1. Dear Drugs-Forum readers: We are a small non-profit that runs one of the most read drug information & addiction help websites in the world. We serve over 4 million readers per month, and have costs like all popular websites: servers, hosting, licenses and software. To protect our independence we do not run ads. We take no government funds. We run on donations which average $25. If everyone reading this would donate $5 then this fund raiser would be done in an hour. If Drugs-Forum is useful to you, take one minute to keep it online another year by donating whatever you can today. Donations are currently not sufficient to pay our bills and keep the site up. Your help is most welcome. Thank you.
    PLEASE HELP
  1. chillinwill
    I am writing regarding two issues in the news lately, the requirement for the motorcycle riders to wear helmets and the NORML group to legalize marijuana. Both have statistics that should leave the laws as they are. The injury and fatal deaths in the helmet argument don't need further discussion. The marijuana situation is another issue. I have worked nearly 50 years in drug and substance abuse.

    1. Marijuana is not harmless. In order to get the most effect, it has to be inhaled deeply. In a study of Army soldiers, they discovered that the person that smoked marijuana three times a week had as much lung damage as a three-pack-a-day cigarette smoker. My experience with over 10,000 drug addicts the steps were: First, regular cigarettes and alcohol, second, marijuana and third, harder drugs such as heroin, LSD and other legal and illegal opiates.

    In regard to the medical use, let marijuana go through the same process of the FDA that other pharmaceuticals go through before being approved for use.

    In symposiums that I participated in, both advocates and those opposed in the medical field stated that the problem was determining dosage because of trying to measure effectiveness.

    In fact, from many years of research as well as my experience, the use makes learning much more difficult. And because the active ingredient is not water soluble, the THC is absorbed in the brain as well as the reproductive organs and will take months to finally get taken out of the system.

    Interesting enough that the advocates are targeting college towns for their ballot petitions. Of course, the politicians see another tax source.

    Frank M. Reynolds
    News-Leader
    June 14, 2009
    http://www.news-leader.com/article/...0335/Pot+is+not+harmless++should+not+be+legal

Comments

  1. Euthanatos93420
    Lung damage, Gateway Drug, Brain damage, and the lowest of them all...

    DICK SHRINKAGE! Well...testicular....but it's the same threat to manhood.

    Every one of these myths has been disproven and yet its rhetoric is still repeated.

    Lets not skip the the insuation that people get high and ride motorcycles in big badass gangs that rape plunder and pillage you women children and oh-so-virtuous lifestyle.
  2. Valseedian
    i ADDED some rebutle to the quote above, sorry if it's disorganized, I'm somewhat scatterbrained.


    I hate people who can't just leave others alone...

    I've been kind enough to highlight the only part of this ENTIRE article that should be paid attention to.

    this country/world has allowed too many vested interests to be fully in-charge of policy modification...


    the words we need to start yelling at these people is 'conflict of interest'.. we need to show these people for the greedy bastards they are. the prison industrial complex is almost fully in controll of us now.. of course the owner of a private prison, who makes money for every inmate, wants to see more strict laws and penelties.... it's good for buisness. we need to stop thinking about what's good for buisness and ask ourself really and truely, what's fair?

    and I know life isn't fair, but why should we work to that end? if we aren't willing to attempt a change, we'll be stuck in antiquity forever.
  3. Motorhead
    Frank Reynolds says he has worked 50 years in the field of Drug and Substance abuse. How old is this guy lol. He probably knew Hearst, Anslinger, and the other Anti-Marijuana cronies personally hahahha. He probably watched all his peers hanging out, going to festivals, protesting the Vietnam War, muttering to himself 'damn hippies'.

    If he is working as a counselor I can't see him having a high success rate in helping addicts as he obviously harbours antiquated notions of tough love and conservative ideals of the evils of drugs stemming from early 20th prohibitionist concepts.

