Featured New study finds marijuana triples risk of stillbirth

Regardless of the supposedly logical defenses of the use of marijuana, and the inaccurate comparisons of the drug to herbal medicines found growing naturally, marijuana is the most dangerous drug in use illegally in the U.S. -- and yes, it's illegal even in the states that have "legalized" it, because federal laws still consider it a Schedule I illicit drug. The fact this idiot in the White House refuses to enforce federal drug laws to any great extent does not mitigate the dangers, or the illegality, of marijuana use.

Insistence on touting the "usefulness" of marijuana as a reason to legalize it is bogus. For example, it is cited as a good anti-nausea medication for those on chemo or nuclear therapies for cancer. Studies show that ginger is just as good if not better than marijuana in reducing nausea symptoms, with the added benefit of not overstimulating the cannabinoid receptors in the brain, which causes impaired coordination, difficulty with thinking and problem solving, and disrupted learning and memory. As a pain medication, it is mediocre. Aspirin and complex aspirin -- known as disalcid salsalate -- is much better, and much cheaper, without the known side effects of either marijuana or opiate based pain relievers.

Claims that marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol are also bogus, as the effects on a driver, for example, last twice as long, meaning it is twice as likely someone who smoked a joint an hour ago will cause a fatal accident as it is that someone who had two beers an hour ago will do the same. You can find this information on the National Institute on Drug Abuse website.

As for the long-term effects, alcohol's physiological impacts can be reversed, even after 20 years of heavy drinking, provided more than 50% of the liver hasn't been damaged, and even then, liver transplants can reverse severe damage. With marijuana, genetic defects are irreversible, and proven to be caused by marijuana with just long-term moderate use. Long-term moderate alcohol use actually is proven beneficial in terms of cardiovascular health, though good diet and exercise habits work just as well. That stands in opposition to the proof that medicinal marijuana is marginal in effectiveness, at best, and the known, proven harm it causes offsets any gains. All these evidences have been confirmed by the California Society of Addiction Medicine's study on long-term effects of marijuana on children, adolescents and young adults.

This same study proved that marijuana is addictive -- it affects the brain’s reward centers in similar ways as all other addictive substances -– and the likelihood of addiction increases considerably for those who start young. When marijuana use becomes daily, or nearly daily, alterations to the brain can lead to an inability to perceive any negative impact. In addition to the possible effects on cognitive development and mental health, marijuana smoke is an irritant to the lungs, and frequent marijuana smokers can develop many of the same respiratory problems as tobacco smokers, such as daily cough and phlegm production, more frequent acute chest illness, and a greater risk of chest infections. It takes less marijuana use to do severe lung damage than it does regular cigarettes, because there is seven times the tar in marijuana that there is in commercial cigarettes.

So, if you want to defend marijuana, go ahead. Frankly, I can't imagine anyone defending so dangerous a drug. It is also proven a "gateway drug" in the way it is used by dealers to introduce stronger, harder drugs to their customers. This is often done by cutting marijuana with cocaine, meth, PCP and other drugs, in order to give the buyer a "better high" that he/she wants to repeat the next time.

Legalized marijuana is legislative foolishness, and the "defense" of it is abject willful ignorance.

 

Obviously, to reach the conclusion they reached, they did study both of them.

You have no problem with regulation of alcohol? Why a problem with a dangerous drug? Regardless of whether you agree with that characterization, it is.

Nice subterfuge. That is the Asian cultural name for ephedra, which is the a key ingredient in methamphetamine manufacture. Had you used the real name, you know the readers on the board would have agreed it is dangerous, so you had to attempt to mislead them. Disgusting.

And so you believe cocaine should be legalized, which is made from coca leaves?

An obvious indicator that you don't even begin to understand addiction.

 

Yeah, we all should support the continued use of late-1700s medical practice, like bleeding with leaches (and yes, I know that's being "revived" but it's ludicrous) or just plain bleeding, which was done by opening major veins in the arms and legs. Amazingly, their patients often died. Apparently the disease was just to far advanced.

To no great effect, which is why it is no longer in use for those ailments.

It is also poisonous.

Makes as much sense as using marijuana for medicinal purposes. Both instances are useless endeavors.

You choose to characterize my provision of multiple facts proving my viewpoint as blather because you don't like what the facts say. That invalidates your accusation.

But not terribly good as a nutrient or a medication. The same can be said of marijuana. As a medicine, it is great rope.

 

A lie, rather bold, in fact. In case you hadn't noticed, I'm the OP. You and others have actually hijacked the thread, and I've let you. Bad on me. Please note the thread title:

New study finds marijuana triples risk of stillbirth

So, from this point forward, confine your comments to that title, or don't comment. Thank you.

