Pot Houses

[scorrpio]

Frankly, I really don't think that legalizing any drug will increase the total number of users. Do you think that any person who is able to deal with his life without some sort of dope - be it alcohol or anything - would start using a drug just because it became legalized? I do see the opposite happening - those likely to try a drug because of its 'forbidden fruit' stigma will no longer do so.

In other words, people who would use a legalized drug are the ones who would find some way to get stoned anyway.

Banning substances in a society that has demands for them is ineffectual, and can be outright harmful. The criminal element of this aside, a person set on getting high will find a way - i.e. resort to some household chemical. For example, certain types of glue can produce narcotic fumes, as well as various kinds of lacquers, thinners, solvents and such. In the end the user will only cause himself more harm.
Ban alcohol? You'll have what's going on in Russia where many bums cannot afford the store booze - they'll drink anyhting with an alcohol content - be it methyl, isopropyl, denatured, whatever - often with fatal consequences. Banning alcohol will do little for the chronic abusers - and instead of treating them for cyrrosis, you'll have to treat them for a wide variety of poisonings - and it will frustrate those who like an occasional drink.

[oakchas]

A recent medical study done in California (not conclusive, but interesting) four groups.
1. Pot + cigarette smokers
2. Pot smokers
3. Cigarette smokers
4. Non smokers

Incidence of lung cancer among group 1 lower than group 3
incidence of lung cancer among group 2 lower than 3
incidence of lung cancer among group 2 lower than 4? (hard to beleive and I may be wrong in my recollection of that one.)

this is from memory... but it was a recently published study within the last year. I haven't smoked pot in decades. I have recently given up cigarettes. I read the above results in a news magazine and heard it on the radio... I don't put a lot of stock in it as it was preliminary... and the statistical science may not be "all there" but it was interesting.

Here's a link to a webmd article...http://www.webmd.com/content/article/122/114805.htm

[jseklund]

Not to dig up a dying thread- but I got sick and wasn't around for the weekend.

Maxparot- Thank you for making this such an interesting debate. Here is my reply:

I think that people are misinformed, but I think we go in different directions with it. I don't think the average person reads medical journals, and must rely on their peers to get info. Knowing this, the government puts out what might be called "propaganda" to try to inform. It is really advertising and we all know that advertising can and usually is interpreted in various ways.

I am not saying that the government is a saint. But, oftentimes, good intentions go astray when the process gets involved. I personally find it hard to believe that George Bush (R) or Robert Kennedy (D) either want to hurt the country. Good intentions, but maybe not smart intentions, and even when they are good AND smart there is an obstacle of process involved.

I agree that if I were to choose an illegal drug to abuse, marijuana would probably be up near the top of my list. Safety is kind of a moving target, so I don't know if I'd call it safe, but it is less LIKELY to kill me or cause major problems. However, I believe wholeheartedly that MOST (read as: Not All) people who smoke pot tend to show signs of slower memory and understanding functions. This coupled with the fact that there is indeed evidence suggesting the possibility of cardiac stress and no real difference between smoking cigarettes and marijuana as far as cancer goes (although doing more recent research prompted by you has shown evidence that lung FUNCTION may not be impaired by pot like with cigarettes)- makes me take exception when people say that pot is "safe" or even worse- "Has no side effects". I hear the latter a lot from people I know who smoke it. This is obviously peer misinformation as you stated.

The bottom line is this- the fact that it is a drug doesn't make it useless (I never said this either- but I think it may have come across like I did in one of my posts because you had eluded to this). Drugs are neither good nor evil. It is our use of drugs that is at issue. Self-prescription is unethical, and generally accepted as a bad idea for ANY drug. Asprin sends more people to the hospital each year than almost any drug- mostly because people self-prescribe it and don't understand pharmacokinetics.

