Donating to the Zimmerman Defense Fund

[vampire]

It's really time that died. Only really stupid people fall for it and I don't like being reminded of just how many really stupid people there are in the world.

LOL. But its totally true that you can overdose on water :-) People died.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication#Notable_cases

Sport drinks FTW.

[hashman]

1) Somebody smart enough to find this forum and be interested in bitcoins thinks drug prohibition could help limit violence.  

Wow.  Just wow.  There's proof positive that somebody can be smart in one area and stone dumb in another.  Either that, or somebody has a secret agenda.  

You need to open your mind to the truth.  Take a look at a nation like Singapore with strong drug enforcement and law enforcement in general...violent crime is extremely rare.  When you let people poison their minds with addictive junk, it's not a shock that they end up violent or criminal.

Hmm..  how would you recommend I open my mind?  Eh?  Shouldn't that be illegal in your view?

Can you think of some places with even stronger spending on "drug and law enforcement"  ?  How do the records on violence compare ?   Don't you think Singapore would be safer still if all drug related criminality was instantly gone and replaced with rational policy ?  

Can you think of other ways to entice people to become criminal?  How about, by giving billions of dollars a year in business only to criminals?  Encouraging corruption at the highest levels of law enforcement and government?  Eliminating the rule of law for transactions that affect millions of people?  

How about putting 2% of the population in jail so they can learn the ropes?  

Seriously folks, if you're not on board with this one you are part of the problem.    

Religious leaders,  Police officers     http://www.leap.cc/
Economists,  everyone except drug cartel leaders and corrupt politicians agree:  prohibition causes violence and criminality.   Its proven historically, logically, and once again the only reason one might disagree is if one is taking money from drug cartels and related corruption..  even then, your argument is still wrong in the long term.  

Drugs are too dangerous to be left to the hands of criminals.  

Remember it is you and your children who will be shot at, jailed, and robbed, by corruption that you enable when you apologize for it with fake arguments of do-goodery and vain hopes of short term profits from your corruption.  


In other news, you should probably also study what are the most addictive substances and most common mind-poisoning behaviors.  

[Rarity]

Hmm..  how would you recommend I open my mind?

There are many paths to personal growth.  Philosophy, artistic pursuits, sports, education, helping your fellow man, there is really an amazing amount of things you can do that don't involve poisoning yourself.  For me the key has been spirituality and I think that can be a great path towards helping you get there, it teaches you to "know how to know".  It taught me that I am a spiritual being and that my abilities extended well beyond what I had thought which helped me in my career and in personal relationships.

Don't you think Singapore would be safer still if all drug related criminality was instantly gone and replaced with rational policy ?  

Nobody can be entirely safe, but Singapore's very rational policy has made it one of the safest places in the world.  America should follow suit with some of their strict policies on crime.

Can you think of other ways to entice people to become criminal?  How about, by giving billions of dollars a year in business only to criminals?  Encouraging corruption at the highest levels of law enforcement and government?  Eliminating the rule of law for transactions that affect millions of people?  

The law doesn't give money to criminals or rob people to get a fix, addicted drug users do.  The law doesn't violently engage in the drug trade, the distributors do that.  It is a false choice to suggest prohibition can not be achieved, as Singapore makes very clear.  It is inhumane to stop trying to protect addicts and children from drugs that kill them just because it is hard.  The government is a force of good, and it should protect us when it can.

Should we legalize child pornography just because stamping it out would require eliminating violent organized criminal elements?  Of course not, we have to protect the victims.  The same applies to drugs.

How about putting 2% of the population in jail so they can learn the ropes?  

We should surely reform our prison system so that they are not such a bad place, but that is not an excuse to legalize dangerous activities that kill people.

Religious leaders,  Police officers  

...are overwhelmingly opposed to legalization, regardless of any token examples you can find.

Remember it is you and your children who will be shot at, jailed, and robbed, by corruption

This is an argument for more law enforcement, not less.

[hashman]

There are many paths to personal growth.  Philosophy, artistic pursuits, sports, education, helping your fellow man, there is really an amazing amount of things you can do that don't involve poisoning yourself.  For me the key has been spirituality and I think that can be a great path towards helping you get there, it teaches you to "know how to know".  It taught me that I am a spiritual being and that my abilities extended well beyond what I had thought which helped me in my career and in personal relationships.

