View Single Post
November 19th, 2012 (11:51 AM). Edited November 19th, 2012 by von Weltschmerz.
the first born unicorn
Join Date: Oct 2012
There is a bit of an issue here that we need to actually get over before this discussion can prove to be of any value. Are talking about the legalization of marijuana, or industrial hemp? As it is... industrial hemp is primarily banned in the U.S. only. If, in the U.S., for example, they decided to drop the ban on industrial hemp, that would not necessarily promote it for recreational use. And vice versa... if the U.S. allows the consumption of marijuana for recreational purposes, that does not exactly entail that they will allow the hemp industry. That being said... to fully understand this issue in it's entirety, a little knowledge on the subject would be nice.
Without further ado, I present to you my knowledge as verified by THC Ministry(
"Back in the day", the U.S. first 162 years, hemp was commercially grown. Prominent American figures such as Washington and Jefferson grew hemp. The Declaration of Independence was actually written on a hemp-based paper. At this point, hemp was not so viable as a major industry. Yet around the 1930s, with the advent of new technology, hemp became thoroughly more profitable. The fiber industries(primarily the acclaimed "Cotton Kingdom" in whatever diminished state it was at this time) fought hard against this new plant that threatened to shove them to the side line.
Opting for scare tactics and hysteria, the government and media quickly set to work on demonizing the plant. The liquor industry, in 1936 made one of the most prominent stabs against hemp with, "Reefer Madness," a film about a man who smokes marijuana and murders his family with an ax. The people of the time, however, were accustomed to hemp. It was not banned and was relatively common place. They would not so easily buy into suggestions of "Hemp Madness."
After the prohibition of alcohol was ended, the Federal Departmet of Narcotics funding was diminshed. Perhaps in a coup to restore this funding as demanded by the “war on marijuana”, head of the FDN(present day DEA) Harry Anslinger, furiously combated this plant. Knowing the public would not forsake hemp, he played heavily on racial and social prejudices Borrowing from the Mexican language, “Marijuana” and “Reefer” were used in place of the far less suggestive “hemp.”
Asserting “facts” such as,
Quote originally posted by
”Marijuana is the most violence causing drug in the history of mankind." “Most marijuana smokers are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage.” “This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes.”
he coerced the population into believing him an expert on the effects of marijuana and devised a campaign founded thoroughly upon lies. Much to his satisfaction, the U.S. placed it's ban upon the Hemp industry with the “Marijuana Tax Act of 1937.” Take note that it is MARIJUANA tax act, and not the HEMP tax act. This shows just how deep the indoctrination had planted itself in the nation.
The fear of the rise of the Hemp industry, however, was not an unfounded one. With Hemp being far more viable than the current products, it would have made an effective dent... in their pockets. Neglecting the national and global benefits to developing a strong hemp industry, they instead sought to destroy it of their own selfish whims.
Marijuana is very effectual in that:
-In only 1 acre, it can produce as much fiber as cotton could in 3. The material produce is stronger, softer, and does not mildew.
-It requires no herb/pesticides, can grow in many climates, and does not require so much water as cotton. Cotton, on the other hand, uses over 50% of the world's herb/pesticides and grows only in moderate conditions.
-In again, only 1 acre, Hemp can produce as much paper as 2-4 acres of tree. Hemp can be harvested around 2-3 months after planting, that's around 3-4 annual yields. More if they decide to grow indoors and use hydroponics. Trees can take years to grow before they are ready to be harvested and require a lot more space than does Hemp.
-Hemp oils can be used for all sorts of products. Paints, varnishes, and inks are only some of these products. Used in food as well, it boasts a higher protein value than even soy. With a biomass surpassing eve corn, it is an option in biofuels.
-Wild hemp runs rampant in the U.S, unable to be eradicated.
All of those, except the last one equate only to more revenue and less environmental destruction. The benefits are hard to ignore. If the ban should not be lifted for such benefits, it should at least, be reversed in the event that the reasons for its ban prove false. In modern times, the fear of Marijuana has developed, and has fallen prey to many logical fallacies. Namely they are: 1.) Marijuana is addictive; 2.) Marijuana impairs learning ability; 3.) Marijuana is a gate way drug; 4.) Marijuana has increased cancer rates; and 4.) Marijuana is far more potent than it used to be.
I'll go about these in order.
1: Marijuana is Addictive
False. Marijuana has no substances in it that can cause addiction or dependency issues. Any “addiction” is purely mental. While it is “habit forming,” that can be attached to any object that gives them the desired results. Far more people have formed habits related to caffeine consumption than than marijuana.
2: Marijuana Impairs Learning Ability
- Ecological fallacy
True, some what. The studies conducted were based on daily users of marijuana. And despite how much people brag, that is less than 1% of all users. The “impairments” were small and it is disputed as to the permanence of such impairments. “Casual” users had no such impairments. Long term memory was not affected, only short term, and that was while under the influence. The spaciness and slow reactions of the users are attributed to that as well, and dissipate as the effects of the drug wear off.