Drugs are very complex substances, or at least produce complex results. I don't agree with the recreational use of ANY drug- alcohol, marijuana, cocain, heroine, cigarettes, etc. It's just not me. I don't look down on people who smoke or drink if they are not letting it effect their outter lives. Some people I guess, can do this. However, the only way to find out if you are one of them is to take a hit or a shot and keep doing it. I choose to not find out. Many people choose to find out. They find out that they CANNOT control it. It's easy to avoid, and sad to see.

The other side of recreational drug use- is that people who would get medical benefit from it, may have MORE difficulty getting it. If I have cancer and it's the only drug that doesn't make me puke but handles the pain- look what I have to deal with to get THC. Because Joe Smith chose to find out that he cannot handle pot smoking without problems, I now have to commit a criminal act, unguided by a professional, self-prescribing my drug (I know- not in all states). Furthermore, what drug company will commit billions of dollars in research to developing a drug with this product when:

1) People will hesitate to buy it because of the stigma.
2) There will be legal battles to be fought and hoops to jump through (more money) to bring it to market.
3) There could be great liability if something went wrong (like pot heads start using it to get high).

So, because I want to use the drug recreationally and find out if I can handle it- your healthcare suffers in numerous ways. Steroids are another example of this. Athletes abuse these drugs, self prescribe, etc- and then have problems. Everyone hears about it, it gets stigmatized, and companies slow down their research. Then the guy down the street with diabetes doesn't get his testosterone because it's a classed drug. Again, it leads to nothing but sadness for me- I'm sad that so many people find out that they cannot handle it and took the chance they took to find out. And I'm sad that so many people may not get the treatment they need because of such risks being taken.

Drugs are not the issue. Thinking and education is. We need to show more people that the risk/reward is not there (on a level that is real to them) and provide them with accurate information. I think there are philosophical issues with making ANY drug illegal when alcohol is legal. But I think more importantly, making a drug illegal is hacking at the leaves when we should be striking at the root. We don't need another law about drug use. We need better decisions and accountability.

Also- I think I finally get what you mean about decriminalizing it. Do you mean- have it regulated by doctors as other drugs?


TB Roye- I am sorry to hear about your families difficulties, but am happy and proud to hear of your family's successes in overcoming the battles. A lot of times people will say, "Alcoholism is a disease" or "Addiction is a disease." The problem is, they don't start thinking of it as a disease until AFTER they have it. If they thought about it BEFORE they had the disease the logical question would be, "What gives you this disease?" and they would avoid it like a plague. In this case, the obvious answers are pot and alcohol. No one is grabbing ticks hoping to get lyme disease.

Scorpio- I think you are comparing people who CAN handle it with people who CANNOT. Someone who wants an occassional drink is not going to start drinking from their medicine cabinet when they can't get any other form of alcohol. However, someone who has a problem with it today, would have never gotten their if they didn't start with that first drink. As I stated before, I think that the fact that alcohol IS legal and causes so many problems (more than more 'dangerous' illegal drugs) is proof that illegalization does have some benefit. I know a lot of people who would try it recreationally, if it were legal. And they may be more people who get addicted and have problems.

pierhogunn- Your roommate, according to one of the studies I linked to above, must have suffered from low grades and motivation. Obviously, the low grades and motivation lead to the pot smoking (according to the conclusion of the scientists in this study). It wasn't that your roommate's pot smoking caused the low grades and low motivation. hahahaha.

Oakchas- Thanks for the link. I will read it- looks interesting. Common sense would question the findings, but common sense would also tell us that everything revolves around the earth too. Thanks.

[pierhogunn]

My roomate was also a MAC evangelist, you think that might have had something to do with it

[maxparot]

Decriminalization - Yes the general thought is that Doctors and the AMA should be the judges of it's use without the pressures of politicians.

As for any attached stigma you use steriods as an example but steroids are in common use for the treatment of cancer and a few other disorders. Yet the present federal administration refuses to allow doctors to prescribe marijuana, threatening to have doctors licenses to practice medicine pulled and attempting to override states authority to decriminalize.

