals. :-D

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 04, 2002.

I would like to contribute my "non christian" view point to the discussion. I myself have used marijuana, cigarettes, and alcohol. I am not an abuser, I live a relatively normal life, and am healthy as far as I can tell. I am aware of the drawbacks of all of these substances, both factual, rumored, and from my own personal experience, all three of these blur.

It is not my responsiblity to take care of you, you will do what you want. If it affects me in a reasonable manner I will inform you, and do what I can to not allow you to pass on your destructive habits.

My point is that I have a right to do with (destroy in some cases) my body as what I wish. It is my right as a living creature, what right does any person have to impose thier morals onto me? I know, I know there are those of you saying, what if what you do harms another, to you I say this, if I hurt your feelings develop some coaping skills, physical harm is where I draw the line.

Please any comments are welcome, I am very passionate about this subject and would find it benifical to discuss and learn from others.

-- Jordan, like I am putting it on the net (jordanthedevil@hotmail.com), May 30, 2003.

I know there is much above not covered, but no one will read it if I cover all my bases, I am not trying to be crude, just honest.

ps what is the thing beside my name, is that the person reviewing the board?

-- jordan (jordanthedevil@hotmail.com), May 30, 2003.

and moral relativism rears up again. "dont judge ME"

heh. you raise the question that plagues all morality, not just smoking pot, but im going to leave it to other philosophers to refute it this time.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), May 30, 2003.

I resent the fact that you feel I can be proven wrong so easily. The "don't judge me" position as you so eloquently summarized it, is at obvoius odds with your "do as I say, or go to hell" stand point. But believe me, I have had a unique insight into your world, and I think I may understand where the confusion lies.

I do not wish to escape responsibility, but I do believe that it is my responsibility to do my best to disolve injustices in the world, no matter the significance. And it is my position that the current legislature in North America is unjust, regarding many things including marijuana.

-- jordan (jordanthedevil@hotmail.com), June 01, 2003.

This adress contains a parody article. From what I gather it attempts to put some perspective on the prohibition on drugs....Important to read the footnote at the end.

http://my.marijuana.com/article.php?sid=6554

-- jordan (jordanthedevil@hotmail.com), June 01, 2003.

HAHAHA, that article was hilarious. ridiculous but hilarious. the effect of 'meditation' is no such thing as the author of that article portrays. medition and drug use are two COMPLETELY different things, as are their outcomes. anyone skilled in actual meditation can tell you this.

but either way, the theory you ascribe to is called moral relativism. its nothing new really, been around for a long time. tends to be most popular among college students, although i have an opposing theory on that. i never said you were going to hell though, just that your relativistic arguement is wrong because your premise that morality is based on individual values is wrong. no condemnation really, but the fact that you are so defensive leads me to believe that you know what you are doing is wrong, but feel some great need to make it right, not only to us but to yourself as well. its called 'defense mechanism.'

best of luck with your drug problem.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 01, 2003.

best of luck with your drug problem

sorry, that was rude, i appologize

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 01, 2003.

Before this becomes a pissing contest of sorts I would like to clear the waters. First, if you consider casual marijuana use, for me that means once or twice a month if that, a "drug problem" I really have no defence.

Secondly, you never said I was going to hell just as I never said "dont judge ME". I was merely pointing out, in a sarcastic manner, that it was a unfair and hasty judgement of me.

I do not think the personal attacks serve any purpose other than to confuse the point I put forth, I see no significant rebutle to my statement. I appologize for offending you in such a manner, I was simply seeking so constructive discussion on the topic.

I do not understand what you are getting at with the statment, " your premise that morality is based on individual values is wrong." On what grounds exactly are you basing the fact that I am wrong?

Your right about my moral realativism, I do what I believe is right, this is the only refrence point I can trust. But it is constanly growing and it never stagnates. Just as you, I find things such as jealousy and discrimintaion and oppression repugnent. So you see I am not without values, I simply came about the underrstanding of mine in a different manner.

I am not exercising a "defense mechanism", I am simply trying to explain to you where I stand.

-- jordan (jordanthedevil@hotmail.com), June 02, 2003.

allow me to respond then once or twice a month if that, a "drug problem" I really have no defence. i took back the drug problem thing, as you didnt really make a statement of anything indicating any more than occasional drug use. it was a unfair and hasty judgement of me. im not judging YOU. i could care less if you smoke pot or not. in fact, i dont even think of occasional drug use as morally wrong, although because of my line of work i dont use it. all i was making a judgement of was your ARGUEMENT which contains a false premise (i'll explain below) I do not understand what you are getting at with the statment, " your premise that morality is based on individual values is wrong." On what grounds exactly are you basing the fact that I am wrong? heres how it works... without delving too deeply, im travelling and so i dont have my ethics notes with me. you give an arguement like this:
all morals are relative to the individual choice(false premise)
choice in smoking pot is an individual choice (true)
ergo, the morality of smoking pot is relative to individual choice (answer indeterminable because one premise is false) cultural relativism (the idea that morals vary from culture to culture) is MORE exceptable than individual relativism, but still has its flaws anyway. the very notion that all morals are relative to the individual is a ludicrous idea that no longer holds any sway in philosophical situations. if we look at any given culture, we can see that there are set standards and moral norms, if you will. we recognize that these moral norms apply accross the entire culture, and people who violate these norms are known as cultural deviants (a poor word choice because of negative connotations, but thats the term). without at the very least having cultural relativism, the whole system of law and order breaks down. all of it. the idea is this, i dont necessarily think your conclusion is wrong, just that your arguement for moral relativity is wrong. trust me though, i see the same arguement from ALOT of people all the time.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 02, 2003.

for some reason my formating went very awry. please excuse, i know you'll figure out what i mean.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 02, 2003.

Please tell me then why it is the right of another to impose their belief system on me? I guess I should ask you where exactly you stand on the issue of marijuana.

I have done some reading on moral and cultural relativism, it was interesting to hear about it from both sides of the fence. I know this isn't the first time you've heard the argument, I also know that I am not going to win my argument with you over moral and cultural relativism. But I do believe that we see relativism in different lights.

Just incase you are against marijuana, here is a sight highlighting some very interesting facts about it.

http://www.nemeton.com/axis-mutatis/hemp.html

-- jordan (jordanthedevil@hotmail.com), June 03, 2003.

jordan, actually, as i said in my last post, im not against casual use of natural substances, although i personally choose not too. heres what a more valid arguement would look like, although there is certainly room to improve. an immoral act involves sin(true negative premise)
casual use of pot does not involve sin(true negative premise)
ergo casual use of pot is not an immoral act(true negative conclusion) simple as that, and you have a non relativistic arguement that melds very nicely with the idea of divine command, the moral grounds which faith requires we ascribe to (the moral right is such because God makes it so). does that patch things up a little better?

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 03, 2003.

Jmj
Hi, "little paul."