I totally agree!  Sports, artisic, education, study of foreign languages, religion, history, reading...  All very important, but none so satisfying as helping the fellow man.    I wonder what makes you think I poison myself?  Do you think I eat mcdonalds or drink mountain dew?  Or maybe watch commercial TV?   I don't. 

Nobody can be entirely safe, but Singapore's very rational policy has made it one of the safest places in the world.  America should follow suit with some of their strict policies on crime.

Maybe I am not familiar with the details of policies of Singapore.  I know however that USA spends more than anyone on drug prohibition and jails more than any country (per capita and total).  The totally predictable result is an increase in violence, corruption, and criminality.  This is not arguable.   

The law doesn't give money to criminals or rob people to get a fix, addicted drug users do.  The law doesn't violently engage in the drug trade, the distributors do that.  It is a false choice to suggest prohibition can not be achieved, as Singapore makes very clear.  It is inhumane to stop trying to protect addicts and children from drugs that kill them just because it is hard.  The government is a force of good, and it should protect us when it can.

 

http://www.economist.com/node/13237193

The trade in illegal drugs is billions of dollar annually.  Do you disagree?  You are now claiming you think this money should go straight into the hands of criminals.  You suggest here we should protect adults and children from drugs.  Protection means regulation, not prohibition.   Prohibition is the opposite of protection.  Remember it is because drugs can be so dangerous that they must be taken out of the hands of criminals and treated rationally.     

We should surely reform our prison system so that they are not such a bad place, but that is not an excuse to legalize dangerous activities that kill people.

Dangerous activities like gun ownership?  Driving cars?  Waging wars?  Taking prescription drugs?  All these things kill far far more people than any overdoses of illegal drugs. 

Seriously, you think I should be able to buy Draino but not cocaine? 

You think that nicotine is OK to buy but ganja means a cop can take your house? 

You think a playground pusher is better than a state regulated store?

You think that gang violence and corruption is better than regulated markets? 

Might want to work on that spiritual enlightenment a bit.  You'd be surprised, not all police and religious officials are corrupt.   

[Red Emerald]

Not to thread hijack further, but you really need to read some more studies from a range of sources, Rarity.  The FDA and DARE are not enough to educate one about drugs.

Most all the articles I find online talking about Marijuana and aggression didn't seem to actually have sources or only sources one study.

The ones that did seem to actually present some form of science were talking about withdrawal symptoms.  Zimmerman clearly wasn't going through withdrawal if your argument is that he was high at the time of the alleged murder. And carrying a lighter does not mean you are high.

The first article I found (http://www.idmu.co.uk/canagr.htm) with an actual list of sources ends with "The preponderance of scientific evidence does suggest cannabis may have a role in reducing aggressive behaviour, and the drug is certainly perceived to do so by a large number of cannabis users."

I'm also curious what you think about articles like this one from mothering.com (clearly not a pro-pot site).  While it doen't have to do with aggression, it presents evidence that marijuana does not have the effects that an organization like the FDA would lead you to believe.

http://mothering.com/pregnancy-birth/use-of-marijuana-during-pregnancy

There are around 30 sources from varying authors at the end of the article.

Only trusting what the FDA says and ignoring the rest of the scientific world is clearly limiting.  The FDA has been wrong about many things.

I really hope you are a troll and don't actually believe that prohibition would have worked if only we had also banned guns.

Okay, so Singapore doesn't have drugs and their violence is low.  Great.  How do you explain all of the countries/places with legalized/decriminalized drugs and low violence, especially ones that are more similar to the United States than Singapore is? I think that Netherlands handles drugs in a much more sane way than Singapore.  I'm not saying that there isn't a link between drugs and crime.  I'm saying that it isn't a simple of forumla of people + drugs = violence.

Seeing drugs as only poison is keeping your mind closed.

I'm glad you are optimistic about governments.  I wouldn't say they are a force for good though. Instead, I would say they should be a force of good.

Comparing Child Porn and Marijuana use is asinine.  Smoking pot does not hurt others.  Abducting children so you can sell them as sex objects does.

Have you heard of leap? They aren't just a "token example"

http://copssaylegalizedrugs.com/ or http://www.leap.cc/

http://www.leap.cc/partner-organizations/

[Rarity]

I know however that USA spends more than anyone on drug prohibition and jails more than any country (per capita and total)

Spending a lot isn't necessarily a sign of doing things right or not.  America spends more on healthcare than other countries, more than it would under a socialized system that would work better.

The trade in illegal drugs is billions of dollar annually.  Do you disagree?  You are now claiming you think this money should go straight into the hands of criminals.