As mentioned Amsterdam for many years has allowed the regulated use of marijuana similar to how we restrict alcohol but limited to a single district.

I personally have no problem with others recreational use as long as it is done responsibly. I see it as a social lubricant the same as alcohol and would feel fine with pot being legally sold the same way alcohol is. Not to minors!

I'm sorry if some people misuse or abuse a substance. Unfortunately the legal status of a drug doesn't seem to have a correlation to it's abuse. I would sight recent reports of over the counter drug use by teens.

Some people throughout history have used recreational drugs and still made major contributions to society without causing problems. I don't care what people put in their bodies if they don't drive, operate heavy machinery, show up for work or cause a public disturbance while under the infuence.

[bmyers]

So I guess in the train of thought that says we should outlaw pot and criminalize pot smokers also says that we should outlaw McDonalds and overweight people? Put them in jail because they are a burden on our healthcare system?

The cost of Mcdonalds french fries would skyrocket in the black market.

Obesity is a much larger problem than pot smokers, right? 70 percent of the population? That’s a lot of jail cells but ok, I don’t mind..

[jseklund]

OK, Maxparot and I have reached a definitive answer on one point in this argument.

Point 1- Decriminalization - Yes the general thought is that Doctors and the AMA should be the judges of it's use without the pressures of politicians.

I agree. Doctors should feel pressure, but the same pressure they feel with any drug- they are there to help patience gain health in a responsible, moral, and ethical manner. Misprescribe and you are responsible. Other than that, do what needs to be done without taking unreasonable chances.

As for the steroid thing- it was not meant to be a perfect analogy- just a parallel example. Steroids have LOADS of medical benefits- far more than you could hope to find with marijuana I'd say (without making a list and comparing- maybe I should, but please don't make me!!). But the stigma around them is profound. I know more people who wouldn't touch steroids than who wouldn't use marijuana. If it were just a matter of legality, health, etc., this doesn't add up. People want it because they convince themselves of the low risk, and high reward. If the risk/reward were in line- we'd view this product as a medically useful product with risk and benefits. We don't view it that way though, because it is a recreational drug. Ironically- the people arguing for its medical benefits are often the same people using it recreationally- a contradiction that goes unrealized. They are the same people who are stigmatizing it. How's that for a political maneuver?

Oh, Amsterdam has legalized it! I'm sold. Why am I even arguing?

Iraq allowed dictators to rape women and cut people up and send them home in trash bags. We should do that too.

Yes, Amsterdam doesn't attack other countries. Come to think of it...what does Amsterdam do except for smoke pot? Hmmm...correlation? They must get low grades.

Question 2: How is RECREATIONAL drug use responsible? This is a weird concept to me. It's kind of like, Responsible Russian Roulet.

I'm sorry if some people misuse or abuse a substance. Unfortunately the legal status of a drug doesn't seem to have a correlation to it's abuse. I would sight recent reports of over the counter drug use by teens.

Your example would suggest that legalization leads to abuse? If over the counter drugs were no longer legal- would they abuse them? This is similar to what I've been saying- Alcohol is the MOST abused drug in the country, and it is legal. Even though it is "safer" than a lot of illegal drugs- it has the largest number of problems that it causes. This too suggests that illegalization DOES cut down on societal cost associated with a drug. Is making something illegal the answer? Again, it's putting a band-aid on the wound. We need fewer laws and more citizens who are better educated and make better decisions.

Some people throughout history have used recreational drugs and still made major contributions to society without causing problems. I don't care what people put in their bodies if they don't drive, operate heavy machinery, show up for work or cause a public disturbance while under the infuence.

I agree. Being a recreational drug user does not exclude you from contributing. However, it doesn't help you, and may make things more difficult. I know potheads who can function on very high levels. But most of them function on very low levels.

