Free the weed, dope, cannabis, hooch, Fri 4 Feb, outside Auckland District Courts [Archive]

PDA

View Full Version : Free the weed, dope, cannabis, hooch, Fri 4 Feb, outside Auckland District Courts

Pages : [1] 2 3

scissorhands

3rd February 2011, 11:01

Latte

3rd February 2011, 11:02

here I was thinking this protest was to stop people charging for it......(free the weed etc)

Maha

3rd February 2011, 11:03

Cannabis users are not criminals ?

Surely some are?

scissorhands

3rd February 2011, 11:08

They are after they are arrested and processed for being in possession of a flower

Edbear

3rd February 2011, 11:29

crim·i·nal (krm-nl)
adj.
1. Of, involving, or having the nature of crime: criminal abuse.
2. Relating to the administration of penal law.
3. a. Guilty of crime.
b. Characteristic of a criminal.
4. Shameful; disgraceful: a criminal waste of talent.
n. One that has committed or been legally convicted of a crime.

Cannabis possession and use is a crime under New Zealand Law, so whether you agree with the law or not, cannabis users are criminals under the law. :yes:

sil3nt

3rd February 2011, 11:31

Never tried the stuff. Guess now is my chance!

Scuba_Steve

3rd February 2011, 11:36

They should legalize it tho, then they can tax da shit outta it too just like tobacco might help our deficit right?

mashman

3rd February 2011, 11:36

Are they gonna do a Welly version :)... imagine the revenue generation if it was legalised :), t'would be a big boost for tourism too...

Bald Eagle

3rd February 2011, 11:41

Then you could get the patches from the quit line for party time.

scissorhands

3rd February 2011, 11:45

Cannabis plants are very similar to hops plants. I think hops contains cannabinoids. Are own bodies make it too, like opiates

scissorhands

3rd February 2011, 11:46

scissorhands

3rd February 2011, 12:37

Are they gonna do a Welly version :)... imagine the revenue generation if it was legalised :), t'would be a big boost for tourism too...

Nothing new in many parts of Australia so they wont come over. In Samoa they often beat you, because god says its bad.

The armistice tour ended in Wellington, you probably remember the headlines when they went in the Central Police Station. I'm not sure whats next down in the capital but Al Mansell is funny as hell about it. He's a street artist who has taken to the protest movement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4YPgdbIEqQ

SMOKEU

3rd February 2011, 12:40

Cannabis plants are very similar to hops plants. I think hops contains cannabinoids. Are own bodies make it too, like opiates

I grow my own hops. After numerous attempts, I have been unable to get wasted off them.

9am, what were they thinking? It's way to early to be out of bed!

Edbear

3rd February 2011, 12:49

Same as niggers on the bus and homos? Sunday trading?

Pffft

You have every right to keep trying to change the law, but you're beating a drum few want to listen to.

The lawmakers don't place a lot of weight on the opinions of those who are disrespecting of the law in general and are more on the fringes of society than involved in a positive way.

Have a think about your attitude to society and the law in general and ask yourself if you should be taken seriously.

Banditbandit

3rd February 2011, 12:59

Tomorrow 4th feb 9am outside Auckland District Courts Albert St City.

Anti prohibition protest will be just outside of main doors, someone said 400 pre rolled joints were made last night. :shutup:

Anyone turning up and joining in the protest is welcome to some free weed.:woohoo:

Cannabis users are not criminals

Dumb fuckers ... that will achieve nothing except get a few people arrested .. and maybe some TV publicity ... Oh yeah .. and a few potheads will feel very courageous for smoking in public .. :yawn:. and feel they have righteously stood up for a cause they believe in ...

Dumb fuckers ....

What I don't understand is the reaction here to these idots protesting a stupid cause, blocking the streets and causing diruption over a stupid cause ... If it was a Maori protest about Maori issues the reaction in this forum would be very different ...

Aren't Pakeha ashamed of these idiots ?

raftn

3rd February 2011, 13:04

........................I so have the munchies now.

scissorhands

3rd February 2011, 13:06

You have every right to keep trying to change the law, but you're beating a drum few want to listen to.

The lawmakers don't place a lot of weight on the opinions of those who are disrespecting of the law in general and are more on the fringes of society than involved in a positive way.

Have a think about your attitude to society and the law in general and ask yourself if you should be taken seriously.

So you would rather your neighbours kid was criminalised? His life somewhat ruined?

My attitude to society is fine, I am a good person. I protest many injustices like factory farming, minimum wage. I have a social conscience, and recognise when the law is out of step with the people, their rights, including that of animals.

Alcohol, excessive meat consumption, pollution, poor food, is more damaging to the precious society you mention, than 8-15% of the population enjoying cannabis instead of booze.

Not everyone will start using cannabis when its decriminalized. In fact, less users may eventuate if good education was employed

scissorhands

3rd February 2011, 13:08

Dumb fuckers ... that will achieve nothing except get a few people arrested .. and maybe some TV publicity ... Oh yeah .. and a few potheads will feel very courageous for smoking in public .. :yawn:. and feel they have righteously stood up for a cause they believe in ...

Dumb fuckers ....

What I don't understand is the reaction here to these idots protesting a stupid cause, blocking the streets and causing diruption over a stupid cause ... If it was a Maori protest about Maori issues the reaction in this forum would be very different ...

Aren't Pakeha ashamed of these idiots ?

What the hell!!

Edbear

3rd February 2011, 13:12

So you would rather your neighbours kid was criminalised? His life somewhat ruined?

My attitude to society is fine, I am a good person. I protest many injustices like factory farming, minimum wage. I have a social conscience, and recognise when the law is out of step with the people, their rights, including that of animals.

Alcohol, excessive meat consumption, pollution, poor food, is more damaging to the precious society you mention, than 8-15% of the population enjoying cannabis instead of booze.

Not everyone will start using cannabis when its decriminalized. In fact, less users may eventuate if good education was employed

One of the key questions addressed in considering whether to change the law is "Why?" This is asked not only in the case of criminal conviction but why does this person or group want the law changed? Why do you smoke Cannabis, a known health hazard with only one purpose in the form it is in? That is to alter mind and mood. There are no positive effects on the human body from this substance without it being processed to extract the medical benefit of pain relief at which time of course it has no mind-altering or carcinogenic properties.

Scuba_Steve

3rd February 2011, 13:17

One of the key questions addressed in considering whether to change the law is "Why?" This is asked not only in the case of criminal conviction but why does this person or group want the law changed? Why do you smoke Cannabis, a known health hazard with only one purpose in the form it is in? That is to alter mind and mood. There are no positive effects on the human body from this substance without it being processed to extract the medical benefit of pain relief at which time of course it has no mind-altering or carcinogenic properties.

See I'm not a user myself but I do believe we should all have the right to fuck up our own lives if the risks are known like tobacco & just like tobacco we could tax da shit out of it people are gonna do it regardless might as well bring in some cash off it. thats my view on legalizing it anyways

scissorhands

3rd February 2011, 13:19

ummmm okay whatever. I'm unwilling to argue further and will leave this here:bye:

lone_slayer

3rd February 2011, 13:20

I personally belive cannabis should be legalised and sold like cigerettes (heavly taxed) But iam also a firm beliver that ciggeretts and alcohol should not be sold in our supermarkets or in case of cigerettes the dairy or petrol station etc. I belive if you limit the sale to these substances to alcohol stores or pubs (R 18 type venus with a special liscene) the consumption of these product would drop drastically and the policing of underage people with this stuff will diminish. Think of how many people would stop smoking if they couldnt get it with their groceries or petrol..

Edbear

3rd February 2011, 13:24

See I'm not a user myself but I do believe we should all have the right to fuck up our own lives if the risks are known like tobacco & just like tobacco we could tax da shit out of it people are gonna do it regardless might as well bring in some cash off it. thats my view on legalizing it anyways

Oh, certainly, everyone has the inalienable right to stuff themselves up even knowing the consequences, trouble is that when they do, they expect society to help them and spend large sums of money on them. Would they be so keen if they knew that they would receive nothing to alleviate the consequences they have brought upon themselves?

What if a drunk or stoned driver/rider caused an accident and the Ambulance service only came to the aid of the innocent parties, leaving the illegal driver/rider to suffer and bleed on the side of the road? No ACC, no Doc, no hospital, no Social Welfare benefit and if they did survive, arrest and prosecution?

Dave Lobster

3rd February 2011, 13:25

So you would rather your neighbours kid was criminalised? His life somewhat ruined?

Yes. Of course. If he's chosen to break the law, why not?
No different to breaking other laws that 'yoofs' break. Criminal damage, breaking and entering, etc.

MisterD

3rd February 2011, 13:33

One of the key questions addressed in considering whether to change the law is "Why?" This is asked not only in the case of criminal conviction but why does this person or group want the law changed?

Because it does no harm to anyone except themselves and the law is (or should only be) there to protect people from others.

Make it legal to own a couple of plants but keep sale and distribution illegal IMO...

scissorhands

3rd February 2011, 13:36

Yes. Of course. If he's chosen to break the law, why not?
No different to breaking other laws that 'yoofs' break. Criminal damage, breaking and entering, etc.

Dude, wake up. All his friends use cannabis. They smoke it after footy training in the carpark then go back in the clubhouse and drink with cops in their team....then go home to their wives and families, then go to work in the morning....

The myth of stoners out robbing you is false, they are usually too stoned or selling buds for easy money. And even if it wernt, removing all drug prohibition would reduce the need to steal, (and grow for profit) and give better access to treatment for P users and junkies.

Fact is, addiction services seldom see stoners coming in. But plenty of alcoholics in need of help

Dave Lobster

3rd February 2011, 13:38

Dude, wake up. All his friends use cannabis.

If all his friends daub their name, with paint, all over my fence, they're still criminals. Merely because his friends all do it is no reason for it to be legal.

Edbear

3rd February 2011, 13:40

Because it does no harm to anyone except themselves and the law is (or should only be) there to protect people from others.

Make it legal to own a couple of plants but keep sale and distribution illegal IMO...

Is it only harming themselves? It is clear that like alcohol, cannabis is detrimental to one's senses and driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, definitely is placing others at risk.

My problem with both is the reason why people drink and do drugs. It's not to get healthy and help other people, is it? That's what I was meaning. The lawmakers consider why the person wants to smoke cannabis and the answer will never result in a sympathetic hearing.

avgas

3rd February 2011, 13:42

I was reading this, and was like wooow man.....

................what were we talking about again?

MisterD

3rd February 2011, 14:02

Is it only harming themselves? It is clear that like alcohol, cannabis is detrimental to one's senses and driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, definitely is placing others at risk.

So, like alcohol, you make it illegal to drive under the influence.

My problem with both is the reason why people drink and do drugs. It's not to get healthy and help other people, is it? That's what I was meaning. The lawmakers consider why the person wants to smoke cannabis and the answer will never result in a sympathetic hearing.

So you want to legislate against human nature then? That's the problem with "lawmakers" they're always looking for more ways to interfere by creating new laws. We should put a constitutional limit on the number of laws and only allow them to make new ones if they first remove some that are already on the books.:angry:

scissorhands

3rd February 2011, 14:08

I was reading this, and was like wooow man.....

................what were we talking about again?

Going by some of the absolutely beautiful women at The Daktory, as of late, some stoner guys must be fairly sharp, or those lovelies actually enjoy cannabis too!

Edbear

3rd February 2011, 14:12

Dude, wake up. All his friends use cannabis. They smoke it after footy training in the carpark then go back in the clubhouse and drink with cops in their team....then go home to their wives and families, then go to work in the morning....

The myth of stoners out robbing you is false, they are usually too stoned or selling buds for easy money. And even if it wernt, removing all drug prohibition would reduce the need to steal, (and grow for profit) and give better access to treatment for P users and junkies.

Fact is, addiction services seldom see stoners coming in. But plenty of alcoholics in need of help

Trouble here is, who's paying for the treatment? Not the users of course, it's the taxpayer in general. Alcoholism is rampant in NZ and not getting better, so the treatment programs aren't making a significant difference to the overall issue as much as they might to individuals.

How much money are we as taxpayers prepared to let the Govt. spend to address addiction and medical, (both illness and accident), issues? Are drug users and alcoholics prepared to forego the support of societies expensive medical and legal services in order to do as they please?

Everyone was up in arms about the prisoner who broke his leg escaping from prison and got a huge payout from ACC, what about the drunk/stoned person who injures himself? You see, if one deliberately, and knowingly does something that is detrimental to their health, should they expect the resources of society to be spent on them?

I think in other threads on this, you admitted riding/driving after smoking and that many who smoke, do the same. Like I said, you want to be taken seriously, but what's the difference with someone who says they drink and drive?

You will never get cannabis legalised no matter how "harmless" you believe it to be.

MisterD

3rd February 2011, 14:15

You see, if one deliberately, and knowingly does something that is detrimental to their health, should they expect the resources of society to be spent on them?

Do you really want to go down that road? That way leads to way more than big increases in ACC for motorcyclists...

You will never get cannabis legalised no matter how "harmless" you believe it to be.

I reckon it's only a matter of time, it just depends how long society will put up with the utter failure of the way we currently deal with drugs.

Edbear

3rd February 2011, 14:18

So, like alcohol, you make it illegal to drive under the influence.

So you want to legislate against human nature then? That's the problem with "lawmakers" they're always looking for more ways to interfere by creating new laws. We should put a constitutional limit on the number of laws and only allow them to make new ones if they first remove some that are already on the books.:angry:

Isn't it already illegal to drive under the influence of both alcohol, (over the limit), or drugs?

It is human nature to be stupid and do crazy things, doesn't mean it should be legal when there are consequences to society that we all have to pick up the tab for. You'd have to come up with far better arguments than have so far been put forward here to convince the legislators to change the law.

scissorhands

3rd February 2011, 14:22

I have a beer and drive sometimes. I have 1 beer. I am used to the effects of beer. Sometimes I have 2 and drive if over 1 hour has passed. I never have 3 and jump in a car.

Sensational or factual, some people after 1 beer would be dangerous. Same with weed.

The drug drive testing laws at present are adequate, when officers perceive a dangerous level of intoxication correctly.

Edbear

3rd February 2011, 14:27

Do you really want to go down that road? That way leads to way more than big increases in ACC for motorcyclists...

I reckon it's only a matter of time, it just depends how long society will put up with the utter failure of the way we currently deal with drugs.

I agree with your first point. I just want people to think about this and make responsible decisions knowing that their choices and actions do affect others. Problem is that many simply couldn't care less if they do and insist on their "right" without caring a jot about the rights of those who have to pick them up.

On the second, I doubt, although it is possible, that even in time the law will be changed. As for "dealing with the drug/alcohol issues", "we" are the ones who have to make the difference. We cannot sit back and demand the Govt. fix the problem. They can't do more than they are except bring in harsher penalties and compulsory rehab. The trouble is that those who need to change, don't want to and won't until we as the general public, their friends and families, make it not okay and pressurise them to change their ways.

You're talking about deep seated societal attitudes and you can't legislate that.

MisterD

3rd February 2011, 14:34

It is human nature to be stupid and do crazy things, doesn't mean it should be legal when there are consequences to society that we all have to pick up the tab for. You'd have to come up with far better arguments than have so far been put forward here to convince the legislators to change the law.

OK, motorcycles are now illegal and there's no medical treatment if you crash, why should society pick up the tab for the consequences of you not driving a car?

I'd legalise all drugs. Make them available through licenced, controlled and taxed channels so that users can trust the strength and quality of the product. How much money do we currently throw down the hole of utterly failing enforcement activity?

scissorhands

3rd February 2011, 14:38

Trouble here is, who's paying for the treatment? Not the users of course, it's the taxpayer in general. Alcoholism is rampant in NZ and not getting better, so the treatment programs aren't making a significant difference to the overall issue as much as they might to individuals.

How much money are we as taxpayers prepared to let the Govt. spend to address addiction and medical, (both illness and accident), issues? Are drug users and alcoholics prepared to forego the support of societies expensive medical and legal services in order to do as they please?

Everyone was up in arms about the prisoner who broke his leg escaping from prison and got a huge payout from ACC, what about the drunk/stoned person who injures himself? You see, if one deliberately, and knowingly does something that is detrimental to their health, should they expect the resources of society to be spent on them?

I think in other threads on this, you admitted riding/driving after smoking and that many who smoke, do the same. Like I said, you want to be taken seriously, but what's the difference with someone who says they drink and drive?

You will never get cannabis legalised no matter how "harmless" you believe it to be.

Look at Oz and I think you could be wrong!

But I agree with the waste of money that govt addiction services often are. Not always though and many do get the help they needed.

It would be heartless to deny help to those that need it. As usual govt spending in these tradtional areas is not the answer.

Education is the fence at the top of the cliff, and good education rather than scare stories like reefer madness, is where money should be spent. Under prohibition any reasonable education is more difficult

phill-k

3rd February 2011, 14:39

One of the key questions addressed in considering whether to change the law is "Why?" This is asked not only in the case of criminal conviction but why does this person or group want the law changed? Why do you smoke Cannabis, a known health hazard with only one purpose in the form it is in? That is to alter mind and mood. There are no positive effects on the human body from this substance without it being processed to extract the medical benefit of pain relief at which time of course it has no mind-altering or carcinogenic properties.

