CLEARING THE HAZE: Colorado newspapers exposé of failures of state's 'legal pot' law

[jahsoul]

perspective or what one wishes to believe based on their bias?

I'm wondering if the pro pot folks here believe that marijuana poses a health risk...........? Not concerned about how that would compare to other addictive habits........simply........does smoking marijuana pose a real health risk?

As for how it made it easier for minors to obtain pot, the guy laid out the reasons, and they appear to be valid and given the reporting of incidents proven...........don't know, I don't live in Colorado............

In the great state that you live in, it is nothing for a minor to get marijuana. Trust me

I have no bias either way and therefore never turn a blind eye to the good or bad. I look at everything objectively and what I see is no one can produce no unbiased reporting regarding it, for or against. But again, we have no reports of death from weed, as we do other things that some on CC would take without hesitation.

 

[p_rehbein]

Re: CLEARING THE HAZE: Colorado newspapers exposé of failures of state's 'legal pot'

What you "pot lobby" guys ( ) aren't saying is that Science is just recently conducting long term and specific studies into the dangers of habitual marijuana use.

As for deaths/whatever..........marijuana isn't normally a specified reason on an Incident Report. Under the influence, DUI covers a wide range of substances other than alcohol. So it is not reasonable to say marijuana hasn't contributed to injuries and or deaths from driving while stoned........DWS........

As well, one can do an Internet Search concerning the health risks of marijuana usage.........and specifically the amount of tar in a joint.....plus other harmful chemicals to see that it certainly does pose a real health hazard. To believe otherwise is simply naïve to the max.

To say that marijuana smoking does not contribute to lung cancer is just silly.............the same harmful ingredients in a pack of smokes is in a joint..........."tar" being the greatest risk.

Stoner reality is far different from the real world...........this is pretty much a given........well, for all but those who reside in said Stoner reality.......

 

[p_rehbein]

In the great state that you live in, it is nothing for a minor to get marijuana. Trust me

I have no bias either way and therefore never turn a blind eye to the good or bad. I look at everything objectively and what I see is no one can produce no unbiased reporting regarding it, for or against. But again, we have no reports of death from weed, as we do other things that some on CC would take without hesitation.

That's just silly..............anyone conducting and publishing a report will have some level of bias............so you are just saying you will not ever accept ANY research analysis because it doesn't suit you to do so. Show me the Federal Data Base reports that state that "we have no reports of death from weed" please.............sounds like a "bias" comment to me. Yup, yup, bias to the max.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Listen VW, if you have an issue with something, than so be it, but all you have presented to back up your statements are biased reports.

No, you listen, jahsoul. I am licensed in, and have a great deal of experience providing addictions and family therapy. I know the facts, I regularly read the peer-reviewed research, and there is nothing biased about the physical, emotional, spiritual and economic impact of legalized pot. You have been brainwashed -- willingly -- by the pot lobby you laugh off as though it doesn't exist.

It is you who has the problem, by having bought into the false narrative that pot is safe, even "healthy" when all the evidence at the very least should force you and other "believers" to question what you're being told.

All I need to know is weed has a death count of 0. How many reported cases of cancer from weed? That's right, 0.

That's absurd as you should well know. Just because there is not a large scale, longitudinal study proving marijuana smoke causes cancer, does not mean it can be ruled out. Marijuana smoke, like cigarette smoke, contains known carcinogens. There is considerable evidence that cigarette smoking is related to lung cancer and many other health hazards. It took decades to demonstrate this.

The widespread use of marijuana for recreational uses is a relatively new phenomenon. It will likely take as long to draw correlations between marijuana smoke and cancer as it did cigarette smoke and cancer, but since the tar and carcinogenic levels of marijuana smoke is at least equal to, and most likely greater than than of cigarette smoke, anyone who proclaims it "safe" or makes the statement "Marijuana has never caused cancer" is speaking without hope of actually being correct

Vehicular homicide caused by marijuana? Pretty sure cell phones have killed infinitely more?

What b/s! There are a multitude of cases in which smokers high on marijuana have been involved in traffic accidents that have killed people. Simply because we haven't established a legal level of marijuana intoxication doesn't mean "zero" -- and you may be "pretty sure cell phones have killed infinitely (Did you really say "infinitely"???) more" is beyond absurd, as the "cell phones cause cancer" b/s was discredited years ago.

How about class action law suits against marijuana for caused internal bleeding, hemorrhages, clinical depression or even death?

