Topic: If we're going to make Pot illegal,why not ban alcohol? (Read 3374 times)

Maybe we should ban meth too since people are using it as well.

Prohibition on alcohol in the US created the mob/organized crime and increased the amount of gangs. Same way the prohibition on drugs is creating violent cartels looking to gain control and kill everyone in their way so they can make more money. Treat drugs and alcohol as a public health issue and educate people on the effects of everything so they can make their own informed decisions. Let people make their own decisions to put what they want in their body instead of thinking that we can ban everything we don't like as if it will magically go away.

Such a waste of money..

Pot can also cause car crashes, not a good point

but I understand the rest too..

the solution isn't to legalize weed, it is to ban alchocol but since it can't be done the quick fix should be legalizing weed..

mct.aacrjournals.org/content/10/1/90.abstract

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20516734

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3339795/?tool=pubmed

Cannabis is an effective treatment for cancer. I wouldn't go so far as to call it a cure because to be a cure, it would have to end the cancer and any possibility of remission. When I was 15, my best friend had type A.L.L Leukemia.  After a while of having it, he decided to enjoy the few days where he felt well enough to not be bedridden. He smoked a lot of dope, figuring he couldn't make himself any worse off. Maybe it helped, maybe it didn't. In any case, having a case of munchies and eating a lot of food helped to restore body mass between bouts of chemotherapy. In fact, his oncologist had him on prescription Marinol, which gives a pretty intense high as it is very potent. The prescription was to induce appetite because he weighed 96 pounds as a normal height  teenage boy and had no appetite and couldn't keep food down from all the nausea.

Ok, if that's true about Rick then fair play, but you're going to need to do a lot more to convince me it does have highly medicinal properties capable of curing cancer. When you say cannabis trichomes magically cured your fish after an hour it just makes me even more sceptical. Show me this result replicated numerous times and you'll have my curiosity. Why don't you buy diseased fish, feed them kief and see if that works repeatedly? You can't just say I tried it on my fish twice and it worked and that's conclusive evidence.

Are you serious?  Rick S. doesn't sell his oil, he grows it for free and gives it to people.  Same with the documentary(s) he made, they're free.

And how many twelve year old's think beyond just making money?  I know that's what I was thinking about back then, and now I despise the very concept.

Just a pinch of kief (trichomes) cured by beta fish from swim bladder disease, twice.  In under an hour.  You're going to need to do a lot more to convince me it does not have highly medicinal properties capable of curing cancer.

I don't think a person posting on Grass City is a valid source .


Happily married after 20 years? I call bullshit. It's more than likely just an advert for Rick Simpson's Hemp-Oil.

http://www.hightimes.com/read/rick-simpsons-hemp-oil-medicine


Yeah, I bet he did  .

And as I said before, I'd really love it if these stories held weight, but I'm sceptical about a most of them. There needs to be some proper studies on this. There's plenty of people who have smoked weed for cancer and whilst it alleviated their symptoms and helped with the pain, it didn't cure them and they still died.

Relevant: Man curing wife's cancer with cannabis oil:

http://forum.grasscity.com/medical-marijuana-usage-applications/1130359-tumors-really-shrinking.html

"A scientist in the United Kingdom has found that compounds derived from marijuana can kill cancerous cells found in people with leukemia, a form of cancer that is expected to cause an estimated 24,000 deaths in the United States this year."

 

Why is Marijuana Illegal?
1. It is perceived as addictive.
2. It has "no accepted medical use."
3. It has been historically linked with narcotics, such as heroin.
4. It is associated with unfashionable lifestyles.
5. It was once associated with oppressed ethnic groups.
6. Inertia is a powerful force in public policy.
7. Advocates for marijuana legalization rarely present an appealing case.

Nobody give's a fuck those days. 

Why would you want to ban it? Prohibition doesn't work and people have a right to be able to drink it if they wish.

Ya now way to ban alchool, we need to legalize every "drug"

On one hand I agree with the idea of banning alcohol but on the other hand - making it banned doesn't mean people won't drink it as history has shown there is a way to drink even if it is not legalize

legalize peruvian flake! especially this1! It's 02.17am here and i just spent nearly 45minutes speaking on the phone with my hosting provider.