Are you talking about alcohol by chance - er sorry no just read the preceding posts carry on as it were.

Edbear

3rd February 2011, 14:42

OK, motorcycles are now illegal and there's no medical treatment if you crash, why should society pick up the tab for the consequences of you not driving a car?

I'd legalise all drugs. Make them available through licenced, controlled and taxed channels so that users can trust the strength and quality of the product. How much money do we currently throw down the hole of utterly failing enforcement activity?

Riding a motorcycle is no different from driving a car, as both have an inherent danger of crashing, simply because they are moving and more so on public roads. The illustration would be valid if you were referring to the charge of dangerous/reckless driving/riding, instead.

Your idea of legalising would do no more good than currently as who's going to pay the prices charged when they can grow/obtain it cheaper illegally?

The OP simply wants to be able to smoke cannabis without consequence in law. I doubt he or his supporters would be interested in your idea.

scissorhands

3rd February 2011, 14:48

The OP wishes to amend an unfair law. He like 100,000 NZers have been known to the law as cannabis users for ages. Sometimes it not the police that are the problem. At least some of the cops I've known:spanking:

Edbear

3rd February 2011, 14:51

Look at Oz and I think you could be wrong!

But I agree with the waste of money that govt addiction services often are. Not always though and many do get the help they needed.

It would be heartless to deny help to those that need it. As usual govt spending in these tradtional areas is not the answer.

Education is the fence at the top of the cliff, and good education rather than scare stories like reefer madness, is where money should be spent. Under prohibition any reasonable education is more difficult

Education is the key, of course, along with parental guidance and example. Children will do as they see, not as they hear when it comes to parents. They need good examples and to see the bad consequences of bad decisions. Starting from babyhood. Schools can be a huge help, but can't replace parents who have the major influence on their children.

How honest are you with others about why you smoke cannabis? The only reason to smoke it is to get stoned. You may call it relaxing but cannabis is a depressant and like tobacco has only a detrimental physical effect, (including paranoia), and can also lead to cancer of the throat, mouth, lungs as well as emphysema and a few other nasties.

Would you be open with your kids about that? Would you as a parent encourage your children to take up a health hazard for recreation?

scissorhands

3rd February 2011, 14:58

Banditbandit

3rd February 2011, 15:02

Going by some of the absolutely beautiful women at The Daktory, as of late, some stoner guys must be fairly sharp, or those lovelies actually enjoy cannabis too!

If you've every mixed sex and cannabis you'd understand.

HenryDorsetCase

3rd February 2011, 15:03

Are they gonna do a Welly version :)... imagine the revenue generation if it was legalised :), t'would be a big boost for tourism too...

the interesting thing about that proposal is that the weed growers in California all* voted against Proposition 19, which would have legalised cannabis, and opened the way for the government to tax it. Why? they were worried about the agribusiness giants i.e. corporate Mrka muscling in on their business. So they voted against legalisation on the basis they didnt want their business model which is quite successful though sort of illegal being screwed with. My understanding is that if you have a prescription, you can buy from "non-profit" marijuana clubs, and that prescriptions are fairly readily available.

I thnk its fascinating. Its also another example why prohibition in any form just does not work. It can be as legal as you like, it won't increase my consumption by one iota.

*apparently

Banditbandit

3rd February 2011, 15:04

What the hell!!

Yes. Exactly the point I was making ...

HenryDorsetCase

3rd February 2011, 15:06

Education is the key, of course, along with parental guidance and example. Children will do as they see, not as they hear when it comes to parents. They need good examples and to see the bad consequences of bad decisions. Starting from babyhood. Schools can be a huge help, but can't replace parents who have the major influence on their children.

How honest are you with others about why you smoke cannabis? The only reason to smoke it is to get stoned. You may call it relaxing but cannabis is a depressant and like tobacco has only a detrimental physical effect, (including paranoia), and can also lead to cancer of the throat, mouth, lungs as well as emphysema and a few other nasties.

Would you be open with your kids about that? Would you as a parent encourage your children to take up a health hazard for recreation?

like motorcycling, say? or drinking? or walking down the street to the dairy to get icecream?

where does it start? where does it stop?

Edbear

3rd February 2011, 15:08

heres why: As an undiagnosed autistic the social problems I had from a young age found relief around surfing, the beach and cannabis. Like many 'loners' who find relief in the surf and cannabis, self medicating a reasonably benign substance is popular, and drinking is bad for your surfing..... The Daktory has a few autistics from birth, abused children, that sort of thing. okay Ed?

Fuck this

You're rather defensive. :yes: Given how you feel it is helping your condition, have you considered doing research to find out how and why and in fact whether cannabis has such a benefit? Wouldn't that give you huge credibility, and maybe win the support of the medical profession? People get Govt. funding for research, after all. I'm not taking the mickey, here. I said that you lack credibility and with your stance you're unlikely to win people over, but if you are genuinely concerned with a serious health issue that is affecting society and costing tax-payers and are wanting to help in researching it, you'll get a lot further.

As a sufferer you are in the best position to know how you are affected both by your condition and the medications used in the treatment of it.

HenryDorsetCase

3rd February 2011, 15:10

Isn't it already illegal to drive under the influence of both alcohol, (over the limit), or drugs?

It is human nature to be stupid and do crazy things, doesn't mean it should be legal when there are consequences to society that we all have to pick up the tab for. You'd have to come up with far better arguments than have so far been put forward here to convince the legislators to change the law.

How about this then:

you do to your body what you want to do: spike up smack, smoke crystal meth, roll a spliff the size of a carrot and puff away, all of thats fine.

but as soon as there are detrimental effects to others, thats where you cross the line: steal to support your habit, NO, beat your kids or partner because you are drunk, NO, drive under the influence (particularly if you cause death or injury) NO.

thats easy. Drugs arent the problem, people are the problem.

Edbear

3rd February 2011, 15:15

like motorcycling, say? or drinking? or walking down the street to the dairy to get icecream?

where does it start? where does it stop?

You're way over-simplifying things and are in error, my friend. List the known and probable, (as against the maybe possible), consequences of smoking either tobacco or cannabis against riding a bike. Light to moderate drinking has few if any health concerns and only in heavy use does it result in health hazards. I've already talked about motorcycling and you do yourself no favours by using walking down the street as an analogy.

Smoking, either cannabis or tobacco is going to result in physical harm from the first puff and is for the purpose of self-harm. That's why I suggested to scissorhands that he actually do something positive to analyse where the health benefits come from. Like the pain killing effects, that is likey to result in extracting a substance and procesing it, which still leaves smoking it in the detrimental basket and unlikely to be legalised.

HenryDorsetCase

3rd February 2011, 15:16

Is it only harming themselves? It is clear that like alcohol, cannabis is detrimental to one's senses and driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, definitely is placing others at risk.

My problem with both is the reason why people drink and do drugs. It's not to get healthy and help other people, is it? That's what I was meaning. The lawmakers consider why the person wants to smoke cannabis and the answer will never result in a sympathetic hearing.

why do you ride a motorbike, son? its because you like to go fast and break the law, isnt' it? cant have that. BANNED.

Why do you support that political party son? they want to over throw the established order and cause disruption. Cant have that: BANNED.

Why are you a member of that religion, son? they're theiving bastards" BANNED.

Fark, we need a final solution for all these BANNED people. Hmmmmm. Lets confiscate their assets, then keep them all together in one place.

Fark, there's a few of them. Way too many of them. and more every day. We need a FINAL SOLUTION.

See where I'm going with that? thin end of the wedge and like that?

Kickaha

3rd February 2011, 15:17

We need a FINAL SOLUTION.

Kill them all :ar15:

Edbear

3rd February 2011, 15:24

How about this then:

you do to your body what you want to do: spike up smack, smoke crystal meth, roll a spliff the size of a carrot and puff away, all of thats fine.

but as soon as there are detrimental effects to others, thats where you cross the line: steal to support your habit, NO, beat your kids or partner because you are drunk, NO, drive under the influence (particularly if you cause death or injury) NO.

thats easy. Drugs arent the problem, people are the problem.

People are the problem and therein lies the issue. Who decides at what point you are encroaching on the rights of others? What about the paramedics who have to forego their sleep and time with their families to come to your aid? What about WINZ who have to pay you for time off work? ACC to tend to your injuries? As I said, I just want people to think about the consequences of their actions and the effects on those around them when they decide what to do.

why do you ride a motorbike, son? its because you like to go fast and break the law, isnt' it? cant have that. BANNED.

Why do you support that political party son? they want to over throw the established order and cause disruption. Cant have that: BANNED.

Why are you a member of that religion, son? they're theiving bastards" BANNED.

Fark, we need a final solution for all these BANNED people. Hmmmmm. Lets confiscate their assets, then keep them all together in one place.

Fark, there's a few of them. Way too many of them. and more every day. We need a FINAL SOLUTION.

See where I'm going with that? thin end of the wedge and like that?

Again, too simplistic and missing the point. Not everyone rides a bike because they want to break the law and go fast. And I've addressed the motorcycle analogy recently.

HenryDorsetCase

3rd February 2011, 15:26

You're way over-simplifying things and are in error, my friend. List the known and probable, (as against the maybe possible), consequences of smoking either tobacco or cannabis against riding a bike. Light to moderate drinking has few if any health concerns and only in heavy use does it result in health hazards. I've already talked about motorcycling and you do yourself no favours by using walking down the street as an analogy.

Smoking, either cannabis or tobacco is going to result in physical harm from the first puff and is for the purpose of self-harm. That's why I suggested to scissorhands that he actually do something positive to analyse where the health benefits come from. Like the pain killing effects, that is likey to result in extracting a substance and procesing it, which still leaves smoking it in the detrimental basket and unlikely to be legalised.

so hash brownies are OK? Just checking: Ive got some in the oven.

HenryDorsetCase

3rd February 2011, 15:33

People are the problem and therein lies the issue. Who decides at what point you are encroaching on the rights of others? What about the paramedics who have to forego their sleep and time with their families to come to your aid? What about WINZ who have to pay you for time off work? ACC to tend to your injuries? As I said, I just want people to think about the consequences of their actions and the effects on those around them when they decide what to do.

Again, too simplistic and missing the point. Not everyone rides a bike because they want to break the law and go fast. And I've addressed the motorcycle analogy recently.

Aren't we talking past each other?

Primates have what appears to be a pretty deeply seated urge to get fucked up: monkeys knowingly eat psychedelic mushrooms, and then freak out, masturbate and throw poo. I knowingly drink five Hemingway Daiquiri's, freak out, mastubate and throw poo. Good night out had by all.

People have smoked stuff, eaten stuff, and drunk stuff to get fucked up for as long as there have been people. The issue I have is that picking and choosing what is "OK", and what is not at any given point in society says more about that society than it does about the drug itself. Case in point: (and because I am watching it on the telly) alcohol prohibition in the 1920's in the US.

I suggest that limited cannabis use is no more detrimental to the average punter than limited alcohol use is. Hysteria aside. I also believe that demonstrably, prohibition does not work.

Usarka

3rd February 2011, 15:35

Ingesting marijuana is not necessarily bad for you. If it was why have is it a valid medical treatment in california?

Re throat & lung cancers you can avoid these by using vaporisers, or eating the stuff....

BTW has anyone seen my car?

PS - NZ law has a provision basically accepting that most kiwis know what marijuana looks and smells like. That wouldn't be the case unless a large percentage of kiwi's use or have used it.

HenryDorsetCase

3rd February 2011, 15:37

You're way over-simplifying things and are in error, my friend. List the known and probable, (as against the maybe possible), consequences of smoking either tobacco or cannabis against riding a bike. Light to moderate drinking has few if any health concerns and only in heavy use does it result in health hazards. I've already talked about motorcycling and you do yourself no favours by using walking down the street as an analogy.

Smoking, either cannabis or tobacco is going to result in physical harm from the first puff and is for the purpose of self-harm. That's why I suggested to scissorhands that he actually do something positive to analyse where the health benefits come from. Like the pain killing effects, that is likey to result in extracting a substance and procesing it, which still leaves smoking it in the detrimental basket and unlikely to be legalised.

Bearing that in mind, do you acknowledge the hypocrisy that tobacco is "legal" and cannabis is not? Surely, if "the only purpose is self harm" then both tobacco and cannabis should be illegal? And given tobacco is NZ's leading cause of preventable death* then you must be campaigning vigorously for it to be made unlawful?

*don't ask me for a source for that: I think i read it on a billboard or saw a TV ad or something.

MSTRS

3rd February 2011, 15:39

...reefer madness....

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/L7pwQOkk8Ao" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

avgas

3rd February 2011, 15:39

Going by some of the absolutely beautiful women at The Daktory, as of late, some stoner guys must be fairly sharp, or those lovelies actually enjoy cannabis too!
Just ask if they give or take head.

Now don't get me wrong - I have nothing against those whom have the occasional doob or 2. I was one of them. Its a wonderful plant.

I only have problems with people who feel the need to dedicate part of their life towards it, or have to go to places like the Daktory, or protest/parade around about it.

Its right up there with burning bra's and unions as far as I am concerned.

Mary J is a personal thing that should be concealed and smoked. Not heard.
Rubbing it in peoples faces is like wearing chapless leathers to a Honda Riders Club do.
After-wards you won't know what happened, you will feel proud for no reason at all, and your arse will hurt.

Maha

3rd February 2011, 15:41

onearmedbandit

3rd February 2011, 15:45

Ah always guaranteed an emotional debate when the subject of marijuana comes up. And that's exactly that, it will always be a debate. You're wasting valuable time arguing amongst yourselves, time that could be better used by passing the whip to the vaporiser, bogart.

Edbear

3rd February 2011, 15:47

Bearing that in mind, do you acknowledge the hypocrisy that tobacco is "legal" and cannabis is not? Surely, if "the only purpose is self harm" then both tobacco and cannabis should be illegal? And given tobacco is NZ's leading cause of preventable death* then you must be campaigning vigorously for it to be made unlawful?

*don't ask me for a source for that: I think i read it on a billboard or saw a TV ad or something.

Anybody who knows me knows my views on smoking in general. I consider the tobacco companies, okay the people running them, promoting smoking and marketing it, to be murderers as they knowingly produce and market a product that will kill half those who use it as intended and make miserable the lives of most of the remaining half. You may have noticed my posts have included tobacco.

Banditbandit

3rd February 2011, 15:47

scumdog

3rd February 2011, 15:50

: steal to support your habit, NO,

Drugs arent the problem, people are the problem.

So.. if you DON'T have to steal to support your habit then the drug is ok?

BUT if you DO have to steal to support your habit it's not ok?:blink:

So do those that don't have to steal tell the one that do have to steal about that??:shutup:

And dead-on with the second comment - of course drugs affect people in different ways eh...

ellipsis

3rd February 2011, 15:51

.....love is a dangerous drug...causes all kinds of shit...BAN IT...

HenryDorsetCase

3rd February 2011, 16:00

So.. if you DON'T have to steal to support your habit then the drug is ok?

Yep. In my view. Who are you to be able to tell me what I can and can't, should and shouldn't do? If I want to fuck myself up, it should be my choice.

BUT if you DO have to steal to support your habit it's not ok?:blink:

yes: beccause at that point, my choices are negatively affecting others. That is the point at which society should sanction that behaviour. A good example, and one with which we're all familiar, is homosexualuality. If I happen to love a big black cock up my bunghole, and provided no-one is forcing it up there, then its nobodies business, consenting adults and like that: enforcing some arbitrary moral view by legal sanction is pointless, and doomed to fail. Another example: William Burroughs was addicted to heroin for years: he had the money to pay for it, didnt have to turn tricks on the street or steal: that should be nobodies business but his as well.

So do those that don't have to steal tell the one that do have to steal about that??:shutup:

I don't understand. in the utopia I have created, there wont be drama.

And dead-on with the second comment - of course drugs affect people in different ways eh...

I wouldnt know. :)

Banditbandit

3rd February 2011, 16:13

i don't understand. In the utopia i have created, there wont be drama.

boring then huh ????

mashman

3rd February 2011, 16:22

Anybody who knows me knows my views on smoking in general. I consider the tobacco companies, okay the people running them, promoting smoking and marketing it, to be murderers as they knowingly produce and market a product that will kill half those who use it as intended and make miserable the lives of most of the remaining half. You may have noticed my posts have included tobacco.

Hi Ed :) :shifty:... what about alcohol and those who promote it (it can be deadly within a matter of hours)? What about the doctors and pharmaceutical industry that creates "legal treatments" that are highly addictive? Do you hate them with as much vigour?

From personal research over MANY years, I have less side effects from a "smoke" than I do from boozing. The MAIN reason I used to "smoke" (wagon, nearly 2 months and no withdrawals, can't say that with any of the above) is that it costs me by far less for a much more pleasant experience. Cost for me is a huge factor. The end result is the whole purpose of doing it yes. As is bungee jumping, rock climbing and every other adrenaline junky's fix.