 

But you have a problem with legislating against a drug, which should indicate you would have a problem with legislating against another drug, leading me to your # 2 ...

Marijuana doesn't have to be processed beyond drying, so there is no manufacture involved. It is a dangerous drug all by itself, right out of the ground.

It's not classified as a Schedule I drug because it is not a drug, as is marijuana. It is, however, classified as a poison, and therefore is subject to a limited and different type of control.

The comment was regarding your subterfuge in attempting to mislead readers regarding your discussion of ephedra, which is exactly what ma huang is, and you know that. Why the subterfuge? What you call it in Chinatown is irrelevant, because I don't believe anyone from Chinatown is a member here, though of course I could be wrong, which I'm sure you'll point out if that be the case.

A medieval view of pharmacy bordering on superstition, for certain. No comment beyond that.

I applaud you for those efforts, and I'm not being facetious. The church as the body of Christ could do so much more for those suffering addictions. I wish more would make the effort. Thank you. You do as much in helping them recover as I do in helping them understand their addiction. You put feet on the ground and help them reintegrate, which is exceptionally valuable when the complete treatment and have no idea how to implement what they have come to know about their addiction, how to use that information to avoid relapse. Often addicts who haven't gotten too deep into their addiction can be helped without that knowledge, but there are also those who have to be educated in the biblical concept of cognitive thinking, as developed by Dr. Aaron Beck -- a Christian psychologist -- in order to get past the need to drink, drug, gamble, "do" pornography, whatever. Where you have helped, I praise God and thank Him that you were there.

I just am having a difficult time understanding the apparent attitude you have about marijuana, which (as I'm sure you've surmised from my multiple posts) I consider to be the most dangerous drug available. That is because of its insidious nature, which is the fault of Mother Jones, NORML and the medicinal marijuana advocates who, when investigated, turn out to be Mother Jones and NORML operatives. They have no interest in medicinal use and grossly exaggerate it's efficacy. They are doing nothing more than advocating for full-blown legalization of something that needs to remain solidly entrenched on the Schedule I list of dangerous controlled substances.

 

I have no doubt green tea is of great benefit, and encourage its use. I have no problem with other plants being used for medicinal purposes where it is shown those plants are valuable and efficacious to their intended purpose. I have a huge problem with marijuana being touted as a "medicine" when it is all but worthless for that purpose and is dangerous beyond its mere addictive properties.

Nonetheless, it's use is misleading, particularly when you know most will recognize its common name, ephedra.

Of course there are, but allowing it to be offered for continued sale opened its buyers up to its inherent dangers to the heart and cardiovascular system while utterly failing to live up to its touted properties as a dietary supplement, not to mention its use in meth manufacture.

I have owe nothing to the AMA, and have no interest in its political, social or professional viewpoints. Doctors haven't a clue about addiction, and in fact do far more harm than good by ignoring the basic signs of drug abuse and continuing to write prescriptions for their patients who clearly are guilty of that abuse. You seem to think my denial of marijuana as a valid medicinal herb -- a status it will never attain -- is a denial of all herbal medicines, and nothing can be further from the truth. You, however, seem ready to die on the hill of medicinal marijuana, a cause that is literally lost, to defend all of herbal medicine. It simply isn't necessary to take so radical and unfounded position.

 

Obviously you have no clue who licenses addictions counselors, what their education is, or how they acquire it.

Yes, that was me. No, addictions counseling has absolutely nothing to do with doctors or the AMA. The AMA has nothing to do with pharmaceuticals, other than prescribing them. Doctors do develop pharmaceuticals, but my response to your question was regarding not the doctors who prescribe them -- that was your characterization -- but the efficacy of prescription drugs in treating diseases.

 

The implication, as you full well know, is that you were questioning if I would rather take a prescription drug vs. using marijuana, and to that I answered "Absolutely!" It had nothing to do with your heinous characterization of doctors. Mine happens to be a Christian, so you owe him an apology, and no, he wouldn't prescribe marijuana if it was legal in either state to do so.

 

Talk about putting words in someone's mouth! Stating I'd rather trust a prescription drug than smoke marijuana or use any other intake method in order to take that poison into my body isn't "defending the drug companies." It's being practical and sensible.

You want to defend herbal medications, don't use marijuana as an example. As my OP indicates, it is shown to be deadly, dangerous, ill-advised. Make your arguments for real herbal meds, not this deadly Schedule I drug.

And as I told Shaggy, you both have seriously derailed the thread and I've contributed to that derailment, so we need to confine our remarks to the OP, or not comment.