PS I am bursting with ideas give me your bitcoins and i will triple them in 2 days! drop me a PM if you wanna know how

I'm convinced self intoxication is not a phenomenon that's exclusive to humans.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSm7BcQHWXk

I am not sure why that would be so.  Seems like a population would have individuals with widely varying traits, and some would help that species survive under certain conditions, others in other conditions.

The example I use for this is the paranoid conspiracy nut for whom there is one in every  tribe, always seeing invaders just outside the fire light.  Everyone is sure he's totally wacko.

And one night he's right.

Anyway that's the best I can offer as an explanation.

If this was the case we would expect at least a preference for the non-intoxicating substance, whereas there are numerous examples in nature of animals having a preference for the intoxicant where other non-intoxicating food is available. Also this does not explain why an animal would consume non/low-calorific intoxicants.

It's the law. It's made to enslave people. It doesn't have to make sense.

Maybe the squirrel was just taking advantage of the free food or liked the taste? Will the squirrel even have the capacity to know that what it was eating was having that effect on it?

LOL, y I have studied this also.  "Alcoholism" and the like for alcohol predate humans.  Mammals that learned to eat rotten, fermented fruit had more to eat than those who rejected it. 

Once man started farming, a debate that is not settled is whether it was first for beer or food.  Fermented wine or beer would keep indefinitely, water would not.  Much safer to drink wine or beer than water, many places and times in history.

I've never heard of this before; very interested in hearing your thoughts.

I watched a video on youtube about a squirrel that came back to a house in order to eat some rotten apples. The squirrel had been around the night before and got drunk on the alcohol being produced by the fermenting fruit. This night the home owner had a video camera, the squirrel saw him and attempted to run away, but being intoxicated just fell on its back every time it tried to climb the tree to safety.

Self intoxication is a phenomenon that is spread throughout the animal kingdom and there are countless examples of it. It occurred to me that if the man was a hungry predator the squirrel would be dead as its abilities of self preservation had been diminished. So why then has evolution not breed out the desire to engage in self intoxication?

I postulate that there must be some advantage in engaging in self intoxication that out weighs the dangers caused by the diminished abilities of self preservation. Some possible mechanisms are;

1) Life is hard, not just for humans. It's possible that these episodes of abandon help to maintain motivation.

2) Barriers to reproduction my be broken down by intoxication. This would seem especially true in the human species.

3) Altered perception may help you see things differently and enable you to see solutions to problems. A large number of creative people claim to get inspiration from intoxicants.

So if self intoxication is both natural and beneficial (from an evolutionary perspective) then why do humans see it as a big problem?

I have a theory about this, if anyone is interested?

If you watch people's testimonials, you'll see that it works beyond limited test settings.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0psJhQHk_GI

Will it work 100% of the time?  No.  Though you should keep in mind chemo kills more people than it heals.

If I had cancer I would rather ingest concentrated THC or CBD oil than suffer on chemo any day.

That would be an acquired taste.

And what we need to ban are the assault-rule-makers.

I can see legalizing weed but having restrictions on smoking it around others in confined spaces (including the smoker's own kids, in his own house).

That's kind of like "Let me force YOU to get high", right?

Same. It felt weird when they banned smoking over here in pubs and clubs because I was so used to coming home smelling of stale smoke and having it sting my eyes after being couped up in a smoky pub/club for hours.

Certain liberal types want to ban cigarettes while legalizing marijuana as well. I have to admit that is inconsistent. I support the rights of smokers to smoke in private. I feel sorry for their kids, and I hated when I was a kid going to weddings where everyone was smoking like they are going to die tomorrow, having to inhale that crap. Still gotta have some consistency.. you can't legalize marijuana and ban cigarettes.. that's stupid and illogical.  I would not let people smoke pot in public places if they can't also smoke cigarettes. Both should be banned in bars and restaurants.. people can do that stuff at home or at concerts, whatever.

If however someone wants to bring "pot brownies" into a bar or place like that... more power to them. It's the smoke that is the distinguishing factor here and affecting other's enjoyment by doing it. I look forward to the day it's banned in indian casinos.

Because the know-it-alls who make your laws and tell you what to do and not do have social gatherings at which they consume alcohol, not pot.

They want to control you, not themselves.

I agree. I think when people claim it as some sort of magic medicine for all ailments it has a negative impact. I'd love it if it was true, but I don't see any conclusive evidence for some of the more grandiose claims. I hope at some point I'll be proved wrong though.