Free the weed and generate some cash for the country... not everyone will/can grow it.

mashman

3rd February 2011, 16:36

the interesting thing about that proposal is that the weed growers in California all* voted against Proposition 19, which would have legalised cannabis, and opened the way for the government to tax it. Why? they were worried about the agribusiness giants i.e. corporate Mrka muscling in on their business. So they voted against legalisation on the basis they didnt want their business model which is quite successful though sort of illegal being screwed with. My understanding is that if you have a prescription, you can buy from "non-profit" marijuana clubs, and that prescriptions are fairly readily available.

I thnk its fascinating. Its also another example why prohibition in any form just does not work. It can be as legal as you like, it won't increase my consumption by one iota.

*apparently

So contract the growers for 10 years at a time and keep the agribusiness doing what they're already doing anyway. Set a price and leave it that way... just leave the current Cannabis production-consumption system alone. Why change what is obviously working? other than adding GST of course :)

Prohibition is just another case of, well we can't do it, why should you. I don't see it any deeper than that. Otherwise common sense would prevail and the govt would have extra taxation... where's the down side? Paranoia :killingme.

Edbear

3rd February 2011, 16:38

Hi Ed :) :shifty:... what about alcohol and those who promote it (it can be deadly within a matter of hours)? What about the doctors and pharmaceutical industry that creates "legal treatments" that are highly addictive? Do you hate them with as much vigour?

From personal research over MANY years, I have less side effects from a "smoke" than I do from boozing. The MAIN reason I used to "smoke" (wagon, nearly 2 months and no withdrawals, can't say that with any of the above) is that it costs me by far less for a much more pleasant experience. Cost for me is a huge factor. The end result is the whole purpose of doing it yes. As is bungee jumping, rock climbing and every other adrenaline junky's fix.

Free the weed and generate some cash for the country... not everyone will/can grow it.

You're missing the point, mate. Smoking, whether tobacco or cannabis, has no benign level. Smoking is automatically bad for the health and no-one can argue that. I've made the point that there are properties in cannabis that can be extracted for health benefits. There may be properties as yet unheard of in tobacco that can be extracted and used in a benign way as well.

To save repeating myself ad infinitum, go back and read my posts as I have addressed alcohol, motorcycling, the legal and societal issues. The key is in the purpose, and people smole cannabis to get high, end of story. I've said if anyone is genuinely serious about any possible health benefits, get off your backsides and do something about it, however, as I pointed out, for most, that's not attractive as that will still leave the smoking of it out of the picture.

Cannabis users just want to be able to smoke it without consequence and it's as simple as that. They are not interested in health, or the effects on others or anything else. It's called rationalising one's own preferences from a selfish viewpoint.

HenryDorsetCase

3rd February 2011, 16:49

The key is in the purpose, and people smole cannabis to get high, end of story.

Cannabis users just want to be able to smoke it without consequence and it's as simple as that. They are not interested in health, or the effects on others or anything else. It's called rationalising one's own preferences from a selfish viewpoint.

I get your point. You appear not to get mine: which comes down to primate preference, the hypocrisy of prohibition, and its pointlessness.

I do agree with you that arguing health benefits is a smokescreen.

People want to get off their tits. Its what people do.

taking your argument, you presumably have no objection to non-smoked forms of cannabis use (of which there are many)?.

HenryDorsetCase

3rd February 2011, 16:49

boring then huh ????

Nah, everybody will be too stoned to care......

onearmedbandit

3rd February 2011, 16:50

Cannabis users just want to be able to smoke it without consequence and it's as simple as that. They are not interested in health, or the effects on others or anything else. It's called rationalising one's own preferences from a selfish viewpoint.

Don't we all already do this in some form or other?

And too right I want to smoke it without legal consequence. Just like people who drink in their own home or smoke cigarettes.

HenryDorsetCase

3rd February 2011, 16:52

JRrqj-xjZuw

Edbear

3rd February 2011, 16:58

I get your point. You appear not to get mine: which comes down to primate preference, the hypocrisy of prohibition, and its pointlessness.

I do agree with you that arguing health benefits is a smokescreen.

People want to get off their tits. Its what people do.

taking your argument, you presumably have no objection to non-smoked forms of cannabis use (of which there are many)?.

I have no objection to seeking the health benefits of anything but my personal view is that I prefer to keep my senses and avoid doing anything that makes my mind less than alert and sober. I drink a bit, but not enough to get drunk or even tipsy and I won't take mind-altering drugs without reason to, such as painkillers, anaesthetics etc. I don't enjoy, or see the point in getting drunk or stoned by whatever means, "for fun" as it's no fun for me to either be that way or watch others make fools of themselves. I have much more fun being sober...

Bear in mind this is my personal opinion and you know what they say about opinions...

Don't we all already do this in some form or other?

Yup! But hopefully we can at least be honest with ourselves...

HenryDorsetCase

3rd February 2011, 17:06

I have no objection to seeking the health benefits of anything but my personal view is that I prefer to keep my senses and avoid doing anything that makes my mind less than alert and sober. I drink a bit, but not enough to get drunk or even tipsy and I won't take mind-altering drugs without reason to, such as painkillers, anaesthetics etc. I don't enjoy, or see the point in getting drunk or stoned by whatever means, "for fun" as it's no fun for me to either be that way or watch others make fools of themselves. I have much more fun being sober...

Bear in mind this is my personal opinion and you know what they say about opinions...

Yup! But hopefully we can at least be honest with ourselves...

Sure: my point though is that primates generally seem to have an inclination to get fucked up that is fairly deeply ingrained. Your experiences and inclination differ, fine. I'm not saying make it compulsory. I am saying that prohibition plainly does not work. And I believe the "health benefits" aspect to be a smokescreen (if you'll forgive the pun): the reason people want it is to get high. any other benefit is incidental.

st00ji

3rd February 2011, 17:11

everyone enjoys themselves in different ways ed. is that really so bad? do you really expect everyone to enjoy their lives in the same way that you do?

to my mind, if alcohol is legal then all drugs should be. people that get messy from whatever substance and cause trouble have plenty of laws to be prosecuted under, and its fairly clear that making a law about it does not stop those that desire more than a few drinks (but not enough to get drunk!) from partaking in their substance of choice.

refer sig

i wont talk about laughable health benefit arguements, but making such substances less than illegal could well have a detrimental effect on the income streams of gangs, to mention one minor point, which are generally considered to be 'bad'. the benefits of law changes dont always have to come back to cost though!

mashman

3rd February 2011, 17:12

You're missing the point, mate. Smoking, whether tobacco or cannabis, has no benign level. Smoking is automatically bad for the health and no-one can argue that. I've made the point that there are properties in cannabis that can be extracted for health benefits. There may be properties as yet unheard of in tobacco that can be extracted and used in a benign way as well.

To save repeating myself ad infinitum, go back and read my posts as I have addressed alcohol, motorcycling, the legal and societal issues. The key is in the purpose, and people smole cannabis to get high, end of story. I've said if anyone is genuinely serious about any possible health benefits, get off your backsides and do something about it, however, as I pointed out, for most, that's not attractive as that will still leave the smoking of it out of the picture.

Cannabis users just want to be able to smoke it without consequence and it's as simple as that. They are not interested in health, or the effects on others or anything else. It's called rationalising one's own preferences from a selfish viewpoint.

I didn't miss the point at all. Health is not the issue here. Freedom to "smoke" cannabis is... and I can argue it... science just isn't up to the task of proving me wrong yet :)... primarily because they figure they don't have to :rofl: and so "science" will fall back on to it's generalised research in regards to smokers. You can call me blind all you like, but if you do not consider the following factors and their affect on smokers, then it's pot kettle black :yes:

What are the effects on smokers in regards to petrol fumes (they removed lead from fuel for a reason), perfumes, alcohol (pfff can and does kill in hours), a predisposition to asthma (by the way, mine ashtma went away when I started smoking cigarettes :yes:, and I have found that chewing gum brings it back again :yes:), personal diet, too much sugar, too little, too much fat, too little fat, pesticides ingestion, meat hormones, animal longevity "treatments", water quality, legal pills and on and on and on... but yup, smoking is ultimately bad for you, because there is a singular obvious affect on the lungs when smoking is performed over a period of time... Yet smokers can live into their hundreds :yes:. I've seen people close to me die at an early age, from Cancer, and they have never smoked in their lives. How is that possible if smoking kills?

:rofl: at not interested in health (see above list of other things that kill people).

Edbear

3rd February 2011, 17:15

Sure: my point though is that primates generally seem to have an inclination to get fucked up that is fairly deeply ingrained. Your experiences and inclination differ, fine. I'm not saying make it compulsory. I am saying that prohibition plainly does not work. And I believe the "health benefits" aspect to be a smokescreen (if you'll forgive the pun): the reason people want it is to get high. any other benefit is incidental.

Can't argue with that, although prohibition on cannabis is much likened to the gun issue. Yes, people will ultimately do what they want to do and no amount of legislation will stop someone smoking if they are determined to do so, but as with the freedom of the gun laws in the US, the ready and free availability means that they become the more common method of assault or murder rather than the exception.

My whole original point was that in order to get the law changed, those who want it changed need to make a reasoned and responsible argument backed up by referenced and legitimate research, not by thumbing their noses at the law and making illegal protests. Personally I don't like or agree with harmful practices of any kind including smoking any substance and would support research into any possible legitimate benefits of anything.

Edbear

3rd February 2011, 17:17

Back later, gotta go out, taking the Missus out for dinner...

Scuba_Steve

3rd February 2011, 17:21

everyone enjoys themselves in different ways ed. is that really so bad? do you really expect everyone to enjoy their lives in the same way that you do?

to my mind, if alcohol is legal then all drugs should be. people that get messy from whatever substance and cause trouble have plenty of laws to be prosecuted under, and its fairly clear that making a law about it does not stop those that desire more than a few drinks (but not enough to get drunk!) from partaking in their substance of choice.

see I'd have to disagree there while I reckon we should legalize weed & tax da shit outta it like tobacco & booze. I don't wanna see drugs like 'P', heroin, 'coke' etc legalized because those drugs aint just a "fuck up yourself" system, they affect other people/communities & should remain banned.

marty

3rd February 2011, 17:26

scissorhands

3rd February 2011, 17:38

So if I get batonned for a legitimate protest regarding a highly controversial subject, I'm not allowed to express myself?

Even when I trully believe in something that may have a majority vote?

ellipsis

3rd February 2011, 18:00

...the really dangerous drug...love, has a lot to answer for in all facets of human behaviour...admittedly there may be some that show outwardly that they can handle this dangerous substance but, it will be forever to the detriment of society that any abuse of this drug be allowed to continue...a far safer option to this drug is 'like'...if more people actually admitted to liking, instead of loving, some of the more vexatious side affects of love abuse would be bypassed completely..:yes:

Scuba_Steve

3rd February 2011, 18:03

you do have the right to do whatever you want. just be prepared to accept the consequences and stfu when they happen

do I? can you please tell others that then, start with the cops

Usarka

3rd February 2011, 18:59

Cheech and Chong vs Star Wars

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/IXdRga6mzcw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

scumdog

3rd February 2011, 19:07

do I? can you please tell others that then, start with the cops

Booh-riiing...:whocares:

HenryDorsetCase

3rd February 2011, 20:13

Just ask if they give or take head.

Now don't get me wrong - I have nothing against those whom have the occasional doob or 2. I was one of them. Its a wonderful plant.

I only have problems with people who feel the need to dedicate part of their life towards it, or have to go to places like the Daktory, or protest/parade around about it.

Its right up there with burning bra's and unions as far as I am concerned.

Mary J is a personal thing that should be concealed and smoked. Not heard.
Rubbing it in peoples faces is like wearing chapless leathers to a Honda Riders Club do.
After-wards you won't know what happened, you will feel proud for no reason at all, and your arse will hurt.

I'm all for burning unions....

yes, I'll say anything for a cheap joke.

Berries

3rd February 2011, 20:34

Interesting thread. I was a heavy user for a number of years, and I mean proper heavy, not your social smoking. Held down a decent job, didn't kill anyone or rob anyone. Fairly respectable really. Moved on and eventually ended up in NZ, well known at the time as being one of the worst countries in the world for cannabis prosecutions. And what did I find ? The biggest nation of tokers I had ever seen. Haven't had a smoke for years, but right now with the wife and kids out of town I would give anything for big doobie instead of the red wine by my side.

Of course it should be legalised. As far as I am concerned there isn't even an argument to be entered in to. It causes no harm to others. In fact, the only harm it does cause is that you may have to meet some unsavoury characters to buy it. People say it leads on to other things. Bollocks.

Bill Hicks went further, saying it should be compulsory, but with my serious head on I am not too sure about that. What I am sure about is that the people who see it as a big scary destroyer of communities are so wrong. With any kind of narcotic some people will go too far and need to be reined in, but that is more due to the personality type rather than the drug of choice.

Frankly, I am amazed at the money that is spent worldwide trying to control illegal drug use, and the people killed in trying to control the supply. If all drugs were legalised not only could they be taxed but it would take out the very dodgy middlemen, improve the life of many third world people and, if supply was state controlled, could lead to proper education about the effects, rather than the BS that you hear via the media and on KB.

Now, where's my roach paper ?

I wish.

Smifffy

3rd February 2011, 20:43

I wouldn't mind if it was legalised, on three conditions:

It remained lawful to either not employ, or to dismiss an employee who returned a positive drugs test, if workplace health and safety were at issue, eg operating heavy machinery.

In order to receive a benefit long term a regular clear drugs test is required.

It remains illegal to drive/ride under the influence.

Two of the three are just like alcohol laws, and I wouldn't mind adding alcohol to third.

I personally don't give a shit how much anyone wants to fuck themselves up in their own home or in their own time, but I don't want them endangering my life, and I sure as hell don't think I should be paying for it.

Legal sources of dope could possibly reduce the chance of youngsters getting shit that's laced with other harder stuff.

I think decriminalising the stuff will then impact on Kiwi's traveling freedoms, such as many of the current visa waiver programs that those of us without criminal convictions currently enjoy.

The shit appears to be that readily available that anyone over the age of about 18 that wants to partake of it, and can pay the going rate, can get as much as they want.

No doubt under 18s can get it easily enough too, but i'm thinking they probably need to know somebody.

Berries

3rd February 2011, 20:54

It remained lawful to either not employ, or to dismiss an employee who returned a positive drugs test, if workplace health and safety were at issue, eg operating heavy machinery.
Definitely agree with your last point. If you are affected to such an extent that you cannot operate machinery, or yourself, at work then you should be shown the door. Also agree that you don't have to employ someone if you don't want to. But to dismiss someone on a Monday for something they did on Friday or Saturday night, which has absolutely no affect on their capacity to carry out their work on the Monday seems to me a bit extreme.

PrincessBandit

3rd February 2011, 20:55

Hahaha, haven't read the thread but had to smile that the headline OP has managed to get 6 pages worth of comments in less than 12 hours. While other threads have no doubt managed the same traffic in the same time the content is usually a tad more controversial or heated than wacky backy...

Berries

3rd February 2011, 20:57

and you'd expect most users to be too wasted to be able to type.

Smifffy

3rd February 2011, 20:59

Berries

3rd February 2011, 21:03

I don't know. From experience the effects disappear way quicker than alcohol. It depends on whether the tests are to detect impairment, which is what it should be, or whether it is looking at evidence of consumption. Evidence of consumption has no correlation with impairment, which is my issue with drug testing at work.

at a level above that which has been proven to cause impairment
Honest question. Have they determined that level for cannabis ?

Edbear

3rd February 2011, 21:04

Definitely agree with your last point. If you are affected to such an extent that you cannot operate machinery, or yourself, at work then you should be shown the door. Also agree that you don't have to employ someone if you don't want to. But to dismiss someone on a Monday for something they did on Friday or Saturday night, which has absolutely no affect on their capacity to carry out their work on the Monday seems to me a bit extreme.

The problem of health and safety at work is a complex one and involves, to my mind, more than just illicit drugs. Many prescription medicines caution about driving or operating machinery while taking them and yet no-one "polices" that. I reckon very few who take them would take heed of the warnings given, either.

I certainly agree that anyone under the influence of any substance that places others at risk should be stood down until they are no longer a risk, but while not in favour of legalising cannabis, I also believe this issue should be addressed as well. I don't automatically agree with dismissing someone for being stoned at work but perhaps would a penalty, such as having time off without pay or sick leave.

Everyone has talked about education, but it is notable that those pro-cannabis do not believe it is harmful in any way, so what would they educate about it but that it is fine to use.

mashman

3rd February 2011, 21:05

I wouldn't mind if it was legalised, on three conditions:

Gets my vote :) although they'd need a better test for the work one. Although i'd happily give up my job and open up a "cafe" :).

Edbear

3rd February 2011, 21:08

mashman

3rd February 2011, 21:12

Everyone has talked about education, but it is notable that those pro-cannabis do not believe it is harmful in any way, so what would they educate about it but that it is fine to use.

You vud not approof ov my messods... goes for alcohol too :) school, teachers, parents, kids, drink, "smoke", discussion... instant supervised education.

Edbear

3rd February 2011, 21:18

You vud not approof ov my messods... goes for alcohol too :) school, teachers, parents, kids, drink, "smoke", discussion... instant supervised education.