No, I am arguing that we should arrest the criminals and punish them harshly.  The trade in human trafficking and child pornography generates a lot of revenue too.  Guess we should have legal brothels for children too!  

You suggest here we should protect adults and children from drugs.  Protection means regulation, not prohibition.   Prohibition is the opposite of protection.  Remember it is because drugs can be so dangerous that they must be taken out of the hands of criminals and treated rationally.      

There is no safe, rational way to use dangerous recreational drugs.  You are doing harm to your body and mind and walking a path that leads to addiction for temporary fun.

Dangerous activities like gun ownership? Yes  Driving cars? I wouldn't mind it, if there is well developed enough public transport, but drugs and alcohol contribute to much of the danger here anyway)  Waging wars? I do not support wars other than when neccesary for defense Taking prescription drugs? Many of them should be banned, yes, but taking certain drugs under the supervision of a doctor is necessary to sustain life and thus should not be banned

Seriously, you think I should be able to buy Draino but not cocaine?  

Chemicals that do not have recreational uses or are otherwise necessary for daily life should not be banned, no.  Addictive recreational drug sessions are not necessary in any way.

You think that nicotine is OK to buy but ganja means a cop can take your house?  

No, nicotine should definitely be prohibited as well, but it isn't close to as harmful to the body as marijuana is.

You think a playground pusher is better than a state regulated store?

In Pennsylvania they have state run liquor stores.  Children still drink alcohol, adults still die from it too.  State run stores are not solutions to the drug problem.

You think that gang violence and corruption is better than regulated markets?  

I think gang violence will be much less of a problem once we take away their guns and drugs.

Might want to work on that spiritual enlightenment a bit.  You'd be surprised, not all police and religious officials are corrupt.    

Of course they aren't corrupt, which is why they don't support allowing the people they are supposed to be serving to poison themselves.

The FDA and DARE are not enough to educate one about drugs.

The sources I have cited are the views of government and law enforcement experts based on knowledge of the range of available studies .  I'm sure they would be happy to be wrong on this and be able to focus on other problems, but they aren't.  You can find a minority of scientists who might disagree with the studies, but the denialists try that same trick of pointing to outliers instead of the scientific consensus, which is that marijuana is dangerous.

Zimmerman clearly wasn't going through withdrawal if your argument is that he was high at the time of the alleged murder. And carrying a lighter does not mean you are high.

Martin tested positive for drugs and had the appropriate paraphernalia with him.  I know you wish he wasn't high but he was.  You have to accept reality instead of denying it.  High or in withdraw, the marijuana is what caused his violent decisions in regards to Zimmerman.  I will not accept that a good kid like Martin just randomly decided to attack someone.  He would not have done it if he was thinking clearly and he would not have been acting strangely and suspiciously when Zimmerman saw him.  

The first article I found (http://www.idmu.co.uk/canagr.htm) with an actual list of sources ends with "The preponderance of scientific evidence does suggest cannabis may have a role in reducing aggressive behaviour, and the drug is certainly perceived to do so by a large number of cannabis users."

The article lists some studies that say precisely the opposite.

However some researchers have reported increased "aggressive" responses on human or animal behavioural models, Carlini et al reported increased aggressive behaviour in THC-dosed rats following deprivation of REM sleep, or after developing tolerance to morphine. Dorr et al reported that a high THC dose (2.5 mg/kg) "markedly increased the percentage of animals which showed both aggression and flight acts--a rare combination among controls." Clinicians have reported a toxic psychosis following prolonged or heavy cannabis use, including aggressive behaviour or panic disorder, however the existence of a specific "cannabis psychosis" is not firmly established in the absence of an underlying psychopathology.

And part of what it ended with, which you chose not to post of course was:

for some individuals heavy use of cannabis may precipitate a psychotic reaction with aggressive outbursts. These incidents are relatively rare, and highlight the varied individual responses to the drug.

This sounds like precisely what happened to Martin.  I think it's wise to trust government experts more than some random site with a pot leaf logo and an agenda.

I'm also curious what you think about articles like this one from mothering.com

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/aristotles-child/201111/the-truth-about-marijuana-and-pregnancy

I think you will find the bulk of doctors agree more with the FDA.

...it does have an impact on fetal brain development.  Long-term studies document that children whose mothers have used marijuana during pregnancy have a higher rate of executive functioning difficulties, which interfere with learning and behavior, especially as related to planning and following through with a task. Executive functioning is a vital issue, because although the children "look normal," they cannot behave and respond appropriately in the classroom or sometimes even at home.

