🚀 go-pugleaf

<scott@mostlylinux.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:8cs3ju$6n8$1@galileo.mostlylinux.ab.ca...
> In calgary.general Mark <mark1w@n.o.s.p.a.m.oanet.com> wrote:

> Nicotine and caffeine are both stimulants, and are addictive. Heroin is a
> depressant like alcohol, and it is an accepted medical fact that all
> depressants are addictive. Marijuana, on the other hand, has not been
> classified as a stimulant or a depressant. It has never been shown to be
> addictive. In fact, it *has* been shown that there are receptors in the
brain
> that serve no other purpose than to accept THC. Further, from "Marijuana
And
> the Brain", by John Gettman in High Times, March, 1995:
>
> "...the discovery of the THC receptor site and the subsequent research and
> observations it has inspired conclusively refute the hypothesis that
marijuana
> is dope. Many important brain functions which affect human behavior
involve
> the neurotransmitter dopamine. Serious drugs of abuse, such as heroin and
> cocaine, interfere with the brain's use of dopamine in manners that can
> seriously alter an individual's behavior. A drug's ability to affect the
> neural systems related to dopamine production has now become the defining
> characteristic of drugs with serious abuse potential. According to the
> congressional Office of Technology Assessment, research over the last 10
years
> has proved that marijuana has no effect on dopamine-related brain
systems."
>
> So, if we are to argue the relative merits of intoxicants, nicotine,
caffeine
> and alcohol all deserve to be outlawed, while marijuana is one of the very
few
> intoxicants which is not deserving of such measures. Indeed, it seems our
> brains have evolved special receptors just for THC.

What an incredibly naive thing to say.  First, the cite that you quote in no
way said that the "THC" receptor was just for THC.  Secondly, whatever
purpose it really does serve simply hasn't been found yet.

> > Marijuana is addictive and does have a harmful effect on the user.
>
> Please quote some scientific sources, other than:
>
> > http://www.newscientist.com/nsplus/insight/drugs/marijuana/drdave.html
>
> Which is nothing more than an interview, with a lone individual expressing
> their own opinions and anecdotes.
>

If a scientific source, such as a medical dotor, who works in a clinic that
deals
every day with drug addicts, isn't enough to convince you, then you
obviously
have your mind made up and don't want to be confused with the facts.

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


Markw