I think open discussion is valuable and desirable but putting both sides forward. Based on medical science, I believe cannabis use is not a "good thing" and as has been admitted here, the purpose of using it is to get stoned, which is not a good enough argument for me and obviously for the legislators as well.

I do believe that it is a "good thing" to look for beneficial uses for plants and support research to that end, but getting stoned, high, blotto, legless or any other term you like, is not a good reason to legalise anything that causes that to occur.

mashman

3rd February 2011, 21:23

I think open discussion is valuable and desirable but putting both sides forward. Based on medical science, I believe cannabis use is not a "good thing" and as has been admitted here, the purpose of using it is to get stoned, which is not a good enough argument for me and obviously for the legislators as well.

I do believe that it is a "good thing" to look for beneficial uses for plants and support research to that end, but getting stoned, high, blotto, legless or any other term you like, is not a good reason to legalise anything that causes that to occur.

So because it;s not a good idea it shouldn't be legalised... I think we've done that one to death and it's not a valid reason given that people know the risks and are going to do it anyway. I'd much rather have kids who are educated than killing themselves because they have no limits.

Berries

3rd February 2011, 21:29

I don't automatically agree with dismissing someone for being stoned at work but perhaps would a penalty, such as having time off without pay or sick leave.
Nah, sack them. Anyone who turns up at work in an unfit state is no use and obviously doesn't care about the job. One strike and you are out.

Everyone has talked about education, but it is notable that those pro-cannabis do not believe it is harmful in any way, so what would they educate about it but that it is fine to use.
I believe it is harmful if you have too much at too young an age - another reason for legalising it and controlling supply, as much as any government can. Education could revolve about the actual affects (I have never seen spaceships for instance), precautions you should perhaps take, and IMHO, education about other mind altering drugs that you might be tempted by that are addictive and have more far reaching consequences. The problem is people try cannabis, find out it is not the evil substance it is made out to be and from that point on dismiss the propaganda. That can't be a good thing if you are concerned about the health and well being of the people.

I believe cannabis use is not a "good thing" and as has been admitted here, the purpose of using it is to get stoned, which is not a good enough argument for me and obviously for the legislators as well.
Depends what you mean by stoned. Relaxed, at ease, happy ? Gibbering like a monkey ? The word stoned has many connotations depending on who is using it. What is wrong with being a bit happier than you may normally be, with having an enjoyable evening away from pressures that life may be putting on you ? Particularly when that 'escape' does not cause any problems to anyone else. To me it just seems like such a waste of money (Government) and a waste of a life (convictions for what exactly ?) decided on by people who have never partook themselves.

Anyway, my bottle of red is long finished. I don't know whether to drive to the offy for another bottle and risk killing someone because I am over the limit or get caught at a checkpoint and lose my licence and job, or whether to just nip outside and punch my neighbour in the face because his dog is barking. And then burn his house down. And see to his wife. Decisions decisions. If I was legally allowed to have a smoke in the privacy of my own home my only decision would revolve around whether or not I should have Worcestershire sauce on my cheese on toast before I go to bed or some homemade chilli sauce. Where's the harm in that, and more importantly, what the fuck does it have to do with anybody else ?

EJK

3rd February 2011, 21:42

As long as no one gets raped.

Usarka

4th February 2011, 08:09

avgas

4th February 2011, 08:20

Edbear

4th February 2011, 08:48

So are you ok for in principle for cannabis to be legal to be used via a vaporiser or eaten? Both of these methods negate the ill effects of smoking.

Cool, next.

PS - And if your argument is of the details of implementing/enforcing such a law, there are similar laws in effect now. Eg, you can own poppies but you're not allowed to extract the stuff. You can have a presciption of morphine but you can't cook it and shoot it up or sell it.

Not so fast, young man... I have posted my views on mind-altering substances as well in general and I don't agree with drug or alcohol use for the reasons I gave. I prefer to remain sober and in full control of my faculties and do not enjoy the feelings of a lack of control and awareness that comes from such. When I drink alcohol it is to enjoy the taste and I had a glass of wine last night with dinner. On a hot day I enjoy a beer or a Maverick, but usually stop at one due to the effects of alcohol.

I hate people who do weddings for the same reason

:lol: :lol: :lol: :facepalm:

Banditbandit

4th February 2011, 08:54

Nah, everybody will be too stoned to care......

Bwhahahahaha ... in my experience stoned people want drama .. and if they don't get it they create it ...

onearmedbandit

4th February 2011, 09:06

Bwhahahahaha ... in my experience stoned people want drama .. and if they don't get it they create it ...

In my experience, which I do consider to be substantial enough, most people that smoke weed just want to enjoy themselves quietly with a smoke. The number of people I have smoked with would number in the hundreds, and I can only think of one or two who liked drama. And they were the sort to attract drama with or without marijuana.

Alcohol however, well that's definitely a 'look-at-me-look-at-me' drug. The hospital wards and police cells are full of alcohol-fuelled drama seeking people every weekend.

imdying

4th February 2011, 09:36

have you considered doing research to find out how and why and in fact whether cannabis has such a benefit? Wouldn't that give you huge credibility, and maybe win the support of the medical profession?

You're way over-simplifying things and are in errorUh huh... well, I think he'll stop when you do first :rolleyes:

imdying

4th February 2011, 09:37

Bwhahahahaha ... in my experience stoned people want drama .. and if they don't get it they create it ...Well what do you expect when you hang around with Maoris... :facepalm:

marty

4th February 2011, 10:38

do I? can you please tell others that then, start with the cops

i look after my own back yard. i don't give a toss about anyone elses until they impinge on mine. then we'll be having tea and bikkies.

marty

4th February 2011, 10:41

HenryDorsetCase

4th February 2011, 10:43

Not so fast, young man... I have posted my views on mind-altering substances as well in general and I don't agree with drug or alcohol use for the reasons I gave. I prefer to remain sober and in full control of my faculties and do not enjoy the feelings of a lack of control and awareness that comes from such. When I drink alcohol it is to enjoy the taste and I had a glass of wine last night with dinner. On a hot day I enjoy a beer or a Maverick, but usually stop at one due to the effects of alcohol.

but it's not about you. by your own admission, short of compulsion, your use would not increase or decrease with legalisation.

Why do you think it is OK to tell me what I can and can't, should or shouldn't do, in the privacy of my own home, with my money, with other consenting adults? Because in effect that is what you are doing.

I am not actually trying to reduce this to an ad hominem argument, but your objection seems to boil down to "I dont like it, and I think its bad for you, so you can't do it". I am happy with two of three of those propositions, but not the last one.

As I have said previously, in spite of the fact you choose not to indulge, a lot of people do, with little societal detriment, apart from attempting to enforce an unworkable set of laws.

HenryDorsetCase

4th February 2011, 10:51

so you'd be comfortable for your airline pilot to get stoned all weekend as long as he/she got to work on time on monday morning?

bad example. there are (and should be) rules in place for this: I think for commercial flights the rule is (for alcohol) 24 hours bottle to throttle. No reason why there can't (and, given the public safety/potential harm to others) shouldn't be similar sets of rules. And in fact for anyone in a job which puts public safety at risk: truck drivers, taxi drivers, people operating heavy machinery etc etc.

But if those people wish to indulge, and they can do so without compromising the safety of others, then what is the problem?

Do you think that the fact that meth is illegal will stop a long haul trucker taking a hit so he can do that last 200k's in record time?

Madness

4th February 2011, 11:04

but it's not about you. by your own admission, short of compulsion, your use would not increase or decrease with legalisation.

Why do you think it is OK to tell me what I can and can't, should or shouldn't do, in the privacy of my own home, with my money, with other consenting adults? Because in effect that is what you are doing.

I am not actually trying to reduce this to an ad hominem argument, but your objection seems to boil down to "I dont like it, and I think its bad for you, so you can't do it". I am happy with two of three of those propositions, but not the last one.

As I have said previously, in spite of the fact you choose not to indulge, a lot of people do, with little societal detriment, apart from attempting to enforce an unworkable set of laws.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to HenryDorsetCase again.

onearmedbandit

4th February 2011, 11:06

so you'd be comfortable for your airline pilot to get stoned all weekend as long as he/she got to work on time on monday morning?

And some aren't already doing that?

imdying

4th February 2011, 11:12

so you'd be comfortable for your airline pilot to get stoned all weekend as long as he/she got to work on time on monday morning?They already are, and drinking, so it would only be the status quo.

avgas

4th February 2011, 11:12

so you'd be comfortable for your airline pilot to get stoned all weekend as long as he/she got to work on time on monday morning?
Silly fool - the do P.
Its out of the system in 48 hours - so if they have do drug test they pass with flying colours.

imdying

4th February 2011, 11:14

I prefer to remain sober and in full control of my faculties and do not enjoy the feelings of a lack of control and awareness that comes from such.
Translated:

I can't handle it, so I don't see why people who can should enjoy it.

Edbear

4th February 2011, 11:21

Translated:

Rather facetious aren't we...?

onearmedbandit

4th February 2011, 11:25

Ed, just out of curiosity, have you smoked marijuana before? I'm sure you must have.

HenryDorsetCase

4th February 2011, 11:32

Ed, just out of curiosity, have you smoked marijuana before? I'm sure you must have.

Rather facetious aren't we...?

its the KB way. ;)

Edbear

4th February 2011, 11:34

Ed, just out of curiosity, have you smoked marijuana before? I'm sure you must have.

Only second hand. But the old, "Don't knock it 'til you've tried it!" argument is a non-starter. I've never smoked cigarettes, or done Heroin, P, or many other things that are deterimental to one's health, either.

The plain and simple facts are that smoking anything is a known and proven carcinogenic activity. Cannabis is by its nature a mind-altering drug used for recreational purposes and not everyone wants to participate in that.

Marijuana use is by a minority of the population, not a generally and widespread activity with majority approval.

The OP and his supporters simply want the law changed to decriminalise the use of cannabis and I have been pointing out why they won't succeed and what they may try instead, rather than engage in illegal protest action that will inevitably result in bad publicity and hardening attitudes against them by the very ones they want to convince.

Edbear

4th February 2011, 11:38

its the KB way. ;)

Yup, when logic, fact and reason start winning, attack the man personally rather than address the issue under discussion.

If we can discredit the messenger maybe we can discredit the message... Very old political standard still in use today.

Banditbandit

4th February 2011, 11:38

I hate people who do weddings for the same reason

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to avgas again."

imdying

4th February 2011, 11:39

Rather facetious aren't we...?You can label it any way you like, but it doesn't change the fact that your biggest problem with mind altering substances is that you can't handle them and therefore don't think anybody else should be allowed to try.

Banditbandit

4th February 2011, 11:41

In my experience, which I do consider to be substantial enough, most people that smoke weed just want to enjoy themselves quietly with a smoke. The number of people I have smoked with would number in the hundreds, and I can only think of one or two who liked drama. And they were the sort to attract drama with or without marijuana.

Alcohol however, well that's definitely a 'look-at-me-look-at-me' drug. The hospital wards and police cells are full of alcohol-fuelled drama seeking people every weekend.

I didn't necessarily mean it in that way - way many of them want to chill out and watch Bruce Willis/Arnie/Nicholas Cage movies .. plenty of drama on the small screen.

Usarka

4th February 2011, 11:42

Not so fast, young man... I have posted my views on mind-altering substances as well in general and I don't agree with drug or alcohol use for the reasons I gave. I prefer to remain sober and in full control of my faculties and do not enjoy the feelings of a lack of control and awareness that comes from such. When I drink alcohol it is to enjoy the taste and I had a glass of wine last night with dinner. On a hot day I enjoy a beer or a Maverick, but usually stop at one due to the effects of alcohol.

I can understand an argument of keeping something illegal for health reasons. But not because you personally don't like it.

Alcohol is a mind altering substance regardless of whether it's one glass or six. Why is one glass of wine ok and not two? Because that is your choice? Many would argue that no wine is best, but it seems you'd disagree with them.... Imbibing yourself and then judging others for the amount they imbibe (or the drug they imbibe) seems a little hypocritical.

Banditbandit

4th February 2011, 11:42

Well what do you expect when you hang around with Maoris... :facepalm:

Trolling huh ... (I did laugh ...)

imdying

4th February 2011, 11:42

Cannabis is by its nature a mind-altering drug used for recreational purposes and not everyone wants to participate in that.It's never going to be compulsory...

Marijuana use is by a minority of the population, not a generally and widespread activity with majority approval.Wrong again...

imdying

4th February 2011, 11:45

Trolling huh ... (I did laugh ...)Totally, but I know you're not a cry baby :)

Seriously though, the users you know are alway going to colour your perception. I'd wager that I'd probably have a different opinion on Harleys if I were to associate with gang members vs those old guys who's name escapes me.

Usarka

4th February 2011, 11:49

Marijuana use is by a minority of the population, not a generally and widespread activity with majority approval.

In the 1998 National Drugs Survey, 43 percent of males and 27 percent of females aged 18 to 24 years had used marijuana in the preceding 12 months.

Source: ministry of health.

In other words, just under half of kiwi males 18-24yrs admit to being regular or casual users.

Edbear

4th February 2011, 11:52

It's never going to be compulsory...

Wrong again...

You have the stats to back up your assertions, of course...? :yes: How many cannabis users are there in NZ as a percentage of the population? What percentage of the population supports the use of and the decriminilisation of cannabis?

You can label it any way you like, but it doesn't change the fact that your biggest problem with mind altering substances is that you can't handle them and therefore don't think anybody else should be allowed to try.

No need for personal slurs when you know nothing about me. Why don't you just read my last post above, and try to address the issue at hand?

onearmedbandit

4th February 2011, 11:53

Only second hand. But the old, "Don't knock it 'til you've tried it!" argument is a non-starter. I've never smoked cigarettes, or done Heroin, P, or many other things that are deterimental to one's health, either.

The plain and simple facts are that smoking anything is a known and proven carcinogenic activity. Cannabis is by its nature a mind-altering drug used for recreational purposes and not everyone wants to participate in that.

Thanks. I'm not disputing the health risks, not at all. So am I right in guessing that the following statement by you,

Not so fast, young man... I have posted my views on mind-altering substances as well in general and I don't agree with drug or alcohol use for the reasons I gave. I prefer to remain sober and in full control of my faculties and do not enjoy the feelings of a lack of control and awareness that comes from such.

...is in relation to alcohol only? I'm not stirring, well not intentionally. It's just I've met a lot of people who have a negative view on marijuana (losing control etc) but who have never smoked it.

Marijuana use is by a minority of the population, not a generally and widespread activity with majority approval.

You'd be surprised, I know I was, and still am, about who actually smokes. Just not everyone who does is keen to admit it.

The OP and his supporters simply want the law changed to decriminalise the use of cannabis and I have been pointing out why they won't succeed and what they may try instead, rather than engage in illegal protest action that will inevitably result in bad publicity and hardening attitudes against them by the very ones they want to convince.

Yeah, I mostly agree here. While I have no shame in saying I smoke marijuana, I'm not about to go and flaunt it in public. To me, these people achieve nothing, and are an embarrassment. Just my opinion. But all I'm saying is they do no good for their cause.

Usarka

4th February 2011, 11:55

All the stoners who turn up obviously don't have good jobs! Try explaining that to the boss on Monday morning after you've been spotted (haha!) on the six o'clock news :lol:

Edbear

4th February 2011, 11:59

I can understand an argument of keeping something illegal for health reasons. But not because you personally don't like it.

Alcohol is a mind altering substance regardless of whether it's one glass or six. Why is one glass of wine ok and not two? Because that is your choice? Many would argue that no wine is best, but it seems you'd disagree with them.... Imbibing yourself and then judging others for the amount they imbibe (or the drug they imbibe) seems a little hypocritical.

Please do point out where I have "judged" anyone for smoking. All I have done is set out the facts of the matter.

Only second hand. But the old, "Don't knock it 'til you've tried it!" argument is a non-starter. I've never smoked cigarettes, or done Heroin, P, or many other things that are deterimental to one's health, either.

The plain and simple facts are that smoking anything is a known and proven carcinogenic activity. Cannabis is by its nature a mind-altering drug used for recreational purposes and not everyone wants to participate in that.

Marijuana use is by a minority of the population, not a generally and widespread activity with majority approval.

The OP and his supporters simply want the law changed to decriminalise the use of cannabis and I have been pointing out why they won't succeed and what they may try instead, rather than engage in illegal protest action that will inevitably result in bad publicity and hardening attitudes against them by the very ones they want to convince.

1/ Unlike alcohol.

2/ Amazing how adept people are at taking things out of context and ignoring relevant points and who would rather get personal than address the issue...

Flame away by all means, accuse me of anything you like, it will never give credibility to your cause.

onearmedbandit

4th February 2011, 12:03

1/ Unlike alcohol.

.

US Dept of Health and Human Services disagree.

http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/cancer/a/aa000520.htm

Edbear

4th February 2011, 12:17

Thanks. I'm not disputing the health risks, not at all. So am I right in guessing that the following statement by you,

...is in relation to alcohol only? I'm not stirring, well not intentionally. It's just I've met a lot of people who have a negative view on marijuana (losing control etc) but who have never smoked it.