I see that Jordan has disappeared for four days. Maybe he finally realized that this is a Catholic discussion forum? I don't suppose a guy whose e-mail address is "jordanthedevil" feels too comfortable here.

Anyway, I have to take exception to something you have been telling Jordan -- something made very explicit in your last post. You wrote:
"casual use of pot does not involve sin (true negative premise)"

I disagree, and my argument goes like this ...
(1) It may not be true where you are [Germany?], but in most places in the world, the use of merrywanna is against the law.
(2) The banning of potentially dangerous substances is not an unjust act by a legislature.
(3) For this reason, an anti-pot law is not unjust.
(4) Everyone must obey every just civil law. To disobey is a crime (civilly) and a sin (theologically).
(5) Therefore, disobeying an anti-pot law is a crime, and it is sinful.

I'm glad that you're not a user, paul.
God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 07, 2003.

points well taken john...

i was coming from a perspective that if the laws are changed such that use of pot was legal, then there would be no legal infraction and hence the morality issue would be moot. outside of the disobedience to law, it is hard to find a reason to morally condemn a pot smoker.

if i may present a case without trying to offend... during the time of prohibition, to consume alchohol, to import such, was against the law. this practice was not abandoned in the catholic church, but this was not an infraction of moral right. im not saying this makes your point invalid, but how would a situation like that stand, considering one cannot substitute mustim for wine in the mass, and yet use of wine would have been illegal?

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 07, 2003.

Jmj

Hi, "little paul."
I hope that I am understanding your question correctly.
The Volstead (Prohibition) Act of 1920 did not forbid the use of wine in ecclesiastical services, so there was no crisis or disobedience of a law. The Act stated:

"Nothing in this title shall be held to apply to the manufacture, sale, transportation, importation , possession, or distribution of wine for sacramental purposes, or like religious rites ... No person to whom a permit may be issued to manufacture, transport, import, or sell wines for sacramental purposes or like religious rites shall sell, barter, exchange, or furnish any such to any person not a rabbi, minister of the gospel, priest, or an officer duly authorized for the purpose by any church or congregation, nor to any such except upon an application duly subscribed by him, which application, authenticated as regulations may prescribe, shall be filed and preserved by the seller. The head of any conference or diocese or other ecclesiastical jurisdiction may designate any rabbi, minister, or priest to supervise the manufacture of wine to be used for the purposes and rites in this section mentioned, and the person so designated may, in the discretion of the commissioner, be granted a permit to supervise such manufacture."

Now, if the Act had forbidden the use of sacramental wine, then we would have had a nasty situation on our hands. It would have been considered an unjust law (at least by Christians and Jews), and there probably would have been civil disobedience in thousands of churches (instead of just in "speakeasies").

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 08, 2003.

If we are talking about sin, and its implication with current legislation in many countries, then I feel I must add this point for you all to think about. Decide for yourself. Which of the twho sins is worse, the amount of lives destroyed by pot abuse/use, or the amount of lives destroyed because of the criminalization?

Statistically speaking more people are sent to jail & made criminals of, familys torn, young lives haulted than of any life harmed by the use of marjiuana alone(not including law).

The state has put into effect since before I was alive a law that hurts more than it helps. I don't know what else to say.

-- jordan (jordanthedevil@hotmail.com), June 10, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, Jordan.

You wrote: "Statistically speaking more people are sent to jail & made criminals of, familys torn, young lives haulted than of any life harmed by the use of marjiuana alone(not including law)."

That is a deceptive method of comparison. Those are not the two things that should be compared -- how many lives are damaged by the actual smoking of marijuana versus how many are damaged by conviction and punishment for breaking anti-marijuana laws. The proper comparison is between ... (1) how harmful (to self and society) is the use of marijuana ...
versus ... (2) how helpful (to self and society) is abstinence from marijuana.

Obviously, #2 wins, hands down.

God bless you.
John
PS: Even if one were to accept your comparison, he could make a good case to show that pot-users and society are more harmed by the use of marijuana than by the incarceration of convicted users. If this were not true, the laws would have never been enacted (or would have been overturned long ago).

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 11, 2003.

(1) how harmful (to self and society) is the use of marijuana. Vs. (2) how helpful (to self and society) is abstinence from marijuana.

As a society we may be healthier without marijuana use, this should be how marijuana is treated, as a health problem not a criminal one. Take two examples: America, has a very tough drug policy that has not decreased crime, or use while there are hundreds of thousands of users in jail that you are paying for. Now in Holand, or Poland or where ever it is I can never remember the name: they have decriminalized and for some drugs legalized the use and sale. Crime is down, use is down. It is treated as a medical problem not a criminal one.

The incarcaration of users takes people that are not normally criminals, and condemns them of a life amoung theives, murderers, felons, rapists. Now you can't tell me that a man going to jail for 15 years with these people won't come out a criminal?

There is no case for your last point;

"Even if one were to accept your comparison, he could make a good case to show that pot-users and society are more harmed by the use of marijuana than by the incarceration of convicted users." It costs us more to pay living costs of a man for 15 years than for any number of hospital bills. There is absolutely no conclusive proof of a correlation between use of marijuana and crime. What is the case?

-- jordan (jordanthedevil@hotmail.com), June 11, 2003.

Holand, or Poland or where ever it is I can never remember the name: they have decriminalized and for some drugs legalized the use and sale. Crime is down, use is down. It is treated as a medical problem not a criminal one.

holland, and youre wrong, crime and use is not down. if youve ever been to amsterdam the whole city reeks of pot. not to mention, it attracts street scum from all over the planet.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 11, 2003.

Jordan, you asked, "What is the case?"
I will try to get back to you tomorrow (unless someone else answers first).
Thanks. JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 11, 2003.

Subject: Marijuana hazards and Catholic teaching

Hm. I thought this thread was about the effects of marijuana on Catholic teaching, one of which being the current state of religious education in the whole North Atlantic part of the world. :)

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), June 11, 2003.

Eight years ago Douglas Lamar Gray bought a pound of marijuana in a room at the Econo Lodge in Decatur, Alabama. He planned to keep a few ounces for himself and sell the rest to some friends. Gray was a Vietnam veteran with an artificial leg. As a young man, he'd been convicted of a number of petty crimes, none serious enough to warrant a prison sentence. He had stayed out of trouble for a good thirteen years. He now owned a business called Gray's Roofing and Remodeling Service. He had a home, a wife, and a two-year-old son. The man who sold him the drug, Jimmy Wilcox, was a felon just released from prison, with more than thirty convictions on his record. Wilcox was also an informer employed by the Morgan County Drug Task Force. The pound of marijuana had been supplied by the local sheriff's department, as part of a sting. After paying Wilcox $900 for the pot, which seemed like a real bargain, Douglas Lamar Gray was arrested and charged with "trafficking in cannabis." He was tried, convicted, fined $25,000, sentenced to life in prison without parole, and sent to the maximum-security penitentiary in Springville, Alabama -- an aging, overcrowded prison filled with murderers and other violent inmates. He remains there to this day. Under the stress of his imprisonment Gray's wife attempted suicide with a pistol, survived the gunshot, and then filed for divorce. Jimmy Wilcox, the informer, was paid $100 by the county for his services in the case.