    Either way his letter has little in the way of documented facts to back up his theory, and although he will probably never read these responses he is getting a lashing from readers of his letter on News-Leader.com. lolololol
  4. Euthanatos93420
    Word...
  5. Waffa
    well everyone has already commented marijuana part ... i specially also liked the FIRST tobacco and alcohol (yeah these 2 are SO harmless...).. "and third, harder drugs such as heroin, LSD and other legal and illegal opiates."

    Yeah, that's what i would do, place Heroin & LSD in one group... i wonder WHAT this guy did this 50 years if he has NO understanding of drugs at all? How is it possible?
  6. Euthanatos93420
    LOL you're a riot Waffa.
  7. Waffa
    but seriously, cant people get fired for obvious ignorance and stupidity?
    Most of the anti drug people i have heard just make stuff up and does no way relate to facts or science.

    If i work in car driving school, i am color blind alcoholic who like's to drink& race and do not know basic traffic laws - THEN i shouldn't be able to give official driving course's right ? Gov also would not let pedophiles to work in kindergarten so HOW the hell is things like that (lying or stupid people giving education) allowed?

    arrh
  8. Valseedian
    old topic, qfe

    we need to make a grass-roots movement TODAY, tell the world that we want our lives governed by science and fact, not the opinions of a group of popularity contest winners... congress and our government et t al. has corrupted it's purpose, becoming a tool of the wealthy and no longer a voice of the people.

    case in point: our archaic system gave the presidency TWICE to a man who did not win the popular vote. didn't even come close... that's not the mandate of the people, that's government buearacracy bullshit!

    sure, if you legalize, use will go up... but MAYBE alchohol use will plummet... maybe people will stop smoking soo many ciggarettes.. maybe hard drug addicts will find a reprieve in the newly-legalized herb of choice.

    ending cannabis american discrimination can only result in good...
  9. Nature Boy
    Ergh! Drug counsellors. So often do you see one flaring off some disgruntled attack on progressive drug policy. I don't know if it's a thing that drug counsellors in general think, maybe they're all pissed off at being substandard psychologists but you do see them shoot their mouths off very often. They always spout out the same useless arguments about tar levels and how having a couple of joints is like smoking sixty cigarettes a day. Peculiar then that we don't have marijuana-induced lung cancer patients all over the world's hospitals. Bit of a problem with that argument isn't there?

    "Don't debate to me about drugs. I've seen the damage!" Strange that. No-one else has seen this damage. They're the equivalent of some crazy old preacher blurting out something about having talked to the Jebus in a dream.
  10. Hollow Hippie
    LSD is a relatively soft drug

    Also the article is gone
  11. Euthanatos93420
    big surprise there.

    Yeah we know. that was our source of amusment: the ignorant propaganda of the writer
  12. ninjaned
    yes let it! it'll get approved before you can say legalize it... assuming that they gave it a fair process. cause it really does help a lot of people, without a lot of side effects(not saying that theres not side effects just sayin that there few and mild).
  13. Euthanatos93420
    Won't happen. FDA standards apply to a singular chemical and it's measurable varying quantities.

    Pot, by such defenition, does not meet criteria to be subjected to those studies.

    In fact, no plant/herb ever can.

    IF the FDA reviews marijuana it will have to devise and peer-review new study methods. that will have less than precise data because of the varying constituants of a plant. Even the same plant (cloned) grown enough under conditions of replicable exactutitude that produce a GCMS verifiably (near enough) identical product....ONLY that strain (under exactly replicated production methods) would be approved.

    It would be prohibitively expensive to study/approve marijuana as a complete plant according to 'FDA standards'. Moreover each of these tests must be done for each application (insomnia, depression, anxiety. MS, glaucoma, cancer, nausea, epilepsy, etc. etc.)


    This is meaningless propagandastic drivel by an ignorant fuckwad who knows jack shit about drugs and nueropharmacology. Not to mention jack shit about the pharmacuetical process.
  14. Valseedian
    I assume they will classify it the same way that they do cigarettes.. not exactly sure how they plan on classifying cigs, but it's law that they have to now.


    or skip the whole FDA bullshit, tell people the truth: mj isn't all laughs and good times, and let them decide for themselves like cigs and booz.
To make a comment simply sign up and become a member!