Yeah, I have had the opportunity to read those studies.  As someone who has worked with cells in tissue culture, I can tell you that it really isn't that hard to trigger an apoptotic event.  Further, these studies use carefully controlled doses of cannabinoids derived from synthetic processes.  Delivering the chemical to a solid tumor in vivo is an entirely different story.  Try to control the dosage with the grass you get from your dealer.  Imagine a doctor prescribing something like 2 bong rips every 4 hours.  Further, you have individuals smoking it, which inhalation of any byproducts from burning have been shown to increase the risk of lung cancers.  I have also seen studies showing similar neural patterns between schizophrenics and heavy marijuana users.  

That being said, I do not think it is any worse than alcohol, and I support legalization.  Hell, I have even been known to partake on occasion.  I just think advocates for legalization do themselves a massive disservice by claiming it to be some magic cure all.  While it definitely deserves study for potential medical uses, to claim it is something like taxol is pretty laughable.  The argument to bring it out of the black market holds much more sway with me.    

Touche

Haha, not exactly scientific, but maybe you should study this further. And it could just be a coincidence. My Dad's stupid wife "performed" reiki on one of his diseased turtles and it quickly got better and she took this as proof of the power of reiki haha.

The fact that it has worked on people and saved their lives says wonders.  Also take note of the statement "These compounds have been shown to induce apoptosis in glioma cells in culture and induce regression of glioma tumors in mice and rats."  Apoptosis is cell death.

In fact, my beta fish, Hendrix, had swim bladder disease (he would sink to the bottom or float to the top) and so I sprinkled some kief (trichomes from cannabis) into his tank and he swam up to them and ate them, and not even an hour later, he was swimming back as his healthy self.  This worked on two occasions.

Key word may. As much as I'd like it to be true, that's still not conclusive.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page4
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22198381?dopt=Abstract
http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/content/early/2006/05/25/jpet.106.105247
http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/content/308/3/838.abstract

Look up Rick Simpson's story for a personal testimonial.

I agree on the education part, but saying it cures cancer is also misinformation. I've not seen any conclusive evidence that it does this.

Making a substance illegal only creates a black market for it, which allows a gap for violent cartels to thrive in.

What we really should be doing is educating people that alcohol is ethanol - what we use to fuel cars.  It's near equivalent of huffing gasoline, imo.

We should end the misinfo propaganda on cannabis and inform the public that no one has ever died from cannabis and it cures many diseases, including cancer.

But wait - the government doesn't want us to be healthy, big pharma profits way too much off our suffering and demise, hence big tobacco.  And oh yeah, they don't want us to think with open minds, they'd rather have us numb or brains with pharmaceuticals and alcohol.  Cannabis (and psychedelics) would threat their very existence.

Alcohol and drugs are banned in prison. People still seem to get both in there. Any hope of preventing their use through the use of government force is a futile effort. The best method is educating people.

I think people talk to their teens in the completely wrong way about drugs and alcohol. You can't just tell them not to do them or that you don't want them to do them, etc. As teenagers, they are trying to find their level of independence and trying to grow that independence. Telling them that they can't do drugs will just create a rebellious feeling about the issue. When I talked to my kids about this subject, I told them that they are free people and are free to make their own decisions. However, they need to figure out for themselves if this is something they need in their lives. Tell them that you are hopeful that they will decide on their own that they don't need them.

I always laugh at those who think they can legislate a sense of morality. Prohibition was already attempted once and all that gave us was the Chicago mobsters and gangsters who brought it in from Canada, much as the current gangs bring drugs in from Mexico and other points south. People have the right to make bad decisions. If a man drives drunk and kills someone, you charge him with the crime of murder. It's as simple as that.

I agree it should be regulated because of high incident of alcohol related accidents.

The powers that be rarely listen to logic or facts on drug legalisation.

Alcohol is far more dangerous, but people crash cars whilst high too.

If we're going to make Pot illegal,why not ban alcohol as well?
Alcohol is a very dangerous thing.  People who aren't even born,can also be permenately harmed by it.

How may auto accidents are enough? How many additional  FAS children do we need?

We need to ban assault alcohol the most.
Who really needs a drink that's 190 proof?

I understand if you like the taste of wine,but there's no point in something that's 190 proof as it would have no taste.