-- jordan (jordanthedevil@hotmail.com), June 12, 2003.

so what youre saying is we should feel bad for this man who has broken a law seriously by purchasing a whole pound of pot? you know how big a pound of weed is right? thats like, two gallon bags full. at least. no, that amount is so much that there could only be criminal intent. i doubt strongly that he got life imprisonment without parole though, so why dont you post us a link to that article so that we can see it ourselves?

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 13, 2003.

yeeah... life in prison. You can't be serious!

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), June 13, 2003.

This story is 100% true, and as I can see some of you agree you think it is as insane as I do. Say what you will about marijuana but do you really believe it deserves a stiffer sentence than murder? If so, we are in completely different universes.

So without further adue here is the site: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/97apr/reef.htm

-- jordan (jordanthedevil@hotmail.com), June 14, 2003.

in searching for this issue on the internet, i find only one thing which is not provided by a pro pot web page. this leads me to realize two things. first, the likelyhood that this happened is not great, because EVERY major news headline would pick it up, and everyone would have opposing views. not to mention law archives which record the results of all cases and appeals. the other thing i found was that the original artical on douglas lamar gray was written by a man named stephan glass. heres what i managed to find on this man, among other interesting articles about falisfying articles...

The only unusual thing about Stephen Glass' fall from grace, as far as I can see, is that he was caught. Fabrication, in small or large part, will always be common in a profession that, too often, values sensation over substance, and where older editors increasingly turn to younger writers to provide them with "buzz", or a window on trends, real or spurious. Freelance writers and junior editorial staff, like Glass, are the disposable shock troops of this regrettable but seemingly ineradicable side of the business.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 14, 2003.

Thank you, Paul. I think I hear the noise of a balloon deflating.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), June 14, 2003.

I apologize - my last post was unintentionally rude.

Truth is, if the Lamar Gray article was true, I would be pretty infuriated myself. However, such arguments only confound the issue. Regardless of whether the punishments are disproportionately harsh, the prohobition of marijuana remains just and binding. Appeals to the 'cruelty' of the legal system are only fallacies.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), June 14, 2003.

"Current debates on cannabis policy are dominated by attempts to establish the potential health costs of use of cannabis. While accurate assessment of the potential harms of cannabis is desirable, it is at least as important to estimate the costs which are usually ignored of current cannabis controls.

High costs of control noted decades ago Perhaps doctors have often led the search for less harmful drug policies because the premier axiom of medicine is "first, do no harm." In 1893 Britain's Indian Hemp Drugs Commission concluded that excessive use of cannabis was uncommon and that moderate use produced practically no ill effects. In 1926, Sir Humphrey Rolleston, then president of the Royal College of Physicians, chaired a committee that recommended against criminalising opiates.2 Similarly, Dr W C Woodward, counsel to the American Medical Association, testified in Congress in 1937 to the lack of evidence justifying criminalisation of cannabis3 and several other commissions in Britain, Canada, and the United States have come to similar conclusions.4 In 1972, an American presidential commission concluded that marijuana "does not warrant" the harmful consequences of "criminal stigma and threat of incarceration."5 In 1978, President Carter told Congress that "penalties against the use of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of a drug itself; and where they are they should be changed. Nowhere is this more clear than in the laws against the possession of marijuana."6 Unfortunately, little has changed since President Carter uttered these words. The UK Police Foundation's review of cannabis policy in 2000 was the most recent senior international committee to reach the same verdict: "Our conclusion is that the present law on cannabis produces more harm than it prevents."7

Social costs Beyond the substantial fiscal costs of enforcing the prohibition of cannabis, the social costs of such policies are considerable. Around the world each year, the lives, education, and careers of hundreds of thousands of people are damaged by the stigmatising experience of arrest. Families face lost incomes and emotional stress. Many cannabis users are already socially disadvantaged, so for them criminal penalties for possession of cannabis often entail additional costs, including disruption of relationships and loss of housing and employment.8 Current cannabis controls drive a wedge between parents and their children, health professionals and their patients, teachers and their students, and police and their communities. It is impossible for the many young people who use cannabis today to obtain reliable information about the concentration of psychoactive ingredients or the purity of samples they purchase, or even about less harmful ways of using the drug. Consequently, current cannabis policies are inimical to desirable public health outcomes. Other serious costs are borne by communities. Despite its criminalisation, the use of cannabis has become so normalised that it is seen throughout most Western nations. Prohibition in the face of strong and consistent demand inevitably results in supplies being provided from illegal sources. The unregulated black market brings consumers of cannabis into direct contact with sellers of other illicit drugs. For example, in identical surveys of random samples of experienced marijuana users, 55% of respondents in San Francisco reported that they could buy other illicit drugs where they bought cannabis. In Amsterdam, where cannabis sales are regulated and rarely attract criminal sanctions, only 17% could get other illicit drugs from their source of cannabis.9 Allocating police to enforce the laws against cannabis reduces resources available to enforce laws against more serious crimes. The riches available in black markets increase the risk of serious corruption. During the last decade, royal commissions in two Australian jurisdictions concluded that police corruption was rampant and linked to drug prohibition.10

Liberalising control does not increase use The justification for cannabis prohibition is that it is supposed to reduce demand and supply, thereby reducing use and thus overall adverse health consequences. But demand, supply, and use have all varied widely over time, quite irrespective of controls. Evidence suggests that use is not increased by less intensive control. In the 11 American states that effectively decriminalised cannabis use in the 1970s, use has not risen beyond that experienced by comparable states in which it is prohibited.11 Similarly, the Netherlands for all intents and purposes decriminalised cannabis 25 years ago, but the prevalence there has remained roughly parallel to that in Germany and France and well below that in the United States.12 The major barriers to reconsideration of the punitive prohibition of cannabis are political, not scientific or legal

There is an increasingly widespread view that international attempts to control cannabis by prohibiting its use have failed and cannot be remedied. Numerous professional associations in medicine, public health, law, and criminology have recognised this failure and the enormous collateral costs of prohibiting cannabis and have recommended consideration of less harmful regulatory alternatives.13 The Single Convention (1961), the treaty providing the major legal framework for international prohibition of cannabis, states that "a party [government] shall, if in its opinion the prevailing conditions in its country render it the most appropriate means of protecting the public health and welfare, prohibit [the use of cannabis]."14 Where is the compelling evidence that protection of public health and welfare is "most appropriately" served by the present laws on cannabis? Regulation of cannabis would not breach any nation's international treaty obligations. The major barriers to reconsideration of the punitive prohibition of cannabis are political, not scientific or legal. The belief that more intensive law enforcement will achieve better public health outcomes represents a triumph of hope over experience

All drugs have risks. Cannabis is not harmless, but adverse health consequences for the vast majority of users are modest, especially when compared with those of alcohol or tobacco,. Attempts to restrict availability of cannabis by more intensive law enforcement have been expensive, ineffective, and usually counter productive. The belief that more intensive law enforcement will achieve better public health outcomes represents a triumph of hope over experience. If we discovered that a drug we had been using failed to relieve patients' symptoms and produced unpleasant side effects, would any of us increase the dose? It is time to acknowledge that the social, economic, and moral costs of cannabis control far exceed the health costs of cannabis use. The search should begin for more effective means to reduce the harms that can result both from cannabis and from our attempts to control it."

