🚀 go-pugleaf

<scott@mostlylinux.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:8crf5q$4q7$1@galileo.mostlylinux.ab.ca...
> In calgary.general Mark <mark1w@n.o.s.p.a.m.oanet.com> wrote:
> > By intoxication I am refering to what most people would call being
drunk,
> > not to a scientifically measurable change in physical response.
>
> I understand your point. However, it applies equally well to marijuana,
which
> can be consumed in low enough quantities to not "negatively" affect an
> individual significantly. The point isn't what it can do, it's what you do
> with it. If you want to feel "good", it's possible with both substances.
If
> you want to feel "wasted", it's also possible.

A few years ago I was in a room with a fellow who lit up a joint.  After
about a minute with the smoke circulating around the room I decided I
should leave.  I went and sat in the kitchen, and as I sat there I realised
that I was feeling an old familiar feeling.  If just the second hand smoke
was
enough to make me feel it's effects, then how could a person smoke
even a small amount and not get stoned.  Remember, I can drink a beer
and not feel it's effect, so if you a going to say the same thing about
pot your way out in left field.

>
> > My reasoning is perfectly sound.  I drink on a regular basis, and not
for
> > the purpose of getting drunk.  In fact, I don't even like getting drunk.
> > Many people, aware that drunk driving is a serious problem also limit
> > there consumption when they are out for the evening.  So don't make
> > the rediculous claim that alcohol only serves to get one drunk.
>
> It's not ridiculous. Alcohol, as found in alcoholic beverages, causes
> intoxication.

It only causes intoxication if taken in sufficient quantities.  You stated
that alcohol
*only* serves to get one drunk, I dispute that claim.

>In sufficient quantities, it can poison and kill (something
> which marijuana/THC cannot do).

Not by smoking it, however if you drank several ounces of pure THC perhaps
you would die.  I don't think anyone has tried it.  I did meet someone who's
uncle smoked 2 ounces of hash in on big hit, he passed out for two days.

>If enough people show their concern about
> getting drunk (by using the power of their wallet), maybe we could get
some
> decent tasting non-alcoholic beers. The alcohol itself doesn't add
anything to
> the flavour of alcoholic beverages (except that nasty rubbing-alcohol
taste).

Alcohol adds a bitter and metallic taste to beverages, it also has a warming
effect.
There is a big difference in the taste of a 5% beer and an 8% beer.

>
> I'm only playing devil's advocate here, anyway. My purpose is to point out
the
> ridiculousness of making blanket statements, whether they be about alcohol
or
> marjiuana. The point is that some people *do* drink to get drunk, and it's
> legal. Since being stoned is no worse than being drunk (and generally alot
> better), there is no good reason to not decriminalize marijuana.
>
> > My friends and I always used the words interchangably.  Cocaine is more
> > similar to marijuana than you think.
>
> They have completely different physiological and psychological effects.
> Cocaine and alcohol actually have more in common than cocaine and
marijuana.

Cocaine is a stimulant and alcohol is a depressant.

>
> > BTW the EPS has said that more people used cocaine in Edmonton last year
> > than marijauna.
>
> Interesting statistic. In the Netherlands, it was noted that use of "hard"
> drugs actually decreased once marijuana was decriminalized.

>
> > I can't see any reason why it's none of my business.  We all know that
> > drug abuse is a serious problem, not just because of what it does to the
> > user, but also what that user does to other people, especially their own
> > families.
>
> Alcoholism is much worse, and more pervasive. So is nicotine addiction.
Yet
> both of these are legal.

I didn't know that you could make an addiction legal or illegal.

>
> Besides, it has been repeatedly shown by every reputable scientific study
> (including many funded by the US and Canadian governments) that marijuana
use
> is largely benign. The most serious negative effect of marijuana use comes
> from smoking it, which has the same type of effects as smoking cigarettes.

Marijuana is addictive and does have a harmful effect on the user.

"Similarly for cannabis, withdrawal was characterised by anxiety and
insomnia. It wasn't significant physical withdrawal, but that didn't mean it
wasn't addicting. We would see people use compulsively every day, stop going
to school, and spend all their money on marijuana. So the toxicity was lower
than for heroine, but it still fit in to our definition of addiction."

You can read the remainder of this article at,
http://www.newscientist.com/nsplus/insight/drugs/marijuana/drdave.html

>
> > You haven't followed my resoning at all.
>
> I beg to differ, but please enlighten me. The discussion is of no use if
we
> aren't understanding one another.

I'm not opposed to the legalisation of marijuana simply because of the
harmful physical
effects it may have, as your statement about cigarettes implies, but because
of the
harm that intoxication can do, not only to the user but to everyone else
around him/her.

>
> --
> Scott Barker       scott@mostlylinux.ab.ca


Markw