I don't really care what people put in their bodies either, if it meets the criteria you lay out, or more appropriately meets the criteria of, "It doesn't effect me." However, we do not live in a vacuum. We live in an interdependant society, and what we do have far reaching effects. To compound this, we have a healthcare system that is far from capitalistic, and borderlines being socialistic. What this means is that everyone gets healthcare, but not everyone pays for it. However, resources are still limited.

I used the example before- If I get drunk and go to the ER with alcohol poisoning- I'm taking up a stretcher. Because I'm an alcoholic- I don't have a job. They can't turn me away- or I'll die, and they can't let me die if they can save me. Something about an oath or something. Now you come in and not only is your bed taken up- but you get to pay a portion of the bill that wasn't paid for by me. Yeah, they don't say that's how it works, but it is. Health Insurance, Hospitals, etc.- this bill has to be factored in.

Anyway, I think we agree more closely than we realize- and we're getting to a definitive answer I think.

pierhogunn- I think we should do a study and try to determine this! The correclation with MAC/Pot. Both are three letters!

*Just so everyone knows- I try to be funny in parts of my post, but not offensive. Sometimes I may fail miserably at both efforts.

[jseklund]

So I guess in the train of thought that says we should outlaw pot and criminalize pot smokers also says that we should outlaw McDonalds and overweight people? Put them in jail because they are a burden on our healthcare system?

The cost of Mcdonalds french fries would skyrocket in the black market.

Obesity is a much larger problem than pot smokers, right? 70 percent of the population? That’s a lot of jail cells but ok, I don’t mind..

Bmyers- you are correct. This is exactly why I was saying that we need fewer laws and more education. If you legalize alcohol, how can you make pot illegal? Alcohol leads to far more problems (possibly because it IS legal AND we make bad/uneducated choices). While making something illegal would appear to reduce the cost to society, it is focusing on the wrong half of the problem.

And yes, obesity is a bigger problem and costs society more to deal with. It's also legal. So we have a choice- make it illegal, or educate people and let them make their decisions on their own (albeit more educated decisions hopefully). The caveat is, they also have to live with and pay for their decisions. Total responsibility.

I am fat. I am probably about 80 pounds overweight. It's my problem. I need to pay for it if I go to the hospital. I may die one day if this is the case. It's not today, but I think it would be different for me if I actually thought I may not be able to afford the healthcare needed because I had to pay $100,000 for open heart surgery and couldn't rely on health insurance. Actually, just thinking like this right now makes me uneasy and brings me some interesting, possibly useful feelings. Should the threat of open heart surgery alone scare me? On a logical level- yes. It needs to be real though, and I can still get around today and am fairly atheletic even with the extra weight (most people wouldn't guess I'm THAT overweight, just big), so it doesn't seem real to my mind.

This is a real case example, for me, where I should make a better decision in life. We all have them. We don't need to be perfect, but accountability is a beautiful thing.

[bmyers]

Well, I didn't mean to get personal. I hope you can use the discussions as a positive thing to shed some pounds. You can do it!

I'm still getting a laugh out of the thought "black market fries". I'm picturing posh houses tucked away in unassuming neighborhoods with all the shades drawn shut and strange traffic patterns. Packed to the gables with big macs and super sized fries, ready for distribution with a street value of millions..

Kind of funny. I'd say, congrats to all on an interesting and civil debate.

[jseklund]

haha, bmyers- I know you didn't mean to get personal. It's a funny idea. I am not really embarrassed by it- it's my weakness. We all have them and work on them- and I guess that was my point. I wanted to point out that I am not saying we should all be perfect, because I am far from it myself. But we should all be accountable.

Yes, this is a great debate!

[MilDoc]

And yes, obesity is a bigger problem and costs society more to deal with. It's also legal. So we have a choice- make it illegal, or educate people and let them make their decisions on their own (albeit more educated decisions hopefully). The caveat is, they also have to live with and pay for their decisions. Total responsibility.

