Marijuana- threat or menace

[krAzykrAkr01]

The above graph is not at all accurate... we all know there is no dependence or withdrawal with marijuana use.  And do we really build up a tolerence?  I've never noticed one.  Not that the same 'ol doesn't get boring.  Kind of like switching beers every now and then, I like to do that.

You probably don't smoke enough to build up a tolerance. But one definitely can be built up. There is also a "mental" dependence, not physical. When you quit, you just sit around thinking "man, this sucks". LOL. I agree, there is no withdrawal. I think the jist of the graph is that weed is pretty much the least harmful of the drugs listed.

[krAzykrAkr01]

Jury nullification at work in marijuana, gun cases

In Washington, D.C., a jury ignored a military veteran's obvious violation of the city's draconian gun laws, setting him free with only a slap on the wrist. In LaSalle County, Illinois, a medical marijuana user found with 25 pounds of the plant didn't even get the slap; jurors chatted with him after finding him not guilty. While we can't know for sure, in both cases jury nullification was likely at work as regular people serving an important role in courtrooms exercised their power to quash laws they found repugnant.

Historically, as President John Adams put it, it has been the juror's "duty ... to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court." Unfortunately, you won't come across that quote from Adams in many modern courtrooms. Government officials don't like being second-guessed by the hoi polloi, so the tradition of independent juries has been allowed to wither from neglect. Few jurors ever learn about the traditional power of juries.

To preserve what's left of our liberty, jury nullification is a good and powerful tool for checking government power. But since it is frequently discouraged by judges and prosecutors jealous of their prerogatives, it's generally exercised on the sly -- often by jurors unaware that they're doing exactly what was originally intended.

There's how you're supposed to get things changed. If enough juries do this, the prosecutors will stop bringing meaningless pot cases to trial. Prosecutors only bring cases to trial they think they can win. Jury nullification is your constitutional right.

[buckshot]

First:

You wrote "There is also a "mental" dependence, not physical. When you quit, you just sit around thinking "man, this sucks". LOL"

That's absurd - since we could then have a "mental dependence" to things like driving, preaching, cleaning, exercising, going to amusment parks, etc. etc. etc.

Isn't it the weak minded who would buy into that as a reason not to do something?  Since we're all different and no one really knows what somone else is feeling, or will feel - then applying "mental dependence" when refering to marijuana use is just silly.

About Jury Nullification:

Great when it works, and every juror should be told when they're sworn in (I don't beleive even 5% of our U.S. population know what jury nullification is) .  But judges hate it (as it notes above).  I've tried to get it in.  The best way, and place to get in jury nullification is in voir dire and/or closing statements.  During voir dire you can ask anything you want (within a resonable amount of time, usually getting the same amount of time as the prosecution).  So if you're cleaver you can ask it of the jury.  Be careful though, if the judge admonishes you then you better drop it or you could be held in contempt.

Don't ever forget that it is your duty as a patriot and U.S. citizen to break laws you feel are unjust.  And jury's then have the obligation to weigh both the merits of the case AND the merits of the law.  And they are the final decision maker(s), not the judge (even though the judge and prosecutor charge the jury with following the law exactly as it is written - again, the jury does not have to recognize the law if they feel the law is unjust).

For all it's flaws, our system is actually the best in the world (if you think our justice system is bad study other countries).

[krAzykrAkr01]

First:

You wrote "There is also a "mental" dependence, not physical. When you quit, you just sit around thinking "man, this sucks". LOL"

That's absurd - since we could then have a "mental dependence" to things like driving, preaching, cleaning, exercising, going to amusment parks, etc. etc. etc.

Isn't it the weak minded who would buy into that as a reason not to do something?  Since we're all different and no one really knows what somone else is feeling, or will feel - then applying "mental dependence" when refering to marijuana use is just silly.

It's called "jonesing". Ever heard of it? Never experienced it?

[buckshot]

You wrote:

It's called "jonesing". Ever heard of it? Never experienced it?

 

Yes, it's the feeling that you want something.  I've jonesed to drive.  Jonesed to play worms.  Jonesed to get my work done even - like a speacial project.  My point is that this is not a reason to not engage in some activity.  If the intent of the graph is to show pros and cons of use, then this fact should not be included.  This should not be regarded as an element of the equation.

[krAzykrAkr01]

If the intent of the graph is to show pros and cons of use, then this fact should not be included.

I don't think that is the purpose of the graph. I think it's a visual representation of the fact that there are much more dangerous drugs than pot. Some that are legal. There is no explanation for the graph on the site, but it came off a pro-marijuana website.

Yes, it's the feeling that you want something.  I've jonesed to drive.  Jonesed to play worms.  Jonesed to get my work done even - like a speacial project. My point is that this is not a reason to not engage in some activity.

I agree that this is not a reason not to engage in some activity

....then this fact should not be included. This should not be regarded as an element of the equation.

But the fact still remains that it's there. You can't just omit facts that you don't like. Right or wrong, it is still a form of dependence according to the medical and scientific community (aka-the ones doing the tests).