You'd be surprised, I know I was, and still am, about who actually smokes. Just not everyone who does is keen to admit it.

Yeah, I mostly agree here. While I have no shame in saying I smoke marijuana, I'm not about to go and flaunt it in public. To me, these people achieve nothing, and are an embarrassment. Just my opinion. But all I'm saying is they do no good for their cause.

No, my opinion is relating to all drugs including prescription drugs. And my opinion is relating to why someone wants to smoke or drink as well. I've already said it is my own opinion and of course everyone has their opinion. All I've been trying to do is balance the argument and get people to reason objectively. It is very hard for the pro-cannabis group to argue objectively. As for alcohol, some people are teetotal, some drink in moderation, some are alcoholics. Alcohol in small amounts is generally supported by science to be pretty harmless, but I'll not argue with anyone who doesn't drink at all.

US Dept of Health and Human Services disagree.

http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/cancer/a/aa000520.htm

Thanks for the link, here's a few relevant comments from it...

studies indicate that the risk is most pronounced among smokers and at the highest levels of consumption.

in the recognition that many cancers are apparently induced by chemicals in the home workplace general environment and from the use of certain drugs.

It identifies "potential" cancer hazards. A listing in the report does not by itself establish that a substance presents a cancer risk to an individual in daily life, according to press releases

Epidemiologic research has shown a dose-dependent association between alcohol consumption and certain types of cancer; as alcohol consumption increases, so does risk of developing certain cancers. Previous research indicated alcohol was a possible catalyst, but not a carcinogen itself.

onearmedbandit

4th February 2011, 12:22

Thanks for the link, here's a few relevant comments from it...

Epidemiologic research has shown a dose-dependent association between alcohol consumption and certain types of cancer; as alcohol consumption increases, so does risk of developing certain cancers. Previous research indicated alcohol was a possible catalyst, but not a carcinogen itself.[/I]

Excuse me, but why have you chosen to highlight the last bit of that text, but not the important part preceding it, 'Previous research indicated alcohol was'?

In fact, here is the title of the article, just so there is no confusion or pulling of wool.

Alcohol Listed as 'Known Carcinogen'
Previously a Catalyst, Now Listed as a Carcinogen

onearmedbandit

4th February 2011, 12:33

Edbear

4th February 2011, 12:34

Excuse me, but why have you chosen to highlight the last bit of that text, but not the important part preceding it, 'Previous research indicated alcohol was'?

In fact, here is the title of the article, just so there is no confusion or pulling of wool.

Sorry, my bad. Let me elaborate. It's obviously dose-dependent and has been known for a long time to increase the risk of developing certain cancers with heavy use, such as in alcoholics. I wasn't trying to pull the wool, and could have explained it better.

Buyasta

4th February 2011, 12:34

The plain and simple facts are that smoking anything is a known and proven carcinogenic activity.

That's not really that good an argument though, as smoking is not the only method used, and even when it is, it's still less harmful than tobacco - as you say, smoking anything is carcinogenic, simply due to the fact that lungs are not designed for smoke inhalation, but to the best of my knowledge, there's nothing in marijuana that makes it any more carcinogenic than inhaling any other form of smoke, unlike tobacco, which is treated with a number of chemicals - for example, many companies treat the tobacco with ammonia, because it makes them burn more quickly.
So even if one were to smoke an equal amount (which in itself is unlikely, as people will smoke a great deal more tobacco than marijuana), they'd be doing more damage with tobacco than marijuana.
Also, as I said above, smoking isn't the only method of consumption - it can be vaporized, eaten, or prepared as a tea or a tincture, in which case the only potential for harmful effects is if the plant was treated with any form of herbicide or pesticide.

Comparison with tobacco is fairly pointless anyway, as the only similarity between the two is that they are both most often smoked, which is an inefficient and harmful method of consumption, no matter what the substance.
A far more apt comparison is with alcohol, as they are both consumed for much the same reason - the effects upon the brain.
When it comes to harmful effects, alcohol is clearly a great deal worse than marijuana, as heavy use can lead to alcohol poisoning or cirrhosis.
As far as the level of impairment, while a small amount of alcohol will cause less impairment, by the time you get to the legal limit, you'd be just as impaired from alcohol consumption as you would from marijuana consumption, and from that point on, more alcohol is going to cause further impairment at a much greater rate than more marijuana.
Finally, in terms of the behavior of those using alcohol vs those using marijuana, I'm of the opinion that alcohol is much worse - it tends to make people much louder, more argumentative, and more prone to violence, in addition to the possibility of dependence, whereas marijuana is non-addictive, and people using it become more calm and relaxed, and less likely to engage in violence or anti-social behavior.

I don't believe in any health benefits from marijuana, although I can believe that it may aid in pain relief in some cases, but there are also very few harmful effects whether in terms of health or behavior of regular users, and I think alcohol has a great deal more harmful effects in both those cases.

In addition to the minimal health impact if consumed in ways other than smoking, and less severe behavioral effects on users, other arguments for decriminalization is that it would remove a major source of income for various gangs, take away one potential reason for inter-gang violence, free up police resources that are used to hunt for grow ops, free police drug units to focus on more harmful drugs such as P, remove the possibility of hikers or trampers being injured or killed by the traps that gangs set around their grow ops, provide another source of taxation for the government, and make it safer for those who are going to smoke whether it's illegal or not - if it's regulated, you can be sure what you're about to consume was not treated with any harmful herbicides or pesticides, and they wouldn't need to deal with drug dealers or gang members.

Ultimately, I can't see any good reasons to keep it criminalized other than tradition and maintaining the status quo, whereas there seem to be plenty of arguments in favor of decriminalization.

Having said that, I doubt the government will decriminalize it anytime soon, if ever, and in all probability, all this protest will achieve is further alienating those who are opposed to decriminalization, and probably get a few people arrested.

onearmedbandit

4th February 2011, 12:37

Of course it's dose dependant. Everything is. If I drank 5ml of petrol I'll be fine, if I drink 1l in one go, I'll be dead. If I drank 1l over a month I'll probably be fine. If I drank 1l every month for 10yrs, well I probably wouldn't make it that far.

Edbear

4th February 2011, 12:37

And I'm still at a loss as to how you can claim that you "prefer to remain sober and in full control of my faculties and do not enjoy the feelings of a lack of control and awareness that comes from such.' without actually having had any personal experience. To me that makes your statement as baseless as any put forward by the 'pro-marijuana campaigners'.

Oh, don't worry, I've had personal experience of alcohol and drug induced side effects to the point of near death, in fact. But I don't need to also try cannabis as well. You don't need to try all alcoholic beverages or all drugs to know the results and there is plenty of established medical and scientific research on everything we need to know.

Usarka

4th February 2011, 12:39

It is very hard for the pro-cannabis group to argue objectively.

Reasoned argument is a two way street.

I can't help but interpret your comment as "It is very hard to get the pro-cannabis group to agree with me"

Edbear

4th February 2011, 12:40

That's not really that good an argument though, as smoking is not the only method used, and even when it is, it's still less harmful than tobacco - as you say, smoking anything is carcinogenic, simply due to the fact that lungs are not designed for smoke inhalation,...SNIP...Having said that, I doubt the government will decriminalize it anytime soon, if ever, and in all probability, all this protest will achieve is further alienating those who are opposed to decriminalization, and probably get a few people arrested.

Not a lot here I can disagree with, really.

Edbear

4th February 2011, 12:44

Reasoned argument is a two way street.

I can't help but interpret your comment as "It is very hard to get the pro-cannabis group to agree with me"

I agree it is two-way. See my response to Buyasta. He's obviously put some thought into his views. I doubt I'll get many users to agree with me, but most seem to simply want to smoke cannabis without consequence and consider it a harmless pastime, whereas the facts are not so simple, neither is their approach to TPTB going to win them any support.

onearmedbandit

4th February 2011, 12:49

Oh, don't worry, I've had personal experience of alcohol and drug induced side effects to the point of near death, in fact. But I don't need to also try cannabis as well. You don't need to try all alcoholic beverages or all drugs to know the results and there is plenty of established medical and scientific research on everything we need to know.

I'm struggling with your argument here, but lets see if I have it right. 'I have no personal experience in the effects of marijuana when smoked, but as I have in other drugs I can therefore come to the conclusion that the effects will be the same.'

Excluding of course the part about the 'established medical and scientific research on everything we need to know'. I'm not going to even touch that statement with a bargepole.

Banditbandit

4th February 2011, 12:49

Totally, but I know you're not a cry baby :)

Seriously though, the users you know are alway going to colour your perception. I'd wager that I'd probably have a different opinion on Harleys if I were to associate with gang members vs those old guys who's name escapes me.

Ulysses ??? Hey - plenty of Harley riders in Ulysses ..

onearmedbandit

4th February 2011, 12:52

I agree it is two-way. See my response to Buyasta. He's obviously put some thought into his views. I doubt I'll get many users to agree with me, but most seem to simply want to smoke cannabis without consequence and consider it a harmless pastime, whereas the facts are not so simple, neither is their approach to TPTB going to win them any support.

Tell me why I should go to jail if I chose to grow some cannabis. Not simply because it's against the law either.

Tell me why my travel should be limited if I have a conviction for cannabis. Not simply because it's the law either.

Tell me. What risk am I to the general public? Who is getting harmed by my activity? Who's property is getting damaged/stolen when I smoke.

Edbear

4th February 2011, 12:59

I'm struggling with your argument here, but lets see if I have it right. 'I have no personal experience in the effects of marijuana when smoked, but as I have in other drugs I can therefore come to the conclusion that the effects will be the same.'

Excluding of course the part about the 'established medical and scientific research on everything we need to know'. I'm not going to even touch that statement with a bargepole.

LOL!!! Well, we have in this thread, testimony as to the effects and reasons for use by users themselves, and the established medical evidence is pretty clear as to the effects of cannabis on the human body and brain.

Let's keep the two issues seperate. My personal views are anti-cannabis, and I've said they are my views, not everyone else's and I've tried to explain why I feel that way.

Secondly, the main reason for the OP was to get cannabis use decriminalised and I think the arguments I have put forward address both why I think they won't succeed, plus suggesting an avenue they could explore instead that may get them further.

onearmedbandit

4th February 2011, 13:06

avgas

4th February 2011, 13:14

I quit for the very simple reason that while dope was relatively harmless. I had to go cold turkey on drugs (full stop).
Ironically now at a later stage in my life I am trying to cut down on my caffeine.......and its making the whole "drop the dope" thing seem like a walk in the park.
I mean how often do you get to work and think, gee wiz - i really need a doob.
Or go to a friends house and have them say "Cocaine or Dope?"

Or stay up all night working on something, look at the watch and go - "ah this will take a while, time for a spark up break"

(note : if you answer anything more frequently than annually - you have a drug problem and need to admit it. )

Edbear

4th February 2011, 13:16

Tell me why I should go to jail if I chose to grow some cannabis. Not simply because it's against the law either.

Tell me why my travel should be limited if I have a conviction for cannabis. Not simply because it's the law either.

Tell me. What risk am I to the general public? Who is getting harmed by my activity? Who's property is getting damaged/stolen when I smoke.

Well it's the old story isn't it? You personally may be no threat to anyone and a responsible adult. You personally have a great deal of respect among members of KB and the racing community including myself although not having met you in person. As with speed limits and most laws, TPTB make them to an average for everyone and cannot for obvious reasons make separate laws for individuals.

If the majority of the people in NZ wanted the law changed and could convince TPTB that they are right, the law would be changed. My personal opinion is of little consequence to anyone but me and those close to me. You may have a completely different opinion.

We make our choices, or at least should do, based on our own knowledge and experience for our best interests and in the best interests of those we care for. We should be trying to set a good example for others as well. However we digress... BOT

Edbear

4th February 2011, 13:27

I'm not disputing that smoking cannabis is bad for your health. There are of course other far safer methods of consuming it, ie via a vaporiser. Those are the 'established medical and scientific' opinions that I would want answers to, and even then I'd take it with a grain of salt. Not only for marijuana, but for everything we get 'fed' these days. It seems like every week 'established medical and scientific research' changes it's opinion on the 'facts'.

Two questions, Do you smoke it or take it in other ways? Secondly, why?

I too, have a realistic view of scientific research and never take anything a face value, so I always cross-reference and dig as deep as I can before accepting anything. Even so, there have been major stuff ups in medical science over the years but almost without exception, it is in the safety aspects of a certain drug that has been developed.

The research on cannabis is pretty clear and most research on the effects of various substances on the human body are reliable as to what they do, because they can be seen and measured. The disputes are usually over what levels are safe and can be tolerated, and this varies from individual to individual with some being able to handle certain amounts and yet others cannot handle any amount, ie: are allergic..

HenryDorsetCase

4th February 2011, 13:36

Yup, when logic, fact and reason start winning, attack the man personally rather than address the issue under discussion.

If we can discredit the messenger maybe we can discredit the message... Very old political standard still in use today.

ad hominem is the formal term. usually translated as "Play the man, not the ball."

I do think your arguments have logical flaws though. But I am through arguing. Its like homosexuality: (and, i believe will eventually be accepted in much the same way): as long as they arent at it in the street frightening the horses, they can do what they want.

Smifffy

4th February 2011, 15:07

I don't smoke, and have no desire to. Probably through a sheltered upbringing I was not really exposed to it in my teens, and after that was confident enough to be able to politely decline in a non-judgmental fashion in social situations.

I know plenty of people that do smoke, or partake in different ways, including some people I consider good friends and colleagues. I don't really think of them as criminals.

I do feel sorry for some of them though, such as the guy who has smoked since his early teens and has absolutely no motivation or energy whatsoever, and is seriously unemployed.

The bright IT guy who used to take a couple of hits from a bong on a saturday evening, and who now must reach for the vaporiser as soon as he gets in the door from work, and can't even contemplate doing anything else until he has a happy glow on. I haven't seen him for a while, but he was seriously considering experimenting with other substances when last we spoke.

I have given this a bit of thought, mainly because the debate has been raging amongst many of my acquaintances throughout most of my adult life. I wouldn't want to see many of these people labeled as criminals, yet I also don't want to see groups of people congregating in the reserve behind my house or by my letterbox toking it up. I don't want to stand next to somebody at the sidelines of the soccer who is puffing away on the shit either - tobacco is bad enough.

I think that the use is widespread, and the laws as they currently stand and are being enforced, strike a reasonable balance in keeping most use moderated and restricted to private areas. The majority of the enforcement targeting growers & dealers.

Having said all of this I seldom consider myself a hardened criminal if (when) I exceed the speed limit, nor in my younger days did I worry much about driving with excess alcohol, other than to hope I wouldn't be caught. It's years now since I have driven over the alcohol limit.

So I guess my viewpoint now is that if someone tells me they got busted for possession of a joint, I wouldn't consider them any differently to someone who told me they got done for speeding and no rego and no warrant.

If they got done for possession for supply, I'd say good job.

As for the NoRML campaigners and their ilk, I say "So you're a pothead - isn't that special? Just like the homos that feel the need to march up the main street naked, i don't care what you do, just don't involve me in any way shape or form"

Smifffy

4th February 2011, 15:09

During my Xmas holiday there was a bunch of us on the deck of a good little pub, and it was obvious that a guy sitting not far from us was puffing up a storm.

Even the dak smokers among our group considered that to be bad form.

Edbear

4th February 2011, 15:12

Berries

4th February 2011, 16:00

so you'd be comfortable for your airline pilot to get stoned all weekend as long as he/she got to work on time on monday morning?
Did I say that ? I must have been wasted last night.

Smifffy

4th February 2011, 16:11

Smifffy

4th February 2011, 16:27

Must have been a massive protest:

http://www.google.co.nz/#q=cannabis+protest+auckland&hl=en&prmd=ivns&source=lnms&tbs=nws:1&ei=HIBLTZftBYj6sAPd6r3dCg&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=4&ved=0CAwQ_AUoAw&fp=b78eec088feae71b

onearmedbandit

4th February 2011, 16:44

racing community including myself although not having met you in person.

Just quickly, as I'm pushed for time, I thought I better just check something here. Are you confusing me with Nigel who races Motards? The racing community wouldn't even know of me lol.

Edbear

4th February 2011, 16:46

Just quickly, as I'm pushed for time, I thought I better just check something here. Are you confusing me with Nigel who races Motards? The racing community wouldn't even know of me lol.

Could be, but don't you race the Gixxer?

Kickaha

4th February 2011, 16:48

onearmedbandit

4th February 2011, 17:01

Could be, but don't you race the Gixxer?

I 'accidently' raced it in some F1 round down here instead of clubmans once, and I did maybe 3 races in buckets, but that's as far as I've gone. Nigel on the other hand has raced throughout the country on his motard.

Easy mistake to make all you one armed guys look the same

Doesn't help being on a corolla either mate.

Edbear

4th February 2011, 17:05

I 'accidently' raced it in some F1 round down here instead of clubmans once, and I did maybe 3 races in buckets, but that's as far as I've gone. Nigel on the other hand has raced throughout the country on his motard.

Doesn't help being on a corolla either mate.