Again, I understand that you are against it, but don't paint everything black and white because it isn't. Where are you as it relates to prescription drugs, alcohol and tobacco? You know, things that have death tolls.

You should know quite well where I stand on the dangers of those other products, but the fact is, no one is standing on a soap box proclaiming any of them as being "safe beyond question" and protesting any efforts to call attention to the dangers of prescription drugs, alcohol, and tobacco as they are with marijuana. The pot lobby wants people to just blindly accept bad science performed by researchers committed to a planned outcome "proving" marijuana is safe, whereas the legitimate research done on marijuana over the last 40 years certainly calls those claims into question, if not outright proving them all a blatant lie.

I say these things jokingly, but doesn't it make you wonder why marijuana is so easily villianized when the government regulates and approves things that kill folks in high volume annually?

You want to believe a giant conspiracy against marijuana where none exists. The fact is, had we had the level of government regulation then that we have now, tobacco products and alcohol would never have become legal. They are, however, and it is difficult to destroy a pair of industries that, unfortunately, are key components of our economy.

Yes, that's a piss poor excuse to keep them legal, I agree. But we also know the dangers and have campaigned strenuously against abuse of these products -- and the fact is, tobacco, even used properly and moderately, will still kill you. We don't have enough research on marijuana to know whether it is actually safe or not, but all indications are that it isn't. And given the carcinogenic levels of its smoke, certainly that delivery system is totally unsafe, even without considering the various other questions about the drug's effects.

Marijuana needs to be more closely studied. I've repeatedly stated it should at least temporarily be moved to the Schedule II list so it can be adequately researched. But again, if it is eventually proven to be of any value, smoking it will never be an acceptable safe avenue of use. But that is how it universally sold today, to be smoked. If cigarettes, cigars, and snuff -- which isn't smoked but is still dangerous -- are killers as smoking products, it would be utterly stupid and illogical to legalize yet another form of carcinogenic intake, that is, allowing marijuana to be legally smoked.

 

[Nautilus]

perspective or what one wishes to believe based on their bias?

I'm wondering if the pro pot folks here believe that marijuana poses a health risk...........? Not concerned about how that would compare to other addictive habits........simply........does smoking marijuana pose a real health risk?

As for how it made it easier for minors to obtain pot, the guy laid out the reasons, and they appear to be valid and given the reporting of incidents proven...........don't know, I don't live in Colorado............

Does it pose a health risk? Well yeah you're inhaling smoke from something burning into your lungs. At the same time it's not much different than cigarettes in that aspect. OUtside of that the high probably isn't much worse than being drunk, maybe even less negatively affecting.

 

[Desdichado]

Does it pose a health risk? Well yeah you're inhaling smoke from something burning into your lungs. At the same time it's not much different than cigarettes in that aspect. OUtside of that the high probably isn't much worse than being drunk, maybe even less negatively affecting.

Yeah, I can't say I've ever heard of a man going home and beating up his wife after a good round of Mary Jane. Then again, Mary Jane isn't served at NFL games.

 

[Desdichado]

It would be ironic though if they didn't allow pot at Mile High Stadium.

Couldn't resist...as usual.

 

[jahsoul]

.........................

VW, why must you always reply with a thesis

 

[dcontroversal]

Re: CLEARING THE HAZE: Colorado newspapers exposé of failures of state's 'legal pot'

Well, You know the old addage.....God gave us every herb bearing seed.......and let everything be done in moderation......can you hear it now.....Or ALL things are lawful unto me.....but not all things are expedient.....I can hear it...can you?

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

VW, why must you always reply with a thesis

Good practice for when I have to start my doctoral thesis next year.

 

[Jimbone]

Well, You know the old addage.....God gave us every herb bearing seed.......and let everything be done in moderation......can you hear it now.....Or ALL things are lawful unto me.....but not all things are expedient.....I can hear it...can you?

I think Rom 14 as a whole also applies, but I'll just post Rom 14:1-4 to save space

1As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions.2One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables.3Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him.4Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master[SUP]a[/SUP] that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

I also feel Mat 15:10-11 fits as well.

10After Jesus called the crowd to Him, He said to them, "Hear and understand. 11"It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man."

 

[dcontroversal]

I think Rom 14 as a whole also applies, but I'll just post Rom 14:1-4 to save space

1As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions.2One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables.3Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him.4Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master[SUP]a[/SUP] that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

I also feel Mat 15:10-11 fits as well.

10After Jesus called the crowd to Him, He said to them, "Hear and understand. 11"It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man."

And I would agree for sure.........!