[Wanker]

First:

You wrote "There is also a "mental" dependence, not physical. When you quit, you just sit around thinking "man, this sucks". LOL"

That's absurd - since we could then have a "mental dependence" to things like driving, preaching, cleaning, exercising, going to amusment parks, etc. etc. etc.

I am not going to argue that Jonesing is a reason not to smoke but you gotta take into account that THC affects certain receptors in your brain. Driving, preaching, cleaning, exercising, going to amusment parks trigger adreneline but do not affect the brain directly as marijuana does. There is a difference. Also when high on THE CHRONIC  it puts you in a state of mood, some more livley while others it brings down. Once you remove that feeling your brain feels that it needs it hence the jonesing feeling. I am not saying it is anything like Heroin or cocaine but it is mentally adictive.

[buckshot]

You wrote:

Once you remove that feeling your brain feels that it needs it

Not mine, and that is why I disagree.

[krAzykrAkr01]

Not mine, and that is why I disagree.

So, because YOU don't experience it, it doesn't exist?

[buckshot]

You're missing my point.  I'm merely pointing out that it's meaningless to add "dependence" and "withdrawal" to that collumn in the equation.  It's a myth and therefore it has no bearing.  And in this case those should both read "0."

There is another issue to consider.  If this document is meant to influence, then this mis-information can have far more severe damage (more damage then worsening the actual effects of grass so as to scare those against using it).  Readers may begin to beleive that if this information about "dependence" and "withdrawal" isn't accurate, perhaps the rest isn't either (as applied to the harder drugs).

Oh and to answer your question - you can only guess at what others crave, feel and experience.

[krAzykrAkr01]

It's a myth and therefore it has no bearing.  And in this case those should both read "0."

And you're basing your opinion on what? Your "half a joint per day" experiences? Some may have a higher intake or different body chemistry, therefore bringing about different symptoms than the ones you have experienced personally.

Don't forget, you can only guess at what others crave, feel and experience.

- you can only guess at what others crave, feel and experience.

[buckshot]

And you're basing your opinion on what? Your "half a joint per day" experiences?

Krakr, My belief is based on scientific fact.  What is yours based on? 

Here are some good references, but first consider reading this, it may help you understand (taken from http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_marijuana_addictive):

Is marijuna addictive?  In order to answer this question, we first need a definition of the word, "Addicted". Not too long ago, an addictive subtance was something that, when taken long enough, produced gross phsyiogical changes in the way the body worked, so that normal operation of the body was impossible without that substance being injested. And as the substance must, by definition, form a tolerance, higher and higher dosages (up to a point) were needed. This is the defintion of "additictive" I'm going to use for this explanation. Addictive is not the same as "habituating". Habituatingsubstances, using this definition, are things you crave, may even come to need, but do not create a gross physiological change in the way your body works (trace neurological/neurochemical changes can and do happen but, they're quite minor, and they aren't always substance-related: stroking a pet for instance, can cause such trace effects).

And here are the references:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_marijuana_addictive: ("As such, if you say THC is not clinically addictive, most of the world will agree with you.")

http://www.utmedicalgroup.com/pages/webchat_addiction.html: ("Dr. Battle: No, marijuana is not addictive. It isn't addictive because the active ingredient in it, THC, does not become a part of the body chemistry....snip...Gambling, food, sex, are not addictive. To use the word addiction in connection with these activities is to pervert the meaning of the word addiction.")

http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/86/cedelson.html#fn1: ("Current medical opinion pronounces marijuana non-addictive and relatively harmless ") [licit and Illicit Drugs: The Consumers Union Report on Narcotics, Stimulants, Depressants, Inhalants, Hallucinogens, and Marijuana, Edward M. Brecher, eds. Consumer Reports, Little, Brown, and Company, Boston, 1972, p.402.]

There are many, many other articles from Doctors and medical professionals who agree... you can find these studies and references in libraries and other publications all over the world

You can also find a lot of people who disagree, but when you dig in you find they are not credible (like our own governement who we already know lies to us.)

BTW, I do not necessarily recomend any healthy human engage in marijuana use.

[krAzykrAkr01]

Ahh......there we go. Now it's more than just hot air coming from some pothead's mouth.

PS - A wiki that anyone can edit and a citation from some guy's theses at Harvard is hardly scientific fact. Especially when the citation you quoted is not for the sentence you quoted. The citation you quoted is for this sentence:

As of 1969 the National Institute of Mental Health estimated that there were between 200 and 250 million marijuana users worldwide.

[buckshot]

There are lots more references but I'm not going to do your research for you.

So anyway, I'm "basing my knowledge" on personal use, and that of other users and researchers.

Millions of us for that matter - is that enough to satisfy you?

[krAzykrAkr01]

It's not about satisfying me, it's about backing up your "matter of fact" statements.

The above graph is not at all accurate...

This should not be regarded as an element of the equation.

It's a myth and therefore it has no bearing.  And in this case those should both read "0."

To tell the truth, I agreed with you from the beginning. LMAO