...and I think you do to, and would not actually dose a baby with Marijuana because it would be "harmless", I would hope.

prohibition would have worked if only we had also banned guns.

Of course it would have.  It was a hallmark accomplishment of the progressive movement and only failed because of the violence.  Without the guns, it never would have been repealed.

I think that Netherlands handles drugs in a much more sane way than Singapore.  I'm not saying that there isn't a link between drugs and crime.  I'm saying that it isn't a simple of forumla of people + drugs = violence.

The guns are a big part of the equation.  They are restricted to only hunters and collectors in the Netherlands which limits the potential for violence significantly.  Even the Netherlands realizes that their policy simply doesn't work.  They are closing down coffee shops, banning tourists from them, and reclassifying Marijuana as a hard drug.  They tried the policy of believing the fantasy of safe marijuana, and of course it failed.  They also banned psychedelic mushrooms, another product people also often claim is safe but in fact ends up killing people.

Comparing Child Porn and Marijuana use is asinine.  Smoking pot does not hurt others.  Abducting children so you can sell them as sex objects does.

Drugs harm the addicted users and the family members who love them, it is a lie to say it is a victimless crime.

[RodeoX]

Wow Rarity way to answer back. I can tell you don't do drugs. A stoner would have just said "F this" and taken a big hit.

[Red Emerald]

Zimmerman clearly wasn't going through withdrawal if your argument is that he was high at the time of the alleged murder. And carrying a lighter does not mean you are high.

Martin tested positive for drugs and had the appropriate paraphernalia with him.  I know you wish he wasn't high but he was.  You have to accept reality instead of denying it.  High or in withdraw, the marijuana is what caused his violent decisions in regards to Zimmerman.  I will not accept that a good kid like Martin just randomly decided to attack someone.  He would not have done it if he was thinking clearly and he would not have been acting strangely and suspiciously when Zimmerman saw him.  

I'm not "wishing he wasn't high." I'm questioning that someone who was possibly high on marijuana at the time attacked BECAUSE HE WAS HIGH and not for some other reason.

The first article I found (http://www.idmu.co.uk/canagr.htm) with an actual list of sources ends with "The preponderance of scientific evidence does suggest cannabis may have a role in reducing aggressive behaviour, and the drug is certainly perceived to do so by a large number of cannabis users."

The article lists some studies that say precisely the opposite.

Exactly.  Studies have shown both effects.  But do you know what "preponderance" means?

However some researchers have reported increased "aggressive" responses on human or animal behavioural models, Carlini et al reported increased aggressive behaviour in THC-dosed rats following deprivation of REM sleep, or after developing tolerance to morphine. Dorr et al reported that a high THC dose (2.5 mg/kg) "markedly increased the percentage of animals which showed both aggression and flight acts--a rare combination among controls." Clinicians have reported a toxic psychosis following prolonged or heavy cannabis use, including aggressive behaviour or panic disorder, however the existence of a specific "cannabis psychosis" is not firmly established in the absence of an underlying psychopathology.

And part of what it ended with, which you chose not to post of course was:

for some individuals heavy use of cannabis may precipitate a psychotic reaction with aggressive outbursts. These incidents are relatively rare, and highlight the varied individual responses to the drug.

This sounds like precisely what happened to Martin.  I think it's wise to trust government experts more than some random site with a pot leaf logo and an agenda.

Just because a tiny fraction of the population may have adverse effects to a substance doesn't mean we should make it illegal for everyone or call it poison for everyone.  There is so far no proof that it was the marijuana that caused a violent outburst.  Let's wait for the courts to decide who attacked who before we jump to blaming pot.

I'm also curious what you think about articles like this one from mothering.com

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/aristotles-child/201111/the-truth-about-marijuana-and-pregnancy

I think you will find the bulk of doctors agree more with the FDA.

I don't see a single source listed.  Find some actual research. There are over 30 articles referenced by that mothering article.

Maybe the bulk of doctors in the USA.  However, your link doesn't link to a bulk of doctors and their research; it doesn't link to anything.

You also didn't respond to this list of groups that disagree with you. http://www.leap.cc/partner-organizations/

prohibition would have worked if only we had also banned guns.

Of course it would have.  It was a hallmark accomplishment of the progressive movement and only failed because of the violence.  Without the guns, it never would have been repealed.