Alex Wodak, Craig Reinarman, Peter Cohen British Medical Journal

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), June 14, 2003.

Hi thought Id post these two articles as well, a bit long maybe but food for thought, both from the New Scientist, a respected scientific magazine.

Take Care and God Bless folks

Health officials in Geneva have suppressed the publication of a politically sensitive analysis that confirms what ageing hippies have known for decades: cannabis is safer than alcohol or tobacco.

According to a document leaked to New Scientist, the analysis concludes not only that the amount of dope smoked worldwide does less harm to public health than drink and cigarettes, but that the same is likely to hold true even if people consumed dope on the same scale as these legal substances.

The comparison was due to appear in a report on the harmful effects of cannabis published last December by the WHO. But it was ditched at the last minute following a long and intense dispute between WHO officials, the cannabis experts who drafted the report and a group of external advisers.

As the WHO's first report on cannabis for 15 years, the document had been eagerly awaited by doctors and specialists in drug abuse. The official explanation for excluding the comparison of dope with legal substances is that "the reliability and public health significance of such comparisons are doubtful". However, insiders say the comparison was scientifically sound and that the WHO caved in to political pressure. It is understood that advisers from the US National Institute on Drug Abuse and the UN International Drug Control Programme warned the WHO that it would play into the hands of groups campaigning to legalise marijuana. One member of the expert panel which drafted the report, says: "In the eyes of some, any such comparison is tantamount to an argument for marijuana legalisation." Another member, Billy Martin of the Medical College of Virginia in Richmond, says that some WHO officials "went nuts" when they saw the draft report.

The leaked version of the excluded section states that the reason for making the comparisons was "not to promote one drug over another but rather to minimise the double standards that have operated in appraising the health effects of cannabis". Nevertheless, in most of the comparisons it makes between cannabis and alcohol, the illegal drug comes out better--or at least on a par--with the legal one. The report concludes, for example, that "in developed societies cannabis appears to play little role in injuries caused by violence, as does alcohol". It also says that while the evidence for fetal alcohol syndrome is "good", the evidence that cannabis can harm fetal development is "far from conclusive".

Cannabis also fared better in five out of seven comparisons of long- term damage to health. For example, the report says that while heavy consumption of either drug can lead to dependence, only alcohol produces a "well defined withdrawal syndrome". And while heavy drinking leads to cirrhosis, severe brain injury and a much increased risk of accidents and suicide, the report concludes that there is only "suggestive evidence that chronic cannabis use may produce subtle defects in cognitive functioning". Two comparisons were more equivocal. The report says that both heavy drinking and marijuana smoking can produce symptoms of psychosis in susceptible people. And, it says, there is evidence that chronic cannabis smoking "may be a contributory cause of cancers of the aerodigestive tract".

From New Scientist, 21 February 1998

Let's be adult about this Politicians will just have to bite on the bullet--dope will be decriminalised

When Olympic officials decided last week to give errant snowboarder Ross Rebagliati his gold medal back, the cheers drowned out the boos. It was a minor scandal involving a minor sport, but it spoke volumes about the world's shifting relationship with its favourite illicit drug. A decade ago, Rebagliati would have been ostracised regardless of whether cannabis was on the list of his sport's banned substances. What's changed today is that our attitudes towards illegal drugs are becoming more sophisticated and discriminating. After thirty years of research into the harmful effects of cannabis, there can be no hidden dangers left to discover. We know that it is plain nonsense to regard cannabis as a performance-enhancing drug, just as it is a myth to think the substance rots the brain or leads inexorably to harder substances.

And despite the anti-dope propaganda that circulates in the US, most people are thankfully well aware that no great social disaster has befallen the Netherlands, where cannabis has been sold openly in coffee shops for years. It would take a perverse mind to twist the data from Amsterdam into a argument for continued prohibition (see The Dutch experiment).

While no sensible person believes cannabis is totally safe, even police chiefs back moves to decriminalise the drug. Only the politicians still seem irrationally terrified by the idea of any relaxation in the law: they think they can continue in the old way, lumping all drugs together. Before anyone decides what decriminalisation should mean in practice, however, we must take a hard look at every aspect of cannabis, from its long-term effects on the brain to the social effects of legal reform. If there is to be change, how far should we go? At one extreme, we could go Dutch, at the other, we might decide to do little more than rationalise the existing legal penalties and allow doctors to prescribe marijuana to people with serious illnesses. And if reefers are to be doled out on the NHS, for example, what information should go on the side of the packet? Or should we wait until researchers have figured out how to put cannabis into aerosol devices?

Such complexities are why Britain's House of Lords was right to defy Home Secretary Jack Straw recently and launch its own inquiry--and why US drugs supremo Barry McCaffrey was right to commission the US National Academy of Sciences to report later this year on the harmful as well as the medicinal effects of cannabis.

Conversely, the pressing need for an open debate about cannabis is precisely why the WHO was so wrong to bow to political pressure and expunge from a recent report an informative if controversial comparison of the harms caused by different drugs including alcohol (see our news section).

Of course, ever since the splendidly named Indian Hemp Drugs Commission of 1894, independent panels have been politely saying that the evils of cannabis have been exaggerated--and politicians have been politely ignoring them. Change is looking more possible now because the forces pressing for legal reform come with unprecedented levels of popular support.

In Britain, Tony Blair and his Cabinet can always discard the opinions of the House of Lords, but they are fools to ignore opinion polls in tabloid newspapers which suggest a majority of the nation is now in favour of legal change. And the US government may have already met its Waterloo on the dope issue. In recent months, it has been locked in a bitter and futile dispute with the states of California and Arizona which have independently ruled that doctors should be allowed to prescribe marijuana with impunity. Even in America, threatening vulnerable patients and their doctors with legal action is no vote winner. Something will have to give, and the best bet is that California and Arizona will triumph in the end. If they do, it will be the beginning of the end for outlawing marijuana because where the US government goes, the rest of the world will quietly follow.