Educate people? As a pediatrician I've been trying to do that for years with little success, watching kids get fatter and fatter. Ever read food labels? Most people don't. Otherwise they wouldn't buy "American Pasteurized Processed Cheese Food Substitute" thinking it was real cheese.

So, a little education. Feed your kid a "Happy Meal" and it takes 2 hours of intensive exercise to work off the calories. Now, just imagine how many hours you have to exercise to work off a Big Mac, large fries, and super-sized soft drink.

But that's a little off topic. Personally, for all the reasons above, I have always favored making pot legal. Used to belong to NORML.

Cigarettes are legal and they kill you. Booze is legal and it can kill you too, fast or slow. Fattening food is legal and it will kill you very slowly as you get diabetes, kidney failure, amputations, heart disease. Guns are legal and way too many people die from them every year.

But I doubt things will ever change.

[Jeffrey Schronce]

Like Paul, I was a member of NORML for years. Way back to the OP discussion of indoor cultivation, here are a few things in the thread that I may be able to answer.

1) There were no questions about soil going into the house as there was no soil used. A high production facility will use a hydroponic system that may involve the use of a small amount of rockwool or something like that. Enough for the roots to get a hold of to support themselves.

2) As noted meters are diverted in order to reduce the power company from reporting the utlization. Problem is that you get caught with a bypassed meter and you get an instant call to the police. Solar power is becoming a big trend in indoor cultivation.

3) But why don't they spend a few bucks and cut the grass (the grass on the lawn that is).

4) It is my understanding that there are better ways to inhale pot than the standard joint or bong. These units raise the tempature to a point that THC is released into the air, while not acutally combusting the bud. This would seem to really cut down on the cancer concern.

5) As far as pot smoking areas similar to cigarette smoking areas, that would never happen. Proponents of legalization have always suggested that this an activity very similar to alcohol in that one could not smoke at or before work, no driving under the influence, etc.

7) Removing the crop would be no problem. Simply back your van into your garage and load. Remember, the DEA and local police WAY over estimate the value of weed. When they say $6 million, they mean street level sales, whereas wholesale could be $2 million.

[LCHIEN]

Like Paul, I was a member of NORML for years. Way back to the OP discussion of indoor cultivation, here are a few things in the thread that I may be able to answer.

1) There were no questions about soil going into the house as there was no soil used. A high production facility will use a hydroponic system that may involve the use of a small amount of rockwool or something like that. Enough for the roots to get a hold of to support themselves.

2) As noted meters are diverted in order to reduce the power company from reporting the utlization. Problem is that you get caught with a bypassed meter and you get an instant call to the police. Solar power is becoming a big trend in indoor cultivation.

3) But why don't they spend a few bucks and cut the grass (the grass on the lawn that is).

4) It is my understanding that there are better ways to inhale pot than the standard joint or bong. These units raise the tempature to a point that THC is released into the air, while not acutally combusting the bud. This would seem to really cut down on the cancer concern.

5) As far as pot smoking areas similar to cigarette smoking areas, that would never happen. Proponents of legalization have always suggested that this an activity very similar to alcohol in that one could not smoke at or before work, no driving under the influence, etc.

7) Removing the crop would be no problem. Simply back your van into your garage and load. Remember, the DEA and local police WAY over estimate the value of weed. When they say $6 million, they mean street level sales, whereas wholesale could be $2 million.

You seem to know way too much about this.

") ...Proponents of legalization have always suggested that this an activity very similar to alcohol in that one could not smoke at or before work, no driving under the influence, etc. "

And we all know how well that works...

[TB Roye]

According to the pictures I have seen. These guys are using dirt, a drip irrigation system big $300 grow lights and it is all on a timer. The do pull there vehicle into the garage to unload and load product usuall late at night. The discussion is very interesting and some good points have been brought out. Who ever said crooks are smart?

Tom

[maxparot]

Thought I'd add a link to an article I just found today.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/10/05...eut/index.html
This seems like a real good reason to smoke pot manybe after retirement.