Ahah! Mind you, controlling a Gixxer Thou at race speeds with one arm deserves respect, anyway... :yes:

Skyryder

4th February 2011, 19:11

Making cannabis legal is not the way to go. No use of any drugs should be considered a crime. Supply is another story. But since this thread is about cannabis the use of this drug should be decriminalized. This is not the same as making cannabis legal. Criminal law
with the exception of the use of drugs are about life, limb and property and the protection thereof. I fail to see how having a smoke in the privacy of your own home makes you a criminal in the manner of the three examples that I have quoted. However under NZ law this of no consequence. Get convicted of being in possession of even small amounts or that matter utensils for smoking and you are criminalized in the same manner as if you had committed armed robbery.

Skyryder

scissorhands

5th February 2011, 08:15

Usarka

5th February 2011, 17:23

For me, the interesting part was watching all the court weary solicitors walk past, giving the protestors intelligible and humorous looks

There is no way such inteligent, rational and upstanding citizens like these (epsecially in the legal professuion) in our society would smoke cannabis.

Edbear

6th February 2011, 14:57

Well us armed robbers, did stand for 2 hours, and got fairly blazed on the footpath outside the courts. Bit early for me, but I did get to go for a stroll around the city after with a lovely lady from the protest.

At one point a paddy wagon rolled past and I thought 'here we go', but lots of police were in the area all morning.

About 50 protestors all up, and not that much traffic really, I think they smoked about 50 joints amongst themselves.

For me, the interesting part was watching all the court weary solicitors walk past, giving the protestors intelligible and humorous looks

So you were all basically ignored, then..

ellipsis

6th February 2011, 18:46

....wow man...what a beautiful story...far out , man...freaky...wow...look at all the colours...

scissorhands

7th February 2011, 08:04

So you were all basically ignored, then..

I wish Ed, I really do. You dont see me here shooting down some of the crazy shit you do and think? And it is crazy, HE knows

Got something to sell on rant and rave today?

Edbear

7th February 2011, 08:28

I wish Ed, I really do. You dont see me here shooting down some of the crazy shit you do and think? And it is crazy, HE knows

Got something to sell on rant and rave today?

You really are quite touchy aren't you? If you read my posts without the defensiveness and "he's picking on me" belief, you will notice that all I have done is point out the law as it stands and the reasons why it has not been changed, along with suggestions as to how you might present your case in a way that will get you taken seriously. I have pointed out why you are not taken seriously or will be listened to by those you NEED to hear your arguments.

You come across as a pot-head who simply wants to smoke canabis without consequence. Your pleading that it is for your own health benefit is negated by the fact that you're not interested in actually doing something positive about it.

Known side effects of cannabis, are paranoia, (everyone's against me, and everyone's picking on me), depression, lack of motivation, short term memory loss and blunted awareness. Recognise any of those?

scissorhands

7th February 2011, 08:49

scumdog

7th February 2011, 08:53

Edbear

7th February 2011, 08:59

Flame war!!!!

Known side effects of religion:

Arrogance
Falsehood
Attacking/rejecting non believers
Stupidity

Tell me something Ed, how come you have so many accidents? yet nearly all the stoners I know have a reasonably clean driving history?

You are not right about things at all, and the constant put downs and derision you show to a huge chunk of the NZ public is a very ugly look.

The side effects of religion are showing Ed, I woud cut back on YOUR drug, it is making you unsocialable and aggressive to the NZ public.

You seem to want to encite conflict with you far right religious rhetoric, always trying to have the last word, and quickly responding with aggression....

Seems I was on the money with the paranoia effects... You need to see you are responding to facts and reason, as supported by many others here who have no interest in religion at all, with defensiveness, aggression, personal attack, irrelevant comparisons - symptoms of paranoia and all you do is reinforce what I have said.

Think about it, if you were genuine and really wanted the authorities to take you seriously you would address the actual points I've made and do something positive.

If you simply want to go and get stoned, that's your business, but you can't expect sympathy with your attitude and approach to the issue, either from members here or from the authorities. Just be prepared to accept without complaint, the consequences of your actions.

scissorhands

7th February 2011, 09:09

Edbear

7th February 2011, 09:26

So its ok for you to get personal but not others?

I will finish here, as I can see you have boundless energy to argue...and never short with open threats to my safety BTW you asked once why I smoke.... corruption Ed, corruption, same as many others...

God be with you

Where on earth do you get that from..???? :blink: Did anyone mention paranoia was a side effect..? :innocent:

Your answer to the question was that it helped your medical condition, or was that merely an excuse?

Edbear

7th February 2011, 09:32

Oh, PS. "So many accidents?" In 40 years on the road and millions of kilometres ridden/driven, I've had one serious accident, last May spinning out on oil at less than 50km/h, driving within the law and with the van fully legal. The Police did a crash scene investigation and found me to not be at fault in any way.

Where do you get the "so many accidents" from?

alley cat

7th February 2011, 09:49

Nothing quite beats saturday morning hooter in bed. Better than any cooked breakky on valentines!:yes:

Edbear

7th February 2011, 09:53

Nothing quite beats saturday morning hooter in bed. Better than any cooked breakky on valentines!:yes:

Sorry, I can think of a few things that beat that on a Sat. morning in bed...:innocent:

scumdog

7th February 2011, 10:09

Sorry, I can think of a few things that beat that on a Sat. morning in bed...:innocent:

And I can think of a fucking LOT of things...

Smifffy

7th February 2011, 10:14

Nothing quite beats saturday morning hooter in bed. Better than any cooked breakky on valentines!:yes:

Show us yer hooters!!

:innocent:

marie_speeds

7th February 2011, 10:33

marie_speeds

7th February 2011, 10:34

Show us yer hooters!!

:innocent:

:done: :woohoo:

scissorhands

7th February 2011, 11:20

I was briefly at court and must admit you were a noisy bunch. And no I was not one of those weary solicitors! :laugh:Was not impressed by the lady with the stupid Jack Russells barking away at anything that moved. I hate dogs especially those inbred little rat catchers....

I have complained about the vavuzulas and noise to the powers that be. I had sore ears.

A few complaints have also been received regarding the 2 jack russels and animal cruelty, I think the noise was hard on them too, hence the springing in the air trying to bite the vavuzulas.

They should ban vavuzulas everywhere as they cause hearing damage, I was given one but never used it

ellipsis

7th February 2011, 12:09

They should ban vavuzulas everywhere as they cause hearing damage, I was given one but never used it

...maybe you were supposed to put a big spliff in the end and suck...

onearmedbandit

8th February 2011, 09:25

Known side effects of cannabis, are paranoia, (everyone's against me, and everyone's picking on me), depression, lack of motivation, short term memory loss and blunted awareness. Recognise any of those?

Aw man, like I had this like really good argument to come back at you with, but I'm sure someone is outside my window watching me. I've already taped up the webcam on my laptop, but I just know the manufacturer is working with the 'man' and has secret recording devices built into it. The more I thought about this man it started to get me really down you know, why is everyone after me, what have I done. Man it all just gets on top of me eh, can't really see my way out of it all ya know.

So I was going to do something about it all, ya know me against the world sort of thing, I felt like I'd take 'em all on, but it was just soooo comfy on the couch, and it's a little too hot, and well ya know I thought I'll just do it tomorrow. But that was no good, I totally forgot what I was going to do. I should write it down in my notebook, but I always forget to. In fact, I haven't even bought a notebook yet, keep forgetting and to be honest I really can't be bothered. And hey look reruns of 'I love Lucy' have just come back on, ahhhhhh Lucy you're soooooo funny. So I think I might just relax here for a while, safer anyway to be on the couch. I got up to go to the toliet before (been putting it off for about 3hrs, no motivation to get up you see, but then I lost the motivation to hold on) and walked into the wall. I don't remember that being there.

Edbear

8th February 2011, 10:10

...maybe you were supposed to put a big spliff in the end and suck...

Would that make you a big sucker...?

R-Soul

11th February 2011, 15:57

One of the key questions addressed in considering whether to change the law is "Why?" This is asked not only in the case of criminal conviction but why does this person or group want the law changed? Why do you smoke Cannabis, a known health hazard with only one purpose in the form it is in? That is to alter mind and mood. There are no positive effects on the human body from this substance without it being processed to extract the medical benefit of pain relief at which time of course it has no mind-altering or carcinogenic properties.

Actually it is the smoking of it that is carcicnogenic. And there are lot of ways to get the mind altering properties AND pain relief AND appetite stimultion properties without smoking it.

Case in point: special fudge!!

R-Soul

11th February 2011, 16:14

One of the key questions addressed in considering whether to change the law is "Why?"

Can you see users:
- riding home fast on a saturday night like they do with alcohol?
- causing fights in clubs like they do with alchohol?
- stimulating the economy through purchase of munchies
- going home and beating up their wives like they do on alcohol?
- being so addicted to it that they stealk from their families to buy it (like they do with alchohol- alcohol is much more addictive).

It takes a lot less (and cheap) to get a lot more affected (although this is controllable by providing it in pre-processed low doses instead of spliffs). So peple would be able to save more money (and invest it!) than those paying a fortune for beers.

Frankly I believe that it is a much more "community oriented" and friendly substance than alcohol, and society would be better of for it if it replaced alcohol.

Only thing about it that I have seen is that it tends to make (some) people apathetic and ambitionless. Then again, so does life.

Some people point to it being a "gateway drug" to harder drugs, but I personally believe that it is because it is being pushed alongside the harder drugs by dealers (where they make their real money), that it leads to use of harder drugs. If dealers were not there to encourage the use of "bigger trips", it would probably lead to nothing further.

Frankly, most of the world is already smoking it, has or will smoke it (some regularly). The medical effect is ralatively minimal as its stands now - so far all under the radar.

I am not a proponent of it, and I dont smoke it myself, but I can tell hypocrisy when I see it. Same thing with ecstacy. The government goes "dont know, dont care- ban it", when probably more people are severely allergic to aspirin than to ecstacy. The social benefits of ecstacy could also be enormous- just in its psychotherpy value.

The only reason it is not being sold alongside alcohol are that it was patented in the early 1900's as a weight loss composition with "nice" side effects. No more patent protection is available, so nobody is prepared to do the lab tests to prove its safety for humans.

R-Soul

11th February 2011, 16:19

Known side effects of cannabis, are paranoia, (everyone's against me, and everyone's picking on me), depression, lack of motivation, short term memory loss and blunted awareness. Recognise any of those?

Those characteristics are so common in most of the population, regardless of whether they smoke, how do they know its the pot's fault? And they are still the same or better than alcohol.