None of this, of course, means cannabis is as safe as some of its advocates claim. But neither, as our special report shows (see A safe high?), are the opposing claims of the world's biggest funder of research into marijuana to be taken at face value. Campaigners and pressure groups can be forgiven for trading propaganda, but we should expect world famous scientific organisations like the US National Institute on Drug Abuse to evaluate honestly the research that has been done. David Concar From New Scientist, 21 February 1998

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), June 16, 2003.

The atlantic is a credible paper, and despite what history you may have dug up on the writter the article remain up. News papers are required by law to tell the truth, we all know they lie sometimes, but if they are caught they do revoke stories.

-- jordan (jordanthedevil@hotmail.com), June 16, 2003.

wow this convo line died.

-- jordan (jordanthedevil@hotmail.com), July 01, 2003.

Jordan, I have some facts to add (specifically for your benefit), but I need time to "fashion" them into a readable message. Come on back in a week. I should have something up by then.
Maybe you don't realize that this is a highly active Catholic discussion forum. This is just one of dozens of threads that receive contributions per day. This thread went dormant because people's attention was drawn to other topics and for other reasons, I'm sure. It will be revived.
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 01, 2003.

Well something interesting came to my attention today. A study from University of California has some insightful results.

http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2998961

-- jordan (jordanthedevil@hotmail.com), July 08, 2003.

Marijuana = the dried, shredded flowers and leaves of the hemp plant, Cannabis sativa.

Jmj
Hi, Jordan.

'Way back on June 11, I responded to a message that you wrote, as follows:

[Jordan, you] wrote: "Statistically speaking more people are sent to jail & made criminals of, familys torn, young lives halted than of any life harmed by the use of marjiuana alone (not including law)."
That is a deceptive method of comparison. Those are not the two things that should be compared -- how many lives are damaged by the actual smoking of marijuana versus how many are damaged by conviction and punishment for breaking anti-marijuana laws. The proper comparison is between ... (1) how harmful (to self and society) is the use of marijuana ... versus ... (2) how helpful (to self and society) is abstinence from marijuana. Obviously, #2 wins, hands down.
Even if one were to accept your comparison, he could make a good case to show that pot-users and society are more harmed by the use of marijuana than by the incarceration of convicted users. If this were not true, the laws would have never been enacted (or would have been overturned long ago)

Jordan, you immediately answered me as follows:
There is no case for your last point ... It costs us more to pay living costs of a man for 15 years than for any number of hospital bills. There is absolutely no conclusive proof of a correlation between use of marijuana and crime. What is the case?

I promised you an answer, but I never followed through in the intervening month. For this, I apologize. Let me give it a try today.
Your position, I think, is that certain people and society in general are harmed most of all by the jailing of convicted pot-users. I think that you see the negative effects of this jailing to be:
(1) the criminal record that those jailed will have to carry,
(2) the punishment that they must undergo, and the danger to which they must be exposed, in jail,
(3) the "halting of young lives" [your words], cutting short their education or their careers,
(4) the painful damage done to families who temporarily lose a member.

That is definitely a strong list of negative effects you have, Jordan. To counter these things, I need to present arguments showing that "pot-users and society are more harmed by the use of marijuana (and by the failure to jail users) than they are harmed by the incarceration of convicted users." Here is what I found to be true, and I think that it proves my point:

(1) Most pot-users experience an increased heartbeat (sometimes even double normal). For the few that have coronary defects, this could lead to heart attacks -- fatal or detrimental to users and to society, who must care for them (sometimes at taxpayers' expense).

(2) Most pot-users, in their state of intoxication [literally, poisoning in "toxins"], experience some some loss of coordination, greater distractability (less alertness, lack of concentration), a poorer sense of balance, and slower reaction times. Many of these people then try to function in the world, driving, doing manual labor, etc.. Their impaired physical condition can lead to accidents in which they or innocent people in society are maimed or die. Their condition will lead them to do their work more poorly (with more accidents), this being detrimental to them and to society.

(3) Some pot-users suffer from one or more of these, because the most active chemical, THC, alters the way the brain works: impaired short-term memory, paranoia, suicidal thoughts, anxiousness, intense hunger, and sleepiness. None of these is good for the user or for society. They can cause problems in school, at work, and in friendships. The hunger ("munchies") can lead to unhealthy weight gain (e.g., the "stoner's spare").

(4) Most pot-users experience a lowering of inhibitions, which can lead them to greater willingness to do embarrassing things in public or to engage in risky behaviors. Of the latter, non-marital sex acts are the most common. For example, unmarried adolescents who have used marijuana are four times more likely to have been pregnant or to have gotten someone pregnant than those who have never smoked pot. Imagine the tremendous practical problems resulting from these unexpected pregnancies -- and that's without even talking about the emotional and spiritual effects. Again, detrimental to users and society.

(5) Most pot-users cannot perform at sports nearly as well as when sober, because their timing, speed, and coordination are impaired. This is detrimental to individuals and to teams (society).

(6) For many pot-users, smoking results in a loss of interest in the way they look and how they are getting along at school or work. Detrimental to users and society.

(7) The respiratory health of some pot-users is impaired, because the amount of tar, carbon monoxide, and cancer-causing chemicals inhaled in marijuana smoke are far greater than that inhaled in the same amount of tobacco smoke. Smoking five joints a week is believed to be equivalent in damage/danger to smoking a pack of cigarettes every day. Detrimental to ...

(8) Honest, regular pot-users will admit that marijuana is addictive. When the drug is not available, there are withdrawal symptoms, like drug cravings, decreased appetite, nervousness, irritability, stomach pain, aggression, and anxiety. Detrimental to ...

(9) Teenagers who frequently use marijuana are almost four times as likely to commit a violent act -- either against people or property -- than those who don't, and the are five times as likely to steal things. Detrimental to ...

(10) Many pot-users end up becoming "loners" or can be friendly only with other users, some of whom can lead them into even riskier behaviors, such as mixing in drinking or harder drugs. Detrimental to ...

(11) Published July 2, 2003, referring to research: "Regular cannabis users are at greater risk of developing mental illness later in life ... One study found that the risk was seven times higher for heavy users, said Professor Robin Murray of the Institute of Psychiatry in London. ... A recent Dutch study of 4,000 people in the general population showed that those taking large amounts of cannabis were almost seven times more likely to have psychotic symptoms three years later. ... Another study, in 1987, of 50,000 Swedish Army conscripts, found that those who admitted at age 18 to having taken cannabis on more than 50 occasions, were six times more likely to develop schizophrenia in the following 15 years." EXTREMELY detrimental to users and society.

(12) Finally, quoting from the June 27 article that you just mentioned above: "... heavy marijuana users often abuse other drugs, such as alcohol and amphetamines, which also might have long-term neurological effects." Detrimental to users and society.