I guess we simply disagree here.  I can't think of any instances of prohibition working well in the west.  Prohibition has historically always led to a black market where criminals are in control and once-law abiding citizens are forced to become criminals just to have a drink.

Comparing Child Porn and Marijuana use is asinine.  Smoking pot does not hurt others.  Abducting children so you can sell them as sex objects does.

Drugs harm the addicted users and the family members who love them, it is a lie to say it is a victimless crime.

I'll agree that addiction can harm other people beyond the addicted.  I don't at all believe it is anywhere near the damage caused by CP.

You are lumping all drugs into one category (poison) and assuming that they all lead to addiction and abuse.  This is foolish and close minded.

[Rarity]

I'm questioning that someone who was possibly high on marijuana at the time attacked BECAUSE THEY WERE HIGH and not for some other reason.

There is no reason for a clear thinking person to have attacked Zimmerman like Martin did, it makes no sense.

But do you know what "preponderance" means?

Yes, and most experts seem to disagree that the preponderance of the evidence shows Marijuana to be safe, regardless of your ability to find one person on a website with a pot leaf logo to say otherwise.

Just because a tiny fraction of the population may have adverse effects to a substance doesn't mean we should make it illegal for everyone or call it poison for everyone.

There are many other adverse effects of marijuana, including but not limited to:

http://www.acde.org/common/Marijana.htm

Impaired perception
Diminished short-term memory
Loss of concentration and coordination
Impaired judgement
Increased risk of accidents
Loss of motivation
Diminished inhibitions
Increased heart rate
Anxiety, panic attacks, and paranoia
Hallucinations
Damage to the respiratory, reproductive, and immune systems
Increased risk of cancer
Psychological dependency

There is no reason to allow people to use such a dangerous substance, when the only reason is for pursuit of a deceptive and addictive pleasure.  

I don't see a single source listed.  Find some actual research. There are over 30 articles referenced by that mothering article.

Listing a lot of sources doesn't make somebody right.  Most experts who have actually looked at the studies agree on the dangers.


http://www.narconon.org/drug-information/marijuana-pot.html

Effects of Marijuana on Pregnancy

Any drug of abuse can affect a mother's health during pregnancy, and this is a time when she should take special care of herself. Drugs of abuse may interfere with proper nutrition and rest, which can affect good functioning of the immune system. Some studies have found that babies born to mothers who used marijuana during pregnancy were smaller than those born to mothers who did not use the drug. In general, smaller babies are more likely to develop health problems.

A nursing mother who uses marijuana passes some of the THC to the baby in her breast milk. Research indicates that the use of marijuana by a mother during the first month of breast-feeding can impair the infant's motor development (control of muscle movement).

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana-abuse/can-marijuana-use-during-pregnancy-harm-baby

Animal research suggests that the body's endocannabinoid system plays a role in the control of brain maturation, particularly in the development of emotional responses. It is conceivable that even low concentrations of THC, when administered during the perinatal period, could have profound and long-lasting consequences for both brain and behavior (Trezza et al. 2008). Research has shown that some babies born to women who used marijuana during their pregnancies display altered responses to visual stimuli, increased tremulousness, and a high-pitched cry, which could indicate problems with neurological development. In school, marijuana-exposed children are more likely to show gaps in problem solving skills, memory, and the ability to remain attentive. More research is needed, however, to disentangle the drug-specific factors from the environmental ones (Schempf and Strobino 2008).

http://www.americanpregnancy.org/pregnancyhealth/illegaldrugs.html

What happens when a pregnant woman smokes marijuana? Marijuana crosses the placenta to your baby. Marijuana, like cigarette smoke, contains toxins that keep your baby from getting the proper supply of oxygen that he or she needs to grow.
How can marijuana affect the baby? Studies of marijuana in pregnancy are inconclusive because many women who smoke marijuana also use tobacco and alcohol. Smoking marijuana increases the levels of carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide in the blood, which reduces the oxygen supply to the baby. Smoking marijuana during pregnancy can increase the chance of miscarriage, low birth weight, premature births, developmental delays, and behavioral and learning problems.

Low birthweight, short gestation, and major malformations occurred more often among offspring of marijuana users.