scissorhands

11th February 2011, 16:33

Born with the munchies (news - 2000)
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16722461.600-born-with-the-munchies.html
Critical role of the endogenous cannabinoid system in mouse pup suckling and growth (abst - 2001)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11426843
75
The endocannabinoid system: function in survival of the embryo, the newborn and the neuron. (abst - 2002)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12395075
The endocannabinoid-CB(1) receptor system in pre- and postnatal life.
(abst - 2004)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15464041
The endocannabinoid-CB receptor system: Importance for development and in pediatric disease. (abst - 2004)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15159678
Endocannabinoids and food intake: newborn suckling and appetite regulation in adulthood. (full - 2005)
http://ebm.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/full/230/4/225?maxtoshow=&hits=80&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=cannabinoid&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=1040&resourcetype=HWCIT
Inhibition of milk ingestion and growth after administration of a neutral cannabinoid CB1 receptor antagonist on the first postnatal day in the mouse.
(abst - 2007)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17805201
CANCER - BONE
Differential effects of repeated low dose treatment with the cannabinoid agonist WIN 55,212-2 in experimental models of bone cancer pain and neuropathic pain.
(abst - 2008)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18611408
Reduction of bone cancer pain by activation of spinal cannabinoid receptor 1 and its expression in the superficial dorsal horn of the spinal cord in a murine model of bone cancer pain. (full - 2009)
http://journals.lww.com/anesthesiology/Fulltext/2009/07000/Reduction_of_Bone_Cancer_Pain_by_Activation_of.31. aspx
Spinal and peripheral analgesic effects of the CB cannabinoid receptor agonist AM1241 in two models of bone cancer-induced pain. (abst - 2010)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20233215
A cannabinoid 2 receptor agonist attenuates bone cancer-induced pain and bone loss. (abst - 2010)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20176037
76
CANCER - BREAST
The endogenous cannabinoid anandamide inhibits human breast cancer cell proliferation (full - 1998)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC20983/
Suppression of Nerve Growth Factor Trk Receptors and Prolactin Receptors by Endocannabinoids Leads to Inhibition of Human Breast and Prostate Cancer Cell Proliferation (full - 2000)
http://endo.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/141/1/118
Palmitoylethanolamide inhibits the expression of fatty acid amide hydrolase
and enhances the anti-proliferative effect of anandamide in human breast
cancer cells (full - 2001)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1222054/pdf/11485574.pdf/?tool=pmcentrez
Antitumor Activity of Plant Cannabinoids with Emphasis on the Effect of Cannabidiol on Human Breast Carcinoma (full - 2006)
http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/content/318/3/1375.full
9-Tetrahydrocannabinol Inhibits Cell Cycle Progression in Human Breast Cancer through Cdc2 Regulation (full - 2006)
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/full/66/13/6615
Cannabinoids As Cancer Hope (article - 2006)
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6814
Anandamide inhibits adhesion and migration of breast cancer cells. (abst - 2006)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16343481?dopt=Abstract
Cannabidiol inhibits tumour growth in leukaemia and breast cancer in animal studies (news - 2006)
http://www.cannabis-med.org/english/bulletin/ww_en_db_cannabis_artikel.php?id=220#2
A combination of THC and prochlorperazine effective in reducing vomiting in women following breast surgery (news - 2006)
http://www.cannabis-med.org/english/bulletin/ww_en_db_cannabis_artikel.php?id=219#1
Cannabidiol Dramatically Inhibits Breast Cancer Cell Growth (news - 2006)
http://www.thehempire.com/index.php/cannabis/news/cannabidiol_dramatically_inhibits_breast_cancer_ce ll_growth_study_says
Cannabidiol as a novel inhibitor of Id-1 gene expression in aggressive breast cancer cells. (full - 2007)
http://mct.aacrjournals.org/content/6/11/2921.long
77
Cannabis compound cannabidiol CBD 'halts cancer' & may bring relive to other illness's (news - 2007)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7098340.stm
Cannabis compound stops spread of breast cancer: researchers (news - 2007)
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/11/19/cannabis-cancer.html
―Medical Marijuana‖ Takes On New Meaning for Metastatic Breast Cancer
(news - 2007)
http://www.healthcentral.com/breast-cancer/c/78/16646/takes-cancer/
Cannabidiol may be helpful in reducing the aggressiveness of breast cancer cells
(news - 2007)
http://www.cannabis-med.org/english/bulletin/ww_en_db_cannabis_artikel.php?id=258
Cannabis Compound May Stop Metastatic Breast Cancer (news - 2007)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/19/AR2007111900834.html
Marijuana Compound Shows Promise In Fighting Breast Cancer (news - 2007)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071123211703.htm
Cannabis compound may stop the spread of breast cancer cells (news - 2007)
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2007/11/19/32672.aspx
Cannabis may stop Breast Cancer from spreading in the Body (news - 2007)
http://www.healthjockey.com/2007/11/21/cannabis-may-stop-breast-cancer-from-spreading-in-the-body/
Endocannabinoids in endocrine and related tumours (full - 2008)
http://erc.endocrinology-journals.org/cgi/reprint/15/2/391.pdf
JunD is involved in the antiproliferative effect of Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol on human breast cancer cells (abst - 2008)
http://www.knockoutscience.com/showabstract.php?pmid=18454173
Cannabinoid receptor agonists inhibit growth and metastasis of breast cancer
(abst - 2008)
http://www.aacrmeetingabstracts.org/cgi/content/meeting_abstract/2008/1_Annual_Meeting/4081?maxtoshow=&hits=80&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=cannabinoid&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=480&resourcetype=HWCIT
Inhibition of Breast Cancer Aggressiveness by Cannabidiol (abst - 2008)
http://www.cbcrp.org/research/PageGrant.asp?grant_id=4903
Synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists inhibit tumor growth and metastasis of breast cancer (full - 2009)
http://mct.aacrjournals.org/content/8/11/3117.full
78
Cannabinoids reduce ErbB2-driven breast cancer progression through Akt inhibition (full - 2010)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2917429/?tool=pmcentrez
Pathways mediating the effects of cannabidiol on the reduction of breast cancer cell proliferation, invasion, and metastasis. (full - 2010)
http://www.springerlink.com/content/b81620q7l48h2n51/fulltext.html
A role for L-alpha-lysophosphatidylinositol and GPR55 in the modulation of migration, orientation and polarization of human breast cancer cells. (abst - 2010)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20590578
Cannabidiol researchers discover the switch to turn off aggressive breast cancer gene (news - 2010)
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-19678-Cannabis-Revolution-Examiner~y2010m3d7-Cannabidiol-researchers-discover-the-switch-to-turn-off-agressive-breast-cancer-gene
Medical marijuana news. Cannabidiol stops the spread of breast cancer.
(news - 2010)
http://www.examiner.com/x-19678-Cannabis-Revolution-Examiner~y2010m2d27-Medical-marijuana-news--Cannabidiol-stops-the-spread-of-breast-cancer
CANCER - CERVICAL
Arachidonyl ethanolamide induces apoptosis of uterine cervix cancer cells via aberrantly expressed vanilloid receptor-1 (full - 2004)
http://science.iowamedicalmarijuana.org/pdfs/cancer/Contassot%202004.pdf
Marijuana Ingredients Slow Invasion by Cervical and Lung Cancer Cells
(news - 2007)
http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20071226/pot-slows-cancer-in-test-tube
Inhibition of Cancer Cell Invasion by Cannabinoids via Increased Expression of Tissue Inhibitor of Matrix Metalloproteinases-1 (full - 2008)
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/100/1/59
Marijuana use and cervical HPV/neoplasia (abst - 2008)
http://www.infectagentscancer.com/content/4/S2/P15
Cannabidiol inhibits cancer cell invasion via upregulation of tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinases-1. (abst - 2010)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19914218
79
CANCER - CHEMOTHERAPY see CHEMOTHERAPY
CANCER - CHOLANGIOCARCINOMA
Opposing Actions of Endocannabinoids on Cholangiocarcinoma Growth
(full - 2007)
http://www.jbc.org/content/282/17/13098.full
The endocannabinoid anandamide inhibits cholangiocarcinoma growth via activation of the noncanonical Wnt signaling pathway (full - 2008)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2604798/?tool=pmcentrez
Recent advances in the regulation of cholangiocarcinoma growth (abst - 2010)
http://ajpgi.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/299/1/G1?maxtoshow=&hits=80&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=cannabinoid&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=1920&resourcetype=HWCIT
CANCER - COLORECTAL
Possible endocannabinoid control of colorectal cancer growth. (abst - 2003)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12949714
Inflammation and cancer IV. Colorectal cancer in inflammatory bowel disease: the role of inflammation. (full - 2004)
http://ajpgi.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/287/1/G7
Anandamide is an endogenous inhibitor for the migration of tumor cells and T lymphocytes. (abst - 2004)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16574988
The endogenous cannabinoid, anandamide, induces cell death in colorectal carcinoma cells: a possible role for cyclooxygenase 2 (full - 2005)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1774787/?tool=pmcentrez
Cannabinoids and cancer: potential for colorectal cancer therapy. (needs free registration) (abst - 2005)
http://www.medscape.com/medline/abstract/16042581
A cannabinoid quinone inhibits angiogenesis by targeting vascular endothelial cells. (full - 2006)
http://molpharm.aspetjournals.org/content/70/1/51.long
80
Increased endocannabinoid levels reduce the development of precancerous lesions in the mouse colon (full - 2007)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2755791/?tool=pmcentrez
The cannabinoid delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol inhibits RAS-MAPK and PI3K-AKT survival signalling and induces BAD-mediated apoptosis in colorectal cancer cells. (abst - 2007)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17583570
Cannabinoid Receptor Activation Induces Apoptosis through Tumor Necrosis Factor α–Mediated Ceramide De novo Synthesis in Colon Cancer Cells
(full - 2008)
http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/14/23/7691.full
Loss of cannabinoid receptor 1 accelerates intestinal tumor growth (full - 2008)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2561258/?tool=pubmed
Invasive Pulmonary Aspergillosis Associated With Marijuana Use in a Man With Colorectal Cancer (full - 2008)
http://jco.ascopubs.org/cgi/content/full/26/13/2214?maxtoshow=&hits=80&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=cannabis&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=3520&resourcetype=HWCIT
Marijuana takes on colon cancer (news - 2008)
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14451-marijuana-takes-on-colon-cancer.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news9_head_dn14451
Cannabis compound clue to colon cancer (news - 2008)
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/drugs-alcohol/mg19926685.000-cannabis-compound-clue-to-colon-cancer.html?feedId=drugs-alcohol_rss20
Turned-Off Cannabinoid Receptor Turns On Colorectal Tumor Growth
(news - 2008)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080801074056.htm
Cannabis-Linked Cell Receptor Might Help Prevent Colon Cancer
(news - 2008)
http://www.healthscout.com/news/1/617951/main.html
Cannabinoids in intestinal inflammation and cancer (full - 2009)
http://science.iowamedicalmarijuana.org/pdfs/cancer/Izzo%20&%20Camilleri%202009%2019442536.pdf
Induction of the antitumorigenic NSAID-activated gene (NAG-1) in synthetic hexahydrocannabinol-induced apoptosis of human colorectal cancer cells
(abst - 2009)
http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/meeting_abstract/23/1_MeetingAbstracts/761.5?maxtoshow=&hits=80&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Hexahydrocannabinol&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
81
Induction of p53-independent apoptosis by a novel synthetic hexahydrocannabinol analog is mediated via Sp1-dependent NSAID-activated gene-1 in colon cancer cells (abst - 2010)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T4P-4YM7FF0-2&_user=10&_coverDate=07%2F01%2F2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1313682160&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=6f222e32968fcf27444674d5217dcecb
Involvement of NSAID-activated gene-1 in a novel synthetic hexahydrocannabinol analogue-induced growth inhibition and apoptosis of colon cancer cells (abst - 2010)
http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/meeting_abstract/24/1_MeetingAbstracts/965.8?maxtoshow=&hits=80&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Hexahydrocannabinol&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
The endogenous cannabinoid, anandamide, induces COX-2-dependent cell death in apoptosis-resistant colon cancer cells. (abst - 2010)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20514410
Pharmacological effects of cannabinoids on the Caco-2 cell culture model of intestinal permeability. (abst - 2010)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20592049
CANCER - GASTRIC
The effect of cannnabinoid to gastric cancer (abst - 2006)
http://www.aacrmeetingabstracts.org/cgi/content/abstract/2006/1/958-a?maxtoshow=&hits=80&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=cannabinoid&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=1360&resourcetype=HWCIT
CANCER - GLIOMA
Cannabinoids inhibit N-type calcium channels in neuroblastoma-glioma cells.
(full - 1992)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC525583/
Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol induces apoptosis in C6 glioma cells.
(abst - 1998)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9771884
Anandamide Induces Apoptosis in Human Cells via Vanilloid Receptors
(full - 2000)
http://www.jbc.org/content/275/41/31938.full
82
Anti-tumoral action of cannabinoids: involvement of sustained ceramide accumulation and extracellular signal-regulated kinase activation. (full - 2000)
http://depts.washington.edu/stellalb/images/Nature2000.pdf
Marijuana's Active Ingredient Targets Deadly Brain Cancer (news - 2000)
http://www.webmd.com/news/20000228/marijuanas-active-ingredient-targets-deadly-brain-cancer
Pot Shrinks Tumors; Government Knew in '74 (news - 2000)
http://www.alternet.org/story/9257/?page=entire
Inhibition of Glioma Growth in Vivo by Selective Activation of the CB2 Cannabinoid Receptor1 (full - 2001)
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/reprint/61/15/5784.pdf
Inhibition of Rat C6 Glioma Cell Proliferation by Endogenous and Synthetic Cannabinoids. Relative Involvement of Cannabinoid and Vanilloid Receptors
(full - 2001)
http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/content/299/3/951.full
Anti-Tumor Effects (news - 2001?)
http://www.ukcia.org/research/AntiTumorEffects.htm
Inhibition of tumor angiogenesis by cannabinoids (full - 2003)
http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/reprint/02-0795fjev1?maxtoshow=&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=cannabis&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=20&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT
Cannabinoids: Potential Anticancer Agents (full - 2003)
http://americanmarijuana.org/Guzman-Cancer.pdf
Anti-tumor effects of cannabidiol (abst - 2003)
http://www.hempworld.com/HempPharm/articles/milanstudy.html
Up-Regulation of Cyclooxygenase-2 Expression Is Involved in R(_)-Methanandamide-Induced Apoptotic Death of Human Neuroglioma Cells
(full - 2004)
http://science.iowamedicalmarijuana.org/pdfs/cancer/Hinz%202004.pdf
Cannabinoids Inhibit the Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Pathway in Gliomas (full - 2004)
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/full/64/16/5617
Antitumor effects of cannabidiol, a nonpsychoactive cannabinoid, on human glioma cell lines. (full - 2004)
http://science.iowamedicalmarijuana.org/pdfs/cancer/Massi%202004.pdf
Hypothesis: Cannabinoid Therapy for the Treatment of Gliomas? (abst - 2004)
83
http://medical-journals.healia.com/doc/15275820/Hypothesis-cannabinoid-therapy-for-the-treatment-of-gliomas
'Cannabis' brain tumour drug hope (news - 2004)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3561686.stm
Marijuana May Stall Brain Tumor Growth (news - 2004)
http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20040815/marijuana-stall-brain-tumor-growth
Marijuana Extract Fights Brain Cancer in Mice (news - 2004)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=marijuana-extract-fights
Cancer Killer (news -2004)
http://www.november.org/stayinfo/breaking2/CancerKiller.html
Marijuana Ingredient Inhibits VEGF Pathway Required For Brain Tumor Blood Vessels (news - 2004)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/08/040816085401.htm
Cannabis extract makes brain tumors shrink, halts growth of blood vessels
(news - 2004)
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/12088.php
Cannabidiol inhibits human glioma cell migration through a cannabinoid receptor-independent mechanism (full - 2005)
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1576089&tool=pmcentrez
Endocannabinoid metabolism in human glioblastomas and meningiomas compared to human non-tumour brain tissue (full - 2005)
http://www.ukcia.org/research/EndocannabinoidMetabolismInHumanGlioblastomasAndMe ningiomas.pdf
Cannabinoids selectively inhibit proliferation and induce death of cultured human glioblastoma multiforme cells. (abst - 2005)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16078104?dopt=Abstract
A pilot clinical study of Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol in patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. (full - 2006)
http://www.cannabis-med.org/studies/ww_en_db_study_show.php?s_id=193
The non-psychoactive Cannabidiol triggers caspase activation and oxidative stress in human glioma cells. (abst - 2006)
http://www.ihop-net.org/UniPub/iHOP/pm/12214911.html?pmid=16909207
THC tested against brain tumour in pilot clinical study (news - 2006)
http://www.cannabis-med.org/english/bulletin/ww_en_db_cannabis_artikel.php?id=222#1
Cannabinoids Induce Glioma Stem-like Cell Differentiation
and Inhibit Gliomagenesis (full - 2007)
84
http://www.jbc.org/content/282/9/6854.long
Expression of cannabinoid receptors and neurotrophins in human gliomas.
(abst - 2007)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18175076
Targeting astrocytomas and invading immune cells with cannabinoids: a promising therapeutic avenue. (abst - 2007)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17952648
Delta9-Tetrahydrocannabinol inhibits cell cycle progression by downregulation of E2F1 in human glioblastoma multiforme cells. (abst - 2007)
http://marijuana.researchtoday.net/archive/4/10/1467.htm
Cannabinoids and gliomas. (abst - 2007)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17952650?dopt=Abstract
Cannabinoids Inhibit Glioma Cell Invasion by Down-regulating Matrix Metalloproteinase-2 Expression (full - 2008)
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/full/68/6/1945
Cannabinoids as potential new therapy for the treatment of gliomas
(full - 2008)
http://safeaccess.ca/research/pdf/ParolaroCBasTherapyforGliomas2008.pdf
Delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol inhibits cell cycle progression by downregulation of E2F1 in human glioblastoma multiforme cells. (abst - 2008)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17934890
Down-regulation of tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases-1 in gliomas: a new marker of cannabinoid antitumoral activity? (abst - 2008)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17675107
High concentrations of cannabinoids activate apoptosis in human U373MG glioma cells. (abst - 2008)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18615640
Marijuana Kills Brain Cancer Cells (news - 2008)
http://www.entheology.org/edoto/anmviewer.asp?a=375
Cannabinoid action induces autophagymediated cell death through stimulation of ER stress in human glioma cells. (full - 2009)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2673842/?tool=pmcentrez
THC initiates brain cancer cells to destroy themselves (news - 2009)
http://www.worldhealth.net/news/thc_initiates_brain_cancer_cells_to_dest/
Active Ingredient in Marijuana Kills Brain Cancer Cells (news - 2009)
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/cancer/articles/2009/04/01/active-ingredient-in-marijuana-kills-brain-cancer.html
85
Marijuana ingredient may reduce tumours-study (news - 2009)
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LV470563.htm
Marijuana Chemical May Fight Brain Cancer (news - 2009)
http://www.webmd.com/cancer/brain-cancer/news/20090401/marijuana-chemical-may-fight-brain-cancer
Active Component Of Marijuana Has Anti-Cancer Effects, Study Suggests
(news - 2009)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090401181217.htm
Cannabidiol Enhances the Inhibitory Effects of Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol on Human Glioblastoma Cell Proliferation and Survival (full - 2010)
http://www.letfreedomgrow.com/cmu/Brain_Cancer_Study.pdf
The expression level of CB1 and CB2 receptors determines their efficacy at inducing apoptosis in astrocytomas. (full - 2010)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2806825/?tool=pubmed
Cannabinoids inhibit glioma cell invasion in brain cancer studies (news - 2010)
http://www.examiner.com/x-19678-Cannabis-Revolution-Examiner~y2010m3d11-Cannabinoids-inhibit-glioma-cell-invasion-in-brain-cancer-studies