And so, Jordan, although there indeed is suffering and loss involved in the jailing of convicted pot-users, I think that any rational person, having read my 12 points, would conclude that I have proved my case "in spades": Pot-users and society are much more seriously harmed by the illegal use of marijuana (and by the failure to jail users) than pot-users and society are harmed by the incarceration of convicted users. I think that it is easy to see, then, why the Catholic Church supports society when laws are passed to curtail and prosecute the use of the dangerous drug called marijuana.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 11, 2003.

while some of your points are valid, for example a person who abuses the substance when it may be dangerous such as driving, the same case can be made for many other substances, tobaccoo, alcohol, or just gaining weight from the "munchies" some things that do this would be fast food. You also claim that pot use can lead to violence, and I have seen this fact but if you look closer at the research you will notice the very weak connection between marijuana and violence. There is no direct link between violence and marijuana. The link that is established is as about as strong as saying that 80% of violent criminals had ingested chocolate in the past month. I know what your thinking, that I am completely mocking the research, well if you actually respond I will go into it further. And any honest pot user will tell you that violence is the last thing on their mind when stoned.

Lowered inhibitions are my problem, weight gain, health problems, all this is my business. Now I have to say that my views on sex, are not affected by my use of marijuana, and it is insulting for you to say that a substance I use ocasssionaly has shaped my moral fibre.

I use pot, I am in my fourth year of studies in visual communications, when I get a job I am going to be doing something I love to do, I will be a "contributing member of society'. I have been out of highschool for 3 years, i am not a failure, or a degenerate. I go months between even thinking about pot, or using it. I am not overweight, or lazy. I can tell you that if I abused the substance I would most likely run into problems as I would if i gambled too much, or drank too much.

-- jordan (jordanthedevil@hotmail.com), October 02, 2003.

Hello,

My name is Philip and I feel obligated to speak on behalf of all the responsible moral marijuana users. I know many.

Often, people try to explain things that they learn through research or (word of mouth basically) but only when you have first hand experience, will you really understand.

I don't feel compelled to share my entire philosophy on life but this is an important insight.

Every person controls their life by how they interpret the influences they recieve through their senses. This means that no matter who you are you have the power to FILTER out negative influences before they reach your subconscious.

Too many people grow up with weak minds. When you have a weak mind, you are led to believe whatever anyone wants you to believe.

For the benefit of anyone reading this I will try to explain somethings that might not make sense to those who do not understand the power of the mind.

(1) Most pot-users experience an increased heartbeat (sometimes even double normal). For the few that have coronary defects, this could lead to heart attacks -- fatal or detrimental to users and to society, who must care for them (sometimes at taxpayers' expense).

MY COMMENTS: If you have other illnesses of complications since birth or resulting from other involvements in your life you need to take that into consideration before mixing your other conditions with the responsibility of using marijuana.

(2) Most pot-users, in their state of intoxication [literally, poisoning in "toxins"], experience some some loss of coordination, greater distractability (less alertness, lack of concentration), a poorer sense of balance, and slower reaction times. Many of these people then try to function in the world, driving, doing manual labor, etc.. Their impaired physical condition can lead to accidents in which they or innocent people in society are maimed or die. Their condition will lead them to do their work more poorly (with more accidents), this being detrimental to them and to society.

MY COMMENTS: Only through experience can one "Master your high". Once you have done this, you can choose what you CAN do. Only you know yourself and your abilities when under the influence. If you make a lot of mistakes when you are high, then you must be aware of this fact and also be aware of the social consequences your mistakes can have. Hmmm. Sounds like something I have heard before. "DONT DRINK AND DRIVE!" << (3) Some pot-users suffer from one or more of these, because the most active chemical, THC, alters the way the brain works: impaired short- term memory, paranoia, suicidal thoughts, anxiousness, intense hunger, and sleepiness. None of these is good for the user or for society. They can cause problems in school, at work, and in friendships. The hunger ("munchies") can lead to unhealthy weight gain (e.g., the "stoner's spare").

MISCONCEPTION: A THC altered brain (influenced by marijuana) can only foster negative thoughts.

TRUTH: THC does alter the way you brain thinks but this does not have to be a bad thing. It depends on the strenghth of your mind and whether or not you have a positive sensory orientation (you are a positive person).

MY COMMENTS: The mind is a muscle. The more you exercise it the stronger it gets. The most important thing to remember is that only with self-discipline can you control your mind under the influence of marijuana.

(4) Most pot-users experience a lowering of inhibitions, which can lead them to greater willingness to do embarrassing things in public or to engage in risky behaviors. Of the latter, non-marital sex acts are the most common. For example, unmarried adolescents who have used marijuana are four times more likely to have been pregnant or to have gotten someone pregnant than those who have never smoked pot. Imagine the tremendous practical problems resulting from these unexpected pregnancies -- and that's without even talking about the emotional and spiritual effects. Again, detrimental to users and society.

MISCONCEPTION: Smoking marijuana will make you sleep with someone.

TRUTH: If you don't believe in pre-marital sex, you won't have sex. If you are passive about the subject, your mind is not in control. You are letting life control you. This has nothing to do with the marijuana. I've said it before and I'll say it again, you are in control of your mind at all times. You are in control of your actions.

(5) Most pot-users cannot perform at sports nearly as well as when sober, because their timing, speed, and coordination are impaired. This is detrimental to individuals and to teams (society).

MISCONCEPTION: Smoking pot means you can't perform at sports.

TRUTH: Smoking pot can stimulate confidence which can lead to increased skill and better achievement in sports.

MY COMMENTS: Marijuana should not be depended on for confidence or anything else for that matter. Marijuana can have the great effect of amplifying ones thoughts. To this degree it is simply an outlet to explore ones potential.

(6) For many pot-users, smoking results in a loss of interest in the way they look and how they are getting along at school or work. Detrimental to users and society.

MISCONCEPTION: Smoking pot fosters negative thoughts and situations.

TRUTH: Says who? Only those who know where I am coming from can understand that you can still smoke and be as positive about life and your opportunites as you ALLOW YOURSELF TO BELIEVE.

(7) The respiratory health of some pot-users is impaired, because the amount of tar, carbon monoxide, and cancer-causing chemicals inhaled in marijuana smoke are far greater than that inhaled in the same amount of tobacco smoke. Smoking five joints a week is believed to be equivalent in damage/danger to smoking a pack of cigarettes every day. Detrimental to ...

MY COMMENTS: One word. Moderation.

WARNING: Smoke will eventually lead to lung damage. Be careful how much and for how long. You can't smoke forever. Think about it like alcohol and liver disease.

(8) Honest, regular pot-users will admit that marijuana is addictive. When the drug is not available, there are withdrawal symptoms, like drug cravings, decreased appetite, nervousness, irritability, stomach pain, aggression, and anxiety. Detrimental to ...

MY COMMENTS: These symptoms are real but exaggerated. I experience those exact symptoms sometimes but I just get on with my life. The more you allow yourself to think that you need the drug. The more you will. My advice is to strenghten your mind. Its all in your head. This goes for anything you THINK you are addicted to.