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.73.10.1161

When potentially confounding variables were controlled for in the analysis, the infants whose mothers had positive urine assays for marijuana, as compared with the infants whose mothers were negative according to both interviews and urine assays, had a 79-g decrease in birth weight (P = 0.04) and a 0.5-cm decrement in length (P = 0.02).

http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM198903233201203

Exposure to marijuana during pregnancy alters neurobehavior in the early neonatal period.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17137892

Endogenous cannabinoids use the same mechanism, engaging the CB1 cannabinoid receptor, as THC to exert their effects on nerve cells. Therefore, the finding that endogenous cannabinoids control the establishment of connections amongst certain nerve cells convinces the scientists that they have defined a key mechanism through which maternal cannabis use might impair fetal brain development and impose life-long cognitive, social, and motor deficits in affected offspring. "Besides identifying a fundamental mechanism in brain development, our findings may provide new perspectives to identifying the molecular changes in the brains of individuals prenatally affected by maternal cannabis abuse", says Dr. Tibor Harkany who has led the studies. "This is of social impact given the continuous growing use of marijuana, the most common illicit drug, in our society."

Earlier studies have already found that children of marijuana-smoking mothers more frequently suffer from permanent cognitive deficits, concentration disorders, hyperactivity, and impaired social interactions than non-exposed children of the same age and social background.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070524145037.htm

Smoking Marijuana during pregnancy has been linked to low birth weights in babies and withdrawal-like symptoms including excessive crying, tremors, hyperemesis (severe and chronic vomiting). Some studies, though not all, show that women who use marijuana even as infrequently as once a month throughout pregnancy are more likely to gain inadequate weight, to have dangerously rapid labor, prolonged or arrested labor, or a cesarean section. They are also more likely to have a baby that needs resuscitation after delivery.

Maternal marijuana use may also damage genes, possibly resulting in birth defects or cancer as well as lead to an increased risk of attention disorders and learning problems later in life. Marijuana has also been shown to adversely affect placental function and the fetal endocrine system, potentially interfering with the successful completion of pregnancy.

http://www.pregnancy-info.net/marijuana_and_pregnancy.html

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=1012&sid=20737065

A new study has found that marijuana is more dangerous than the public perceives it to be, contradicting a previous study that said the opposite.

The study, published Wednesday by the British Lung Foundation, found that a cannabis cigarette is 20 times more likely to cause cancer than a tobacco cigarette.

Researchers found strong evidence of a link between the drug and diseases such as lung cancer, tuberculosis and other lung conditions. Researchers also found a strong association between the drug and heart attacks, as well as suppression of the immune system.

...and you think it is safe for a developing fetus?   Even NORML, while trying as hard as possible to whitewash away the dangers of pot, states that they would not recommend a pregnant woman smokes it.

http://norml.org/library/health-reports/item/norml-s-marijuana-health-mythology

While cannabis use is not recommended in pregnancy, it may be of medical value to some women in treating morning sickness or easing childbirth.

They believe it is irresponsible to expose children to pot.  You are way out on a limb with this stuff.

I guess we simply disagree here.  I can't think of any instances of prohibition working well in the west.

People are the same wherever they are from.  It is a tragedy that you can never wipe out drug use entirely, but like Singapore you can drastically reduce it and still have a society low in violent crime.

I'll agree that addiction can harm other people beyond the addicted.  I don't at all believe it is anywhere near the damage caused by CP.

Addiction certainly can, and does.  Both things ruin lives, and neither should be tolerated.  

http://www.actionnewsjax.com/content/actionlocal/story/Mom-accused-of-selling-child-for-drugs/Oh3xpbghgU69BQsRyVXKQw.cspx

JACKSONVILLE BEACH, Fla. -- Investigators call her a monster of a mom but family members are speaking out in defense of Dalina Nicholas. According to police, Nicholas sold sex with her young daughter for crack-cocaine and money.

You are lumping of drugs into one category (poison) and assuming that they all lead to addiction and abuse.  This is foolish and close minded.

Well, I don't think we have talked much about drugs beyond Marijuana, which is certainly addictive so I'm not sure what your point is.

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana-abuse/marijuana-addictive

Long-term marijuana use can lead to addiction; that is, people have difficulty controlling their drug use and cannot stop even though it interferes with many aspects of their lives.

[Red Emerald]

As you said, providing sources doesn't mean you are right.  Thank you for providing some.  You claim my source is invalid because there is a pot leaf on it, but then you link to a bunch of gov sites that only present tiny pieces of the study to present.  The government that has spent billions on the war on the drugs has no bias, right? lol.

I want to see the actual studies. Not (solely American) blogs and government sites. At least not all of the studies are American.  Luckily, your links do provide enough to find abstracts for most of the actual data.

Your first link does not link to any actual studies.

