In Chicago, How Does The General Public Feel About Medicinal Marijuana? (college, living)

[JustJulia]

I think it should be legalized, taxed, and regulated just like alcohol. You can brew your own beer and give it to friends but not sell it without a license. You can buy it in licensed shops if you are of age with proper ID. You can't smoke in restaurants, in parks or schools, or around public buildings, and littering is against the law. It's illegal to drive while under the influence, and most employers have rules about intoxication at work.

I don't foresee anything changing much except the affluent Whole Foods organic granola crowd in Naperville will probably have some nice weed for sale.

[jay sparty]

Originally Posted by OhAcid

I have multiple problems with this article. For one, there is no access to any of the scientific data other than the claims of this Dr. Ronald Herning.



Interesting. Sounds like a big deal; stop smoking pot or you'll lose molecules in your CB1 receptors in your brain's arteries!

Gafaw. Time to bring in some actual factuals.

Actually; a CB1 receptor is in fact a cannabinoid receptor. Not only that, but how exactly do you "lose molecules" (what does that even mean) specifically; how do you "lose molecules" called CB1 receptors (the cannabinoid receptor) in the brain's arteries?

In short, this paragraph says that long term cannabis use results in the loss of cannabinoid receptors. That's ironic. So smoking cannabis and THC results in the loss of receptors in the brain that specifically react to THC and like cannabinoid compounds?



So out of 54 marijuana users; exactly how many smoked two joints a week and how many were smoking 50 a day (50*7=350)? That data is not included anywhere in the article. And yes; I'd say anybody who is smoking 50 joints a day would probably have some type of irregularity somewhere in their body.



So marijuana smokers had the same blood flow prior to the experiment and post experiment meaning there was no change from smoking marijuana vs. abstaining from marijuana.



How much is "somewhat" - is it a significant amount or insignificant amount? Not only that, but are any of these 54 users diabetic or diagnosed with high blood pressure? That information would be helpful as well. It's also not provided.



Possible? And only "possible" that the drug "may increase" - not possible it will increase, possible that it "may" increase risk of a stroke. Another issue I have with this is that nowhere does the article mention there is damage being done to the blood vessels in the brain anywhere other than here. They speak of reduced blood flow, but reduced blood flow has nothing to do with damage. No different than only pulling halfway up on my kitchen faucet will result in reduced water flow; that doesn't mean my pipes are damaged.





False. Reduced blood flow does not equate cell necrosis. And if cell necrosis were occurring on a dangerous level; there would most definitely be signs both internal and external and this would not be an "if" statement.



That's because there are case reports of stroke among young people; many of which I'm sure do use marijuana. This "factoid" does not say there is a correlation between strokes and marijuana users. Only you're supposed to infer that evidently.



Interesting. They didn't mention whether or not any of these 54 marijuana users were also tobacco users or not however, did they? None the less, I'd assume so since marijuana users are "also" often tobacco smokers. That might explain some of the findings of this "study".


Time for Some Truth:

1. Marijuana (specifically THC) actually causes autophagy (self destruction) of cancerous cells in the brain.

1Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology I, School of Biology, Complutense University, Madrid, Spain.
2Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red sobre Enfermedades Neurodegenerativas (CIBERNED), Madrid, Spain.
33D Lab (Development, Differentiation, and Degeneration), Department of Cellular and Molecular Physiopathology, Centro de Investigaciones Biológicas, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC), Madrid, Spain.
4INSERM U624, Campus de Luminy, Marseille, France.
5National Institute for Infectious Diseases, IRCCS “L. Spallanzani,” Rome, Italy.
6Laboratory of Molecular Neuroembryology, IRCCS Fondazione Santa Lucia and Department of Biology, University of Rome “Tor Vergata,” Rome, Italy.
7Cancer Genetics Program, Beth Israel Deaconess Cancer Center and Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
8Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital, Tenerife, Spain.

JCI - Cannabinoid action induces autophagy-mediated cell death through stimulation of ER stress in human glioma cells

2. Marijuana has been proven to fight Alzheimer's before onset and to stop progression.

A Molecular Link Between the Active Component of Marijuana and Alzheimer's Disease Pathology.

The diverse CB1 and CB2 receptor pharmacology of three plant cannabinoids:

Personally, I'll trust multiple doctors and studies who publish their work vs. someone who does an interview with BBC and doesn't share any of theirs. Especially since the only thing they "may" have proven is that high instance of marijuana use "may" reduce blood flow to the brain. Although they also fail to point out whether this actually has a correlation to more serious problems or not as well. That research also said absolutely nothing about the 18 non-users and their findings regarding that demographic compared to the others. Even more of a reason to toss that article into the garbage where it belongs.

Excellent rebuttal.

[aragx6]

Originally Posted by Just1Fan

Who would'a thunk it?

Honestly, anyone who's had to stop before after using regularly for a while -- it's just not that hard to quit. I'll admit to having a bit of an emotional attachment i.e "Shucks, I wish I could smoke" but nothing like a true withdrawal -- no physical symptoms, no delirum tremens or anything!!

How can you even smoke 50 joints per day? I have known some big-time potheads, but more in the 5-7 joints a day range. I can only imagne someone who smoked 50 would be comatose.

[myrc60]

Originally Posted by aragx6

Honestly, anyone who's had to stop before after using regularly for a while -- it's just not that hard to quit. I'll admit to having a bit of an emotional attachment i.e "Shucks, I wish I could smoke" but nothing like a true withdrawal -- no physical symptoms, no delirum tremens or anything!!

How can you even smoke 50 joints per day? I have known some big-time potheads, but more in the 5-7 joints a day range. I can only imagne someone who smoked 50 would be comatose.

I know someone that claims to smoke 50 or more in a day and he's still alive to talk about it. I suppose it depends on how many are sharing.

[OhAcid]

Originally Posted by myrc60

I know someone that claims to smoke 50 or more in a day and he's still alive to talk about it. I suppose it depends on how many are sharing.

I can outsmoke a burning barn and even I would be sitting in a chair drooling into my lap after 50 joints in 24 hours.

[williepotatoes]

The biggest thing holding up legalization is that gange is essentially a kids drug. Most parents out here in the sticks and farmlands don't like it when the fruit of their loins morph into acney-scarred jello molds.

Like it or not, there is a wall of moms, pops and cops who make up the base of the anti-legalization forces. As long as the kiddies keep misusing the product, there will be solid resistance to all legislation.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by williepotatoes

The biggest thing holding up legalization is that gange is essentially a kids drug. Most parents out here in the sticks and farmlands don't like it when the fruit of their loins morph into acney-scarred jello molds.

Like it or not, there is a wall of moms, pops and cops who make up the base of the anti-legalization forces. As long as the kiddies keep misusing the product, there will be solid resistance to all legislation.

I don't get it, it doesn't stop people from smoking pot.

[DentalFloss]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

All drugs should be legal and regulated by the feds.

Why?

[OhAcid]

Originally Posted by williepotatoes

Like it or not, there is a wall of moms, pops and cops who make up the base of the anti-legalization forces. As long as the kiddies keep misusing the product, there will be solid resistance to all legislation.

The classic cycle of being largely uneducated, uninformed and set in their ways that usually results in these specific people with pothead, sex crazed or alcoholic children.

Gafaw.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by DentalFloss

Why?

Because drugs have been illegal and people still do them. And most importantly it would likely kill the drug trade and the violence, death and profit associated with it.