Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zealious
Where are you getting your facts because what you're reading is extremely biased and not wholly true. Moreover, if you site a source I'm hoping its something other than a .com site because they are allowed to post true or false facts.
|
alot of what i know about marijuana comes from reading. Like i posted earlier, im a member of NORML, so i got lots of literature on the history of marijuana. My wife is also a certified substance abuse counselor.
the quote you were questioning comes from
A REVIEW OF THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE by Lynn Zimmer, Associate Professor of Sociology Queens College and John P. Morgan, Professor of Pharmacology, City University Medical School where they did "field studies" in Greece, Costa Rica and Jamaica. These studies, which evaluated the impact of marijuana on users in their natural environments, were supplemented by clinical examinations and laboratory experiments oriented toward answering the questions about marijuana. The data from these studies, published in numerous books and scholarly journals, covered such matters as marijuana's effects on the brain, lungs, immune and reproductive systems, its impact on personality, development, and motivational states, and its addictive potential. Thousands of additional studies have been conducted, many of them funded by NIDA (national institute on drug abuse), and together they reaffirm marijuana's substantial margin of safety. (other sources - The Emperor Wears No Clothes-The Authoritative Historical Record of Cannabis, The Marijuana Conviction: A History of Marijuana Prohibition in the United States, The Science of Marijuana)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by riseagainstrocks
one final thought on this topic
the reason its illeagle is not some cover up in order to generate the all ready lucrative chemical and synthetics company Dupont more money
|
During the 1930s, machinery was developed for separating hemp fibers from the stalk, thus making widespread industrial use feasible. Popular Mechanics called hemp a "billion-dollar crop." Hemp's future looked promising but this was not to be. DuPont had just obtained patents for making nylon from coal, plastic from oil, and paper from trees. The Marijuana Tax Act, which passed in 1937, coincidentally occurred just as the decoricator machine was invented. With this invention, hemp would have been able to take over competing industries almost instantaneously. William Hearst owned enormous acres of forest so his interest in preventing the growth of hemp can be easily explained. Competition from hemp would have easily driven the Hearst paper-manufacturing company out of business and significantly lowered the value of his land. DuPont's involvement in the anti-hemp campaign can also be explained with great ease. At this time, DuPont was patenting a new sulfuric acid process for producing wood-pulp paper. According to the company's own records, wood-pulp products ultimately accounted for more than 80% of all DuPont's railroad car loadings for the 50 years the Marijuana Tax Act was passed. Two years before the prohibitive hemp tax in 1937, DuPont developed nylon which was a substitute for hemp rope. The year after the tax was passed DuPont came out with rayon, which would have been unable to compete with the strength of hemp fiber. DuPont's point man was Harry Anslinger, who was appointed to the FBN by Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon, who was also chairman of the Mellon Bank. Anslinger's relationship to Mellon wasn't just political, he was also married to Mellon's niece. The reasoning behind DuPont, Anslinger, and Hearst was not for any moral or health related issues. They fought to prevent the growth of this new industry so they wouldn't lose money.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by riseagainstrocks
rather the drug is a hallucenagean and therefore has different effects on different people. legislation cannot write to cater to that. therefore the drug has been outlawed and will probably always stay that way.
|
Marijuana is technically classified as a hallucinogen, but is usually discussed in its own category because its effects are markedly different from those of other hallucinogens. Many new studies put marijuana as a depressant, and usually makes people less active. The effects of marijuana on an individual's behaviour are very mild. The substance mostly relaxes people, makes them friendly, on occasion can lead to short-term nausea, and often makes them sleepy. The drug does not make people more aggressive or violent, and most people don't attempt to drive after consuming marijuana, as they have an awareness of things being slowed down. Marijuana can mildly distort perception, but people are aware that it is being distorted and hence usually don't attempt to operate machinery. Most hallucinogens, unlike marijuana, are contained within the Foods and Drugs Act. The hallucinations resulting from marijuana use are usually curtailed to mild distortions of the sense of time, and things like the sound of music. It does not usually result in seeing things, or visual hallucinations, which is an affect associated with strong hallucinogens such as LSD. It was also originally a schedule 1 meaning no medical uses, but with all of the new studies it has been changed to a schedule 2 meaning it has medical uses. Point being classifications are not always set in stone, new information is still being found but the studies are limited because of the controversy that surrounds it. I wouldnt be surprised if the classification of marijuana changes in the future.
I can understand not liking drugs, maybe, but not just repeating what sounds like someting a gradeschool teacher would say. First, define drug; any product that a person uses to get a specific effect: ie) aspirin, zoloft, morphine, heroine.
Linear Mode