(9) Teenagers who frequently use marijuana are almost four times as likely to commit a violent act -- either against people or property -- than those who don't, and the are five times as likely to steal things. Detrimental to ...

MY COMMENTS: I can't argue with such a statistic but I can point out that the majority of those teenage users are simply falling under the effects of peer pressure. The marijuana use just points out that most marijuana users are bad influences. This is because all through its history, people have treated the marijuana user as a criminal so why wouldnt they start acting like criminals. I BEG ALL YOU USERS OUT THERE TO SHOW THE WORLD THAT smoking doesn't make you a criminal and that are a productive member of society. In other words, you can enjoy your life yet still handle your business.

(10) Many pot-users end up becoming "loners" or can be friendly only with other users, some of whom can lead them into even riskier behaviors, such as mixing in drinking or harder drugs. Detrimental to ...

MISCONCEPTION: If you smoke marijuana, you cannot have a productive life and cannot choose who you hang out with.

TRUTH: Every human being possesses the potential for great things. This potential can be found in the power of the human mind. Allowing ourselves to believe that using marijuana throws us into a class of underachievers is a crime. If you believe you can acheieve success and still smoke. You will.

(11) Published July 2, 2003, referring to research: "Regular cannabis users are at greater risk of developing mental illness later in life ... One study found that the risk was seven times higher for heavy users, said Professor Robin Murray of the Institute of Psychiatry in London. ... A recent Dutch study of 4,000 people in the general population showed that those taking large amounts of cannabis were almost seven times more likely to have psychotic symptoms three years later. ... Another study, in 1987, of 50,000 Swedish Army conscripts, found that those who admitted at age 18 to having taken cannabis on more than 50 occasions, were six times more likely to develop schizophrenia in the following 15 years." EXTREMELY detrimental to users and society.

MISCONCEPTION: Marijuana leads to illness.

TRUTH: These tests are not representative of real life. I will agree that use in excess is bad but that goes for anything. In regards to mental illness. Let me again say, if you believe that you are a victim of a drug, you will suffer a victims life. If you believe that you are confident and can control all aspects of your life, you will.

(12) Finally, quoting from the June 27 article that you just mentioned above: "... heavy marijuana users often abuse other drugs, such as alcohol and amphetamines, which also might have long-term neurological effects." Detrimental to users and society.

MISCONCEPTION: Marijuana leads to other drugs.

TRUTH: The actual marijuana does nothing. It is just a substance. If a person thinks that it is no good to touch other drugs, they won't. If they think it is okay, they will. Simple. Prohibition of marijuana ignores the fact that people make decisions, not drugs. The key is to have a strong enough mind. Not allowing those with a strong mind to use constructively as they please should be a crime, not possession.

In conclusion, I wish everyone would be so fortunate as to realize the power of their mind. This power can lead us to great things if we so wish. This power can overcome many things. Many people are looked down upon because of their marijuana use. This in turn sends a message to that user. The message is that because you are doing that, you can not be a productive member of society. When users get this message they start to lose confidence and self-esteem. Their thoughts then manifest into reality how they view themselves.

Here is a shor example. A young kid with good dreams and good family begins to smoke pot. Unfortunately, society has a bad view of smokers and this thinking is smashed into the kids conscious mind. Because he is still a kid and probably does not have a strong enough mind yet, he will allow these negative thoughts to become embedded in his subconscious. Now it is a only a matter of time before the kid becomes all the things SOCIETY says he will become. This could be a criminal or anything like that. If only he would have realized that his thoughts become reality and that if he would have ignored societies negative thoughts and focused on his own positive thoughts, he can use achieve whatever he wants, whether or not he is a marijuana user or not.

I urge all of you smokers out there who really enjoy it to show your family, friends, and community that it doesn't effect your success. Maybe someday, society will have more constructive things to shove into the heads of growing adults.

-- fil (trufiction21@yahoo.com), October 25, 2003.

Fil, I completely reject each and every comment you made. I think that your statements are foolish and irresponsible. I hope that future readers will see right through them.

Yours is the voice of a law-breaker who encourages law-breaking and health-damaging practices. The devil is extremely thrilled to have you for an ally.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 25, 2003.

I also disagree with most everything fil had to say, however i also disagree with what he was disagreeing with, so here i will give you my own comments.

(1) Most pot-users experience an increased heartbeat (sometimes even double normal). For the few that have coronary defects, this could lead to heart attacks -- fatal or detrimental to users and to society, who must care for them (sometimes at taxpayers' expense).

there are many activities that may cause someone to experience an increased heart beat. a roller coaster for instance, which have warning stickers typically for people who might have coranary defects or whatever else that leaves them at higher risk for heart attack. would it be a just law to outlaw rollercoasters?

(2) Most pot-users, in their state of intoxication [literally, poisoning in "toxins"], experience some some loss of coordination, greater distractability (less alertness, lack of concentration), a poorer sense of balance, and slower reaction times. Many of these people then try to function in the world, driving, doing manual labor, etc.. Their impaired physical condition can lead to accidents in which they or innocent people in society are maimed or die. Their condition will lead them to do their work more poorly (with more accidents), this being detrimental to them and to society.

im thinking of something else that can cause less alertness, loss of concentration, slower reaction times etc. alcahol. dont drink and drive. dont smoke and drive. dont take medications that make your drowsy and drive, quite simple advice, and is a just law.

(3) Some pot-users suffer from one or more of these, because the most active chemical, THC, alters the way the brain works: impaired short-term memory, paranoia, suicidal thoughts, anxiousness, intense hunger, and sleepiness. None of these is good for the user or for society. They can cause problems in school, at work, and in friendships. The hunger ("munchies") can lead to unhealthy weight gain (e.g., the "stoner's spare").

short term memory loss, in my experience this is only true for your memory of events that may have taken place while your completely stoned, im sure this is to be expected.

paranoia, people i know to have suffered paranoia from use of marijuana dont typically like to smoke it or they do so on rare occassion.

suicidal thoughts, i find it hard to believe that marijuana would cause someone to have suicidal thoughs, but i can certainly believe that someone who has had suicidal thoughts has used marijuana before. depression is the cause of suicidal thoughs, and hard pressed to believe that there is not a pre-existing condition causing the level of depression neccessary to have serious suicidal thoughts

anxiousness, i would say the same thing about this as paranoia, infact those two words mean almost the same thing.

intense hunger (munchies), munchies is a reality for people who smoke marijuana on rare occassions, but regular smokers dont really get the munchies all that much, and if you indulge in a bucket of ben and jerrys once a month or so, i dont think thats going to make you obese.

sleepiness, pot can certainly make you sleepy, especially if you use too much, but how much harm to ones self or to society can someone be while they are sleeping?