The second link contains 2 studies.  However I don't see how either study actually proves your point.

http://cong35.sifweb.org/congresso_abs_view.php?id=163 is only testing one chemical that is in marijuana and ends with "These data confirm previous findings (Haller et al., 2009) by showing that, in adult rats, FAAH inhibition affects emotional reactivity under high stressful circumstances. Our findings suggest that selective indirect cannabinoid agonists could represent a potential target to treat social dysfunctions in neurodevelopmental diseases and could protect against the anxiogenic effects of stressful stimuli at adulthood."

So being high has an affect on reactions? No shit... However their affect could be used to TREAT SOCIAL DYSFUNCTIONS.  This means that this chemical works AGAINST anxiety. The exact opposite of increased aggression or anything like that.  That is a positive thing, not a negative.  The rats were more communicative with eachother.  I don't think rat's amount of communication when subjected to one of the myriad of chemicals in pot is a very good basis for understanding the affects of pot on a person.

The second study is covered in far better detail in the mothering.com article than in the article you linked.

In unadjusted results, all types of drug use were related to birth weight decrements and increased odds of LBW. However, only the effect of cocaine on continuous birth weight remained significant after adjusting for all associated factors (-142 g, p = 0.05). No drug was significantly related to LBW in fully adjusted models. About 70% of the unadjusted effect of cocaine use on continuous birth weight was explained by surrounding psychosocial and behavioral factors, particularly smoking and stress. Most of the unadjusted effects of opiate use were explained by smoking and lack of early prenatal care. Thus, prevention efforts that aim to improve newborn health must also address the surrounding context in which drug use frequently occurs.

I fail to see how this study proves your point about marijuana.  However, if you are pregnant, it is pretty clear that you shouldn't do heroin or cocaine.  I highly recommend you actually read the mothering.com article as it goes through all of these numbers.

Your next link has no scientific evidence, but it does say "Studies of marijuana in pregnancy are inconclusive"

You must not have actually read this abstract (Thanks for linking directly to an abstract, though).

Low birthweight, short gestation, and major malformations occurred more often among offspring of marijuana users. When we used logistic regression to control for demographic characteristics, habits, and medical history data, these relationships were not statistically significant.

This one looks to be actually on your side.  I already linked to it though, it is mentioned in the mothering.com article.  There clearly needs to be more research done as there are contradictory studies.

Well I have to go now, but I've gone through half your articles and all but one of them have the scientists on my side, not yours.

I'll link to the actual abstracts (if there are any) of the rest of the studies instead of some blogger/government opinions of the study.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/316/5828/1212

http://media.bonnint.net/slc/2499/249928/24992851.pdf

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?volume=307&issue=2&page=173

And yes.  NORML recommends mothers don't smoke. I'm not recommending they do either.  I'm just saying that it likely does not have any long term deleterious effects. How am I way out on a limb?

But anyways, these tangents are pointless. You think alcohol should be illegal.  There is no point in continuing.  We clearly disagree on what "freedom" means.

Pot clearly destroys lungs:

[Rarity]

You claim my source is invalid because there is a pot leaf on it, but then you link to a bunch of gov sites that only present tiny pieces of the study to present.  The government that has spent billions on the war on the drugs has no bias, right? lol.

No, there is no bias.  The government comes to these conclusions by hiring experts to study the drugs in question and the available research, and every country on the planet, even the very few ones with some form of legalization, do not think it is a good idea to expose children to marijuana.  You are not an expert on these matters, so I'm not particularly inclined to trust your judgement of what the studies show over theirs.

We clearly disagree on what "freedom" means.

If it means the freedom to poison yourself to death with drugs, yeah we don't need that one.

Pot clearly destroys lungs:

If you do not understand that anecdotal evidence doesn't mean anything, I really don't trust your ability to interpret scientific data better than expert scientists.

[rjk]

The only experts are the users, the rest are frauds.

[Red Emerald]

You claim my source is invalid because there is a pot leaf on it, but then you link to a bunch of gov sites that only present tiny pieces of the study to present.  The government that has spent billions on the war on the drugs has no bias, right? lol.

No, there is no bias.  The government comes to these conclusions by hiring experts to study the drugs in question and the available research, and every country on the planet, even the very few ones with some form of legalization, do not think it is a good idea to expose children to marijuana.  You are not an expert on these matters, so I'm not particularly inclined to trust your judgement of what the studies show over theirs.

Did you not read all of the studies that YOU linked? You don't have to trust my judgement. Just read the abstracts and you will see that you are wrong.  I was just making it easy by bolding all the parts for you that clearly disprove your view.