3: Marijuana is Gateway Drug
- Post Hoc
False. Marijuana is usually just more common than “hard core” drugs.. As they move onto harder drugs after smoking marijuana, people have labeled it a gateway drug. That connection isn't a strong one, though. To prove something false, you need one counter example. And as per the U.S. OWN statistics, over 75 percent of all Americans who smoke marijuana have never moved onto hardcore drugs. NOW THAT, is a lot of counter examples. The people who did move onto hard core drugs were due to different reasons, namely shortcomings in their own character or environmental pressures.
4: Marijuana is FAR more Potent
- Ignoratio elenchi
True. Marijuana IS more potent. But there are no studies citing it as dangerous. You would pass out/throw it up before you could overdose. More potent marijuana actually poses LESS of a health threat than weaker version. The more potent it is, the less you have to smoke. The less you have to smoke... the less burning plant fibers you inhale. Simple logic there.
The U.S. Government, also, is very fickle in the way that it deals with hemp. As I've mentioned in another post, they ban only the production of it on U.S. soil, allowing the importation of such goods or using processed forms in other products. They also, in WWII, urged farmers to grow hemp, repealing the ban and producing a video called “Hemp for Victory.” The rate at which marijuana was consumed did not significantly rise during this time period. The video, which they denied making, was used to instruct farmers onto maintain effective yields of hemp for the war effort. They gave out “stamps”(similar to Medical Marijuana cards) that allowed the farmers to grow. Proof that they do not despirse the industry, but wanted only to please the heads of industry.
@SwiftSign: I never said there were no flaws. Just that the health risks are minute/mine to make. Especially when it is compared to other, legal substances such as tobacco and alcohol.
Solowiji et al., 1991: (When given a task involving listening for sounds) "...Cannabis users' task performance was significantly worse than controls"
What I gathered from this, the decline was during use or slightly after. That the effects dissipate as the drug wears down. Not to mention... she/he mentions a lot of "probabilities" and "unconfirmed" ideas.
Wayne, 2001: "The most probable harms caused by cannabis use include: an increased risk of motor vehicle accidents; respiratory disease; dependence; adverse effects on adolescent development; and the exacerbation of psychosis."
To quote something that made me laugh, "Drunk drivers kill people, high drivers miss their exits." That being said.. alcohol leas to motor vehicle accidents. That is why it is illegal to drive drunk. They used to call it a DWI(driving while intoxicated) but changed it to a DUI(driving under the influence) to make the term incorporate a lot more than alcohol. While that is a factually true statement, it does not address the actual issue.
You wouldn't be able to drive high. That would be DUI.
Neither does the "adolescent" thing, either. A lot of things provide detriment to a developing brain... again... namely alcohol. That is why the legal age is at adulthood. The same would go for marijuana.
It isn't as if kids would be allowed to toke up... They would have to be a legal adult.
As for the psychosis... I want to see the actual proof for that. Thanks.
Chuan-Yu, 2005: "...that cannabis dependence is more likely to occur when use begins during adolescence, and that the cannabis dependence syndrome includes a number of heritable untoward psychiatric side effects including withdrawal." <- Some people are more likely to become dependent on cannabis than others.
Okay? So people form stronger habits when they are young. That is a given.. it is when they are developing. But as I've said before... cannabis does not create a dependence. It has no psycho-active substances that cause addiction or stimulate withdraws. Any such actions can be attributed to the individual themselves. I am a prime counter-example of this. I've taken hiatuses from smoking weed so that I might accomplish important tasks. I do not have any withdraws and could go about my day just fine, with or without weed.
Cousjin et al., 2012: Smoking weed affects brain structure, both long term and short-term.
I don't know of any short term effects, give me proof. I will not deny long-term effects. But those are in heavy, chronic users. A.K.A. someone who smokes daily for a good decade or so.
Buckner et al., 2012: Social Anxiety Disorder (SAD) is a symptom of cannabis withdrawal.
Withdrawal of cannabis does not exist... this entire claim is thus invalidated. I'll further mention, that since I have started smoking cannabis, I have become much more of an extrovert. Where I used to have issues saying "hi" to a friend passing in the halls... I've garnered enough courage to now knock on their door, even! And while that courage may have been out of natural development, smoking weed sure has done nothing to aggravate it. Actually... when I am thoroughly stressed out, smoking weed de-stresses me.
To do as you did:
Quote originally posted by
Unfortunately, trying to understand the science of marijuana is not as calming as smoking it. Marijuana reduces stress by acting on the endocannabinoid system, the part of the brain that regulates pain, memory, and appetite. The brain busts out the Bob Marley when the THC interacts with a neurotransmitter called anandamide, producing a relaxed feeling. Small amounts of marijuana can also beat stress by lowering blood pressure and causing sleepiness.
That being said.. I will not respond to any "argument" that is simply you listing out a bunch of other people, and not even providing links to such information If you can actually construct one, then by all means, do.
View Public Profile
Send a private message to von Weltschmerz
Find all posts by von Weltschmerz
Find threads started by von Weltschmerz
Ignore Posts by von Weltschmerz