(4) Most pot-users experience a lowering of inhibitions, which can lead them to greater willingness to do embarrassing things in public or to engage in risky behaviors. Of the latter, non-marital sex acts are the most common. For example, unmarried adolescents who have used marijuana are four times more likely to have been pregnant or to have gotten someone pregnant than those who have never smoked pot. Imagine the tremendous practical problems resulting from these unexpected pregnancies -- and that's without even talking about the emotional and spiritual effects. Again, detrimental to users and society.

the reason unmarried adolescents who have used marijuana are four times more likely to have been pregnant or gotten someone pregnant is because unmarried adolescents who are willing to break the (just or unjust) law are more likely to be involved in risky behavior anyways, it doesnt neccessarily mean that marijuana was the cause of that behavior. and these numbers do not prove it so.

(5) Most pot-users cannot perform at sports nearly as well as when sober, because their timing, speed, and coordination are impaired. This is detrimental to individuals and to teams (society).

if you are concerned for your performance in sports, i dont recomend you play while your stoned, likewise i dont suggest you play while your drunk. its really that simple. however, if you do choose to play while stoned, or drunk, your team may not be very pleased with you, however, that hardly has an effect on society.

(6) For many pot-users, smoking results in a loss of interest in the way they look and how they are getting along at school or work. Detrimental to users and society.

i would certainly agree that "some" pot-users have a lack of motivation to perform at school or work. however there are "many" pot-users who are able to practice self control. however, for those who do suffer from a lack of interest in work or school, i would say that pot is a contributing factor rather than the cause, not to say that as a contributing factor it is not a negative effect, i dont see it as being cause for prohibition being a just law.

(7) The respiratory health of some pot-users is impaired, because the amount of tar, carbon monoxide, and cancer-causing chemicals inhaled in marijuana smoke are far greater than that inhaled in the same amount of tobacco smoke. Smoking five joints a week is believed to be equivalent in damage/danger to smoking a pack of cigarettes every day. Detrimental to ...

i have heard this argument over and over about there being more cancer causing chemicals in marijuana smoke, and especially in correlation with the fact that marijauana has increased in potency in recent years. im still waiting for someone to break down these chemicals and show me a list. i certainly agree that smoking anything is harmful to your health but with the increased potency of marijuana people are also smoking much smaller quantities at any givin time, people smoke whole entire cigarettes on their own, and upwards of 20 of them a day. i would imagine if someone were to smoke half of a cigarette every day of their life their chances are slim they will develop cancer, however, they are certainly higher than if they had never smoked a cigarette in their life, however, we dont outlaw cigarettes.

(8) Honest, regular pot-users will admit that marijuana is addictive. When the drug is not available, there are withdrawal symptoms, like drug cravings, decreased appetite, nervousness, irritability, stomach pain, aggression, and anxiety. Detrimental to ...

i consider myself and honest, regular pot-user, and i will admit that marijuana mildly addictive, i say mildly addictive because i have never experienced anything other than cravings and even these were minimal.

(9) Teenagers who frequently use marijuana are almost four times as likely to commit a violent act -- either against people or property -- than those who don't, and the are five times as likely to steal things. Detrimental to ...

this like the issue of teenage pregnancy can be misleading, the numbers (wherever they exist) do not prove that marijauna caused any violent act, at best it shows that people who take part in risky behavior are more likely to have tried marijuana.

(10) Many pot-users end up becoming "loners" or can be friendly only with other users, some of whom can lead them into even riskier behaviors, such as mixing in drinking or harder drugs. Detrimental to ...

i would say that any case of pot-users becoming loners, or being friendly only with other marijuana users would be the product of prohibition rather than marijuana itself.

im not here to defend heavy use of anything so i wont answer the last to points. however, let me get back to the topic of catholicism and marijuana.

now consider this for a moment. God created all the trees, plants, bushes, animals, fish and all that is on the earth. ALL OF IT. nobody invented marijauna. there is no special ingedient added to the marijuana plant, it is not synthetic or anything else. it grows from a seed created by God. im sure there is a use for it that is not seen immoral by God, wether that be for medical use, or recreation, i do not know the answer to that but i do know this, and correct me if im wrong, Jesus's first miracle performed was at the request of his mother in desperation when they were out of wine at a wedding reception and didnt mary tell the men to do as he told them and jesus told them to fill the wine things with water and bring them to him and he turned it into wine and it was the best wine they had ever tasted and they were shocked because usually the best wine is served first and the lesser wine is brought out later after everyone is already drunk from the good wine. so i would believe that its okay to get a little tipsy for the sake of social reasons, kinda like at a wedding reception, or a friends bar-b-que, and i think if i just smoke a little marijuana im more functional than had i drank 3 beers.

so wether smoking marijuana for casual/social reason is moral by catholic christian standards i surely dont know the answer to that, but knowing it is a creation of God, I have to believe that he intended it to be used for something or another.

i hope that i was respectful in anything i have said. and i appologize if i have offended anyone, but most of all i appologize if i am wrong and it is immoral by Gods standards.

-- Anonymous Coward (anonymous@anonymous.org), March 31, 2004.

Anonymous,

link here's a link to a report on MJ and H&N cancers, the one you are thinking about was from a British journal a year or two ago. Don't remember which one though, and don't currently have the motivation to find it for you.

As far as:

" God created all the trees, plants, bushes, animals, fish and all that is on the earth. ALL OF IT. nobody invented marijauna "

goes, god ALSO created poisonous snakes, and plants with cyanide in them. He did not IMO intend for us to poison each other! Just because something was found to have an effect on the human body does NOT mean we were intended to use it for that purpose.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), March 31, 2004.

In my long experience with young men and women as a teacher (I'm retired now) I saw three different results in the young people:

1- marihuana was the way into more strong and by the same reason more dangerous drugs. Some of the students that went into the latter either had to accept desintoxication for long periods or they kind of lost their mind. But the saddest part is that many found their death in the use of drugs. Only last month a young man I used to know, aged 24, died of an overdose.

2- Many of them found smoking pot disgusting and very soon abandoned it.

3- Many tried pot as a curiosity and for a sense "of belonging", but soon they discovered that this was a very expensive way of getting a kick out of life and they rejected it because of their modest way of living. Maybe that is one of the reasons that drugs are more common in the upper classes or in the rich nations.

Enrique

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), April 01, 2004.

Sorry, if this message is duplicated. I had trouble submitting it and tried again.

In my long experience with young men and women as a teacher (I'm retired now) I saw three different results in the young people:

1- marihuana was the way into more strong and by the same reason more dangerous drugs. Some of the students that went into the latter either had to accept desintoxication for long periods or they kind of lost their mind. But the saddest part is that many found their death in the use of drugs. Only last month a young man I used to know, aged 24, died of an overdose.

2- Many of them found smoking pot disgusting and very soon abandoned it.

3- Many tried pot as a curiosity and for a sense "of belonging", but soon they discovered that this was a very expensive way of getting a kick out of life and they rejected it because of their modest way of living. Maybe that is one of the reasons that drugs are more common in the upper classes or in the rich nations.

Enrique

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), April 01, 2004.