Do you not understand what "treat social dysfunctions" or "only the effect of cocaine" or "not statistically significant" mean? I didn't think those terms required having a doctorate.

EDIT: You really didn't read the actual sources of what you linked, did you?

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/316/5828/1212 is an abstract that is very academic.  However it is referenced by an abstract that is worded less technically and has more real world applications.

Given the fact that the pharmacological modulation of the eCB system has recently arisen as a promising strategy in the management of anxiety and mood disorders, the potential efficacy of this pharmacological approach (i.e. blockers of the catabolic pathway) will be discussed, as well as pharmacological alternatives such as modulators of cannabinoid receptors other than the classical CB1 receptor, or administration of other plant-derived compounds (e.g. cannabidiol).

"Promising strategy."  Now that sounds dangerous...

Now http://media.bonnint.net/slc/2499/249928/24992851.pdf does have some information that looks dangerous.  However it is only testing "marijuana cigarettes."  What about vaporizers?  That does not release any of the carcinogens or tar because nothing is burned.  Seems silly to outlaw something based on only one way of partaking, especially while tobacco is legal.

The conclusion of your last article requires no scientific knowledge to validate and is clearly not on your side.

Occasional and low cumulative marijuana use was not associated with adverse effects on pulmonary function.

[Rarity]

Once again, the highly qualified experts who have considered these studies do not agree with your views on them and do not support smoking drugs during pregnancy.  I have already linked to such experts explaining this.  I trust the views of the experts on these matters far more than your ability to interpret the studies.

When the unbiased experts and even pro-marijuana organizations like NORML agree, it's safe to say they aren't wrong.

http://norml.org/component/zoo/category/recent-research-on-medical-marijuana

That said, cannabis should not necessarily be viewed as a 'harmless' substance. Its active constituents may produce a variety of physiological and euphoric effects. As a result, there may be some populations that are susceptible to increased risks from the use of cannabis, such as adolescents, pregnant or nursing mothers, and patients who have a family history of mental illness. Patients with hepatitis C, decreased lung function (such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), or who have a history of heart disease or stroke may also be at a greater risk of experiencing adverse side effects from marijuana

[Red Emerald]

Once again, the highly qualified experts who have considered these studies do not agree with your views on them and do not support smoking drugs during pregnancy.  I have already linked to such experts explaining this.  I trust the views of the experts on these matters far more than your ability to interpret the studies.

When the unbiased experts and even pro-marijuana organizations like NORML agree, it's safe to say they aren't wrong.

http://norml.org/component/zoo/category/recent-research-on-medical-marijuana

That said, cannabis should not necessarily be viewed as a 'harmless' substance. Its active constituents may produce a variety of physiological and euphoric effects. As a result, there may be some populations that are susceptible to increased risks from the use of cannabis, such as adolescents, pregnant or nursing mothers, and patients who have a family history of mental illness. Patients with hepatitis C, decreased lung function (such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), or who have a history of heart disease or stroke may also be at a greater risk of experiencing adverse side effects from marijuana

I'm way past the pregnancy article, dude.  I just wanted to know what you thought about it.  I didn't say it was scripture passed down from the almighty father.

Please go back and read the abstracts and/or conclusions THAT YOU LINKED and then come back.

[Rarity]

I am not a scientific expert or a medical doctor, and I would not presume to overrule the scientific consensus of experts based on reading a few abstracts any more than I would doubt the consensus on global warming and evolution. 

[rjk]

I am not a scientific expert or a medical doctor, and I would not presume to overrule the scientific consensus of experts based on reading a few abstracts any more than I would doubt the consensus on global warming and evolution. 

So you will accept others' misinterpretations just because you can't be bothered to do you own research? Sure.

[Rarity]

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Leave science to the experts, or you end up with people who think the earth is 6000 years old, or that aliens are visiting us, that vaccines are unsafe, and every other ridiculous thing.  You are not better at interpreting the studies than they are, it is an illusion.

[rjk]

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

What a stunningly apropos self-diagnosis of yourself, Rarity. Now would you please address my question above?

[Red Emerald]

I don't understand how you can claim my argument is invalid when I am quoting the scientists who did the research while you are quoting random government websites that have hard to find links to the research.

You don't need to be a scientists to understand "Occasional and low cumulative marijuana use was not associated with adverse effects on pulmonary function."

There is zero chance I am misinterpreting that.