Cannabis Rx: Cutting Through the Misinformation : Dr. Andrew Weil
(news - 2010)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-weil-md/can-cannabis-treat-cancer_b_701005.html
CANCER - HEAD AND NECK
Marijuana Unlikely to Cause Head, Neck, or Lung Cancer (news - 2000)
http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/news/20000508/marijuana-unlikely-to-cause-cancer
Marijuana use and Risk of Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma (full - 2004)
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/64/11/4049.full
Cannabis use and cancer of the head and neck: Case-control study (full -2008)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2277494/
Marijuana May Reduce Risk of Certain Cancers, Study Says (news - 2009)
http://www.jointogether.org/news/research/summaries/2009/marijuana-may-reduce-risk-of.html
CANCER - KAPOSI'S SARCOMA
86
THC inhibits lytic replication of gamma oncogenic herpes viruses in vitro
(full - 2004)
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=521080
The CB1/CB2 receptor agonist WIN-55,212-2 reduces viability of human
Kaposi‘s sarcoma cells in vitro (full - 2009)
http://science.iowamedicalmarijuana.org/pdfs/cancer/Luca%20et%20al%202009%2019539619.pdf
Recreational Drug Use and Risk of Kaposi's Sarcoma in HIV- and HHV-8-Coinfected Homosexual Men (full - 2009)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2981355/?tool=pubmed
CANCER - LEUKEMIA
Effects of cannabinoids on L1210 murine leukemia. 1. Inhibition of DNA synthesis. (abst - 1977)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=897352&dopt=abstractplus
Cannabinoids induce incomplete maturation of cultured human leukemia cells (full - 1987)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC298868/?tool=pmcentrez&page=1
Fatal aspergillosis associated with smoking contaminated marijuana, in a marrow transplant recipient. (full - 1988)
http://chestjournal.chestpubs.org/content/94/2/432.long
Anandamide Induces Apoptosis in Human Cells via Vanilloid Receptors
(full - 2000)
http://www.jbc.org/content/275/41/31938.full
Targeting CB2 cannabinoid receptors as a novel therapy to treat malignant lymphoblastic disease (full - 2002)
http://bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/cgi/reprint/100/2/627.pdf
Gamma-irradiation enhances apoptosis induced by cannabidiol, a non-psychotropic cannabinoid, in cultured HL-60 myeloblastic leukemia cells.
(abst - 2003)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=14692532&dopt=abstractplus
Cannabis-induced cytotoxicity in leukemic cell lines: the role of the cannabinoid receptors and the MAPK pathway (full - 2005)
http://bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/cgi/content/full/105/3/1214
87
Marijuana's Active Ingredient Kills Leukemia Cells (forum post/news - 2005)
http://www.treatingyourself.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=7107
Cannabidiol-Induced Apoptosis in Human Leukemia Cells : A Novel Role of Cannabidiol in the Regulation of p22phox and Nox4 Expression (full - 2006)
http://molpharm.aspetjournals.org/cgi/content/full/70/3/897
{Delta}9-Tetrahydrocannabinol-Induced Apoptosis in Jurkat Leukemia T Cells Is Regulated by Translocation of Bad to Mitochondria (full - 2006)
http://mcr.aacrjournals.org/content/4/8/549.full
The effects of cannabinoids on P-glycoprotein transport and expression in multidrug resistant cells. (abst - 2006)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16458258
Cannabidiol inhibits tumour growth in leukaemia and breast cancer in animal studies (news - 2006)
http://www.cannabis-med.org/english/bulletin/ww_en_db_cannabis_artikel.php?id=220#2
Cannabis destroys cancer cells (news - 2006)
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/03/01/16340.aspx
HU-331, a novel cannabinoid-based anticancer topoisomerase II inhibitor
(full - 2007)
http://mct.aacrjournals.org/content/6/1/173.long
Enhancing the in vitro cytotoxic activity of Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol in leukemic cells through a combinatorial approach (abst - 2008)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18608861
Substance use and survival after treatment for chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). (abst - 2010)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20141389
CANCER - LUNG
So, you thought it was the tar that caused cancer... (news - no date)
http://www.ukcia.org/research/cancer2.php
CLAIM #4: MARIJUANA CAUSES LUNG DISEASE (news - no date)
http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_myth4.shtml
A pilot study of orally administered Δ1-trans-tetrahydrocannabinol in the management of patients undergoing radiotherapy for carcinoma of the bronchus (full - 1974)
88
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1402430/?tool=pmcentrez&page=1
Anticancer activity of cannabinoids (full - 1975)
http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/pg/cancer/THC_cancer_sep_1975.htm
Antineoplastic activity of cannabinoids (full - 1975)
http://www.ukcia.org/research/AntineoplasticActivityOfCannabinoids/default.html
In vivo effects of cannabinoids on macromolecular biosynthesis in Lewis lung carcinomas. (abst - 1977)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/616322
Anti-emetic efficacy and toxicity of nabilone, a synthetic cannabinoid, in lung cancer chemotherapy. (full - 1983)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2011510/?tool=pmcentrez&page=1
Marijuana Less Harmful to Lungs than Cigarettes (news - 1994)
http://www.ukcia.org/research/lungs.php
Marijuana Unlikely to Cause Head, Neck, or Lung Cancer (news - 2000)
http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/news/20000508/marijuana-unlikely-to-cause-cancer
Anti-Tumor Effects (news - 2001?)
http://www.ukcia.org/research/AntiTumorEffects.htm
Smoking Cannabis Does Not Cause Cancer of Lung or Upper Airways
(news - 2005)
http://ccrmg.org/journal/05aut/nocancer.html
Cannabis smoke less likely to cause cancer than tobacco smoke (news - 2005)
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/10/18/13838.aspx?page=2
Marijuana Use and the Risk of Lung and Upper Aerodigestive Tract Cancers: Results of a Population-Based Case-Control Study (full - 2006)
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/15/10/1829.full
Marijuana Use and Lung Cancer: Results of a Case-Control Study (abst - 2006)
http://www.ukcia.org/research/MjUseAndLungCancer.php
Study Finds No Link Between Marijuana Use And Lung Cancer (news - 2006)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060526083353.htm
No association between lung cancer and cannabis smoking in large study
(news - 2006)
http://www.cannabis-med.org/english/bulletin/ww_en_db_cannabis_artikel.php?id=219#2
Marijuana Smoking Found Non-Carcinogenic (news - 2006)
http://www.medpagetoday.com/HematologyOncology/LungCancer/tb/3393
Pot Smoking Not Linked to Lung Cancer (news - 2006)
89
http://www.entheology.org/edoto/anmviewer.asp?a=246
Large Study Finds No Link between Marijuana and Lung Cancer (news - 2006)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=large-study-finds-no-link
{Delta}-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol inhibits growth and metastasis of lung cancer.
(abst - 2007)
http://www.aacrmeetingabstracts.org/cgi/content/meeting_abstract/2007/1_Annual_Meeting/4749?maxtoshow=&hits=80&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=cannabinoid&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=1760&resourcetype=HWCIT
Delta(9)-Tetrahydrocannabinol inhibits epithelial growth factor-induced lung cancer cell migration in vitro as well as its growth and metastasis in vivo
(abst - 2007)
http://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/ebm/record/17621270/abstract/Delta_9__Tetrahydrocannabinol_inhibits_epithelial_ growth_factor_induced_lung_cancer_cell_migration_i n_vitro_as_well_as_its_growth_and_metastasis_in_vi vo
Marijuana Cuts Lung Cancer Tumor Growth In Half, Study Shows (news - 2007)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm
Pot's Active Ingredient Halts Lung Cancer Growth, Study Says (news - 2007)
http://www.illinoisnorml.org/content/view/529/27/
Marijuana Ingredients Slow Invasion by Cervical and Lung Cancer Cells
(news -2007)
http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20071226/pot-slows-cancer-in-test-tube
Marijuana May Fight Lung Tumors (news - 2007)
http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/20070417/marijuana-may-fight-lung-tumors
Cannabis as a possible treatment for lung cancer (news - 2007)
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2007/04/cannabis-as-a-possible-treatment-for-lung-cancer.ars
Inhibition of Cancer Cell Invasion by Cannabinoids via Increased Expression of Tissue Inhibitor of Matrix Metalloproteinases-1 (full - 2008)
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/100/1/59
Cannabis use and risk of lung cancer: a case–control study (full - 2008)
http://erj.ersjournals.com/cgi/content/full/31/2/280?ijkey=6e02fa9852b56841bfebe21da44ade1d793e5ab1
Doubts about the role of cannabis in causing lung cancer. (letter - 2008)
http://erj.ersjournals.com/cgi/content/full/32/3/815
Decrease of plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 may contribute to the anti-invasive action of cannabidiol on human lung cancer cells. (abst - 2010)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20668920
90
Cannabidiol inhibits cancer cell invasion via upregulation of tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinases-1. (abst - 2010)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19914218
Decrease of plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 may contribute to the anti-invasive action of cannabidiol on human lung cancer cells. (abst - 2010)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20668920
CANCER - LYMPHOMA
UCSF Researchers Report New Risk Factors For Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma
(news - 1999)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/08/990817065339.htm
Anandamide Induces Apoptosis in Human Cells via Vanilloid Receptors
(full - 2000)
http://www.jbc.org/content/275/41/31938.full
Targeting CB2 cannabinoid receptors as a novel therapy to treat malignant lymphoblastic disease (full - 2002)
http://bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/cgi/content/full/100/2/627
Lymphoma may be slowed by cannabis (news - 2002)
http://marijuana-ro.com/medical-usage/lymphoma-may-be-slowed-by-cannabis.html
Cannabinoid Receptor Agonists May Be Novel Class of Anti-Lymphoma Agents
(news - 2002)
http://www.oncolink.org/resources/article.cfm?c=3&s=8&ss=23&Year=2002&Month=7&id=8667
The Peripheral Cannabinoid Receptor CB2 and CD40 Are Novel Biological Markers That Predict Outcome in Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma of Elderly Patients. (abst - 2004)
http://abstracts.hematologylibrary.org/cgi/content/abstract/104/11/3256?maxtoshow=&hits=80&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=cannabinoid&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=800&resourcetype=HWCIT
Cannabinoid receptor ligands mediate growth inhibition and cell death in mantle cell lymphoma. (abst - 2005)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16337199?dopt=Abstract
Cannabinoid Receptor-Mediated Apoptosis Induced by R(+)-Methanandamide and Win55,212-2 Is Associated with Ceramide Accumulation and p38 Activation in Mantle Cell Lymphoma (full - 2006)
http://molpharm.aspetjournals.org/content/70/5/1612.full
91
Expression of cannabinoid receptors type 1 and type 2 in non-Hodgkin lymphoma: growth inhibition by receptor activation. (abst - 2008)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18546271
Cannabis Agonist Reduces Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Tumor Growth, says study
(news - 2008)
http://www.illinoisnorml.org/content/view/957/27/
Potentiation of cannabinoid-induced cytotoxicity in mantle cell lymphoma through modulation of ceramide metabolism. (full - 2009)
http://mcr.aacrjournals.org/content/7/7/1086.long
CANCER - MELANOMA
Intractable nausea and vomiting due to gastrointestinal mucosal metastases
(abst - 1997)
http://www.cannabis-med.org/studies/ww_en_db_study_show.php?s_id=35
Cannabinoid receptors as novel targets for the treatment of melanoma
(full - 2006)
http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/full/20/14/2633?ijkey=958a31584b617c871b46ef1af541c90cc0fb0f1 4
Dronabinol for supportive therapy in patients with malignant melanoma and liver metastases. (abst - 2006)
http://www.cannabis-med.org/studies/ww_en_db_study_show.php?s_id=180
Cannabinoid receptor-1 modulation induces apoptosis of human melanoma cells
(abst - 2008)
http://www.aacrmeetingabstracts.org/cgi/content/meeting_abstract/2008/1_Annual_Meeting/2678?maxtoshow=&hits=80&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=cannabinoid&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=800&resourcetype=HWCIT
CANCER - NEUROBLASTOMA
Cannabinoids inhibit N-type calcium channels in neuroblastoma-glioma cells.
(full - 1992)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC525583/
Cannabinoid receptor agonists inhibit Ca current in NG108-15 neuroblastoma cells via a pertussis toxin-sensitive mechanism. (full - 1992)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1907498/?tool=pmcentrez&page=1
92
Anandamide Induces Apoptosis in Human Cells via Vanilloid Receptors
(full - 2000)
http://www.jbc.org/content/275/41/31938.full
CANCER - ORAL
Boron trifluoride etherate on silica-A modified Lewis acid reagent (VII). Antitumor activity of cannabigerol against human oral epitheloid carcinoma cells.
(abst - 1998)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9875457
Marijuana use and Risk of Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma (full - 2004)
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/64/11/4049.full
Study Finds No Association Between Marijuana Use And Incidence Of Oral Cancer (news - 2004)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/06/040602063428.htm
Smoking of cannabis does not increase risk for oral cancer (news - 2004)
http://www.cannabis-med.org/english/bulletin/ww_en_db_cannabis_artikel.php?id=175#1
Marijuana Use and the Risk of Lung and Upper Aerodigestive Tract Cancers: Results of a Population-Based Case-Control Study (full - 2006)
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/15/10/1829.full
Peripheral Cannabinoids Attenuate Carcinoma Induced Nociception in Mice
(full - 2008)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2771220/
A Population-Based Case-Control Study of Marijuana Use and Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma. (full - 2009)
http://safeaccess.ca/research/pdf/MarijuanaUse_and_Head-NeckSquamousCellCarcinoma.pdf
Cannabinoids Inhibit Cellular Respiration of Human Oral Cancer Cells
(abst - 2010)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20516734
Cannabinoids attenuate cancer pain and proliferation in a mouse model.
(abst - 2010)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21094209
CANCER - OVARIAN
93
Cannabinoid receptors as a target for therapy of ovarian cancer (abst - 2006)
http://www.aacrmeetingabstracts.org/cgi/content/abstract/2006/1/1084?maxtoshow=&hits=80&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=cannabinoid&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=560&resourcetype=HWCIT
CANCER - PANCREATIC
Pancreatitis & Medical Marijuana (article - no date)
http://onlinepot.org/medical/pancreatitis.htm
Cannabinoids Induce Apoptosis of Pancreatic Tumor Cells via Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress–Related Genes (full - 2006)
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/full/66/13/6748
Cannabinoids Halt Pancreatic Cancer, Breast Cancer Growth, Studies Say
(news - 2006)
http://www.thehempire.com/index.php/cannabis/news/cannabinoids_halt_pancreatic_cancer_breast_cancer_ growth_studies_say
Cannabinoids in pancreatic cancer: Correlation with survival and pain
(full - 2008)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2225529/?tool=pmcentrez
CANCER - PITUITARY ADENOMA
Normal Human Pituitary Gland and Pituitary Adenomas Express Cannabinoid Receptor Type 1 and Synthesize Endogenous Cannabinoids: First Evidence for a Direct Role of Cannabinoids on Hormone Modulation at the Human Pituitary Level (full - 2001)
http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/86/6/2687?maxtoshow=&hits=80&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=marihuana&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=1760&resourcetype=HWCIT
CANCER - PROSTATE
Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol induces apoptosis in human prostate PC-3 cells via a receptor-independent mechanism (abst - 1999)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T36-3XFTGPR-X&_user=10&_coverDate=09%2F24%2F1999&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=e9b3e817c7d39ac7f20656f24e07dfd1
94
Suppression of Nerve Growth Factor Trk Receptors and Prolactin Receptors by Endocannabinoids Leads to Inhibition of Human Breast and Prostate Cancer Cell Proliferation (full - 2000)
http://endo.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/141/1/118?ijkey=9caa0af787d8b2dc94e45918a69b40ea90bc1776
Anti-proliferative and apoptotic effects of anandamide in human prostatic cancer cell lines: implication of epidermal growth factor receptor down-regulation and ceramide production. (abst - 2003)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12746841?dopt=Abstract
2-Arachidonoylglycerol A Novel Inhibitor of Androgen-Independent Prostate Cancer Cell Invasion (full - 2004)
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/full/64/24/8826?ijkey=951f5f9d238bdf059cf30ee2be3a5a31aaf2b09 4
Cannabinoid Receptor as a Novel Target for the Treatment of Prostate Cancer
(full - 2005)
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/reprint/65/5/1635.pdf
Cannabinoid Receptor Agonist-induced Apoptosis of Human Prostate Cancer Cells LNCaP Proceeds through Sustained Activation of ERK1/2 Leading to G1 Cell Cycle Arrest (full - 2006)
http://www.jbc.org/content/281/51/39480.full
Cannabinoid receptors agonist WIN-55,212-2 inhibits angiogenesis, metastasis and tumor growth of androgen-sensitive prostate cancer cell CWR22R{nu}1 xenograft in athymic nude mice (abst - 2007)
http://www.aacrmeetingabstracts.org/cgi/content/meeting_abstract/2007/1_Annual_Meeting/2195?maxtoshow=&hits=80&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=cannabinoid&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=720&resourcetype=HWCIT
Endocannabinoids in endocrine and related tumours (full - 2008)
http://erc.endocrinology-journals.org/cgi/reprint/15/2/391.pdf
Inhibition of human tumour prostate PC-3 cell growth by cannabinoids R(+)-Methanandamide and JWH-015: Involvement of CB2 (full - 2009)
http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v101/n6/full/6605248a.html
The cannabinoid R+ methanandamide induces IL-6 secretion by prostate cancer PC3 cells. (abst - 2009)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19908944
Active Chemicals in Cannabis Inhibits Prostate Cancer Cell Growth
(news - 2009)
http://www.elements4health.com/active-chemicals-in-cannabis-inhibits-prostate-cancer-cell-growth.html
95
Chemicals in cannabis found to stop prostate cancer (news - 2009)
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-19678-Cannabis-Revolution-Examiner~y2009m8d19-Chemicals-in-cannabis-found-to-stop-prostate-cancer
Cannabis chemicals may help fight prostate cancer (news - 2009)
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE57I02Z20090819
Active cannabis chemicals halt prostate cancer cell growth (news - 2009)
http://www.news-medical.net/news/20090908/Active-cannabis-chemicals-halt-prostate-cancer-cell-growth.aspx
Cannabis may apparently stop prostate cancer growth (news - 2009)
http://www.healthjockey.com/2009/08/21/cannabis-may-apparently-stop-prostate-cancer-growth/
Cannabis chemicals may help fight prostate cancer (news - 2010)
http://www.abbotsfordtimes.com/entertainment/movie-guide/Cannabis+chemicals+help+fight+prostate+cancer/1908592/story.html?id=1908592#Comments
CANCER - RHABDOMYOSARCOMA
Cannabinoid receptor 1 is a potential drug target for treatment of translocation-positive rhabdomyosarcoma (full - 2009)
http://mct.aacrjournals.org/content/8/7/1838.full
CANCER - RISK CANNABIS VS TOBACCO
So, you thought it was the tar that caused cancer... (news - no date)
http://www.ukcia.org/research/cancer2.php
Marijuana Less Harmful to Lungs than Cigarettes (news - 1994)
http://www.ukcia.org/research/lungs.php
Premiere British Medical Journal Pronounces Marijuana Safer Than Alcohol, Tobacco (news - 1998)
http://cannabislink.ca/medical/safer.html
Why Doesn't Smoking Marijuana Cause Cancer? (news - 1999)
http://www.healthcentral.com/drdean/408/14275.html
Cannabis and tobacco smoke are not equally carcinogenic (full - 2005)
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1277837
96
Smoking Marijuana Does Not Cause Lung Cancer (news - 2005)
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n1065/a03.html
Cannabis Smoke Is Less Likely To Cause Cancer Than Tobacco Smoke
(news - 2005)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051019003339.htm
Blunt Smokers Link Dependence Potential To Nicotine (news - 2006)
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/52838.php
Marijuana Smoking Found Non-Carcinogenic (news - 2006)
http://www.medpagetoday.com/HematologyOncology/LungCancer/tb/3393
Cannabis Smoke and Cancer: Assessing the Risk (news - 2008)
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6891
Hypothesizing that marijuana smokers are at a significantly lower risk of carcinogenicity relative to tobacco-non-marijuana smokers: evidenced based on statistical reevaluation of current literature. (full - 2008)
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Hypothesizing+that+marijuana+smokers+are+at+a+sign ificantly+lower...-a0196052086
CANCER - SKIN
Inhibition of skin tumor growth and angiogenesis in vivo by activation of cannabinoid receptors (full - 2003)
http://www.jci.org/cgi/content/full/111/1/43?ijkey=MpUgjDbqHybAU
Starting Point Of Sun-Induced Skin Cancer Discovered: Molecular 'Hooks' Also Pull Compounds From Marijuana From Bloodstream (news - 2008)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080515072642.htm
CANCER - TESTICULAR
Chemotherapy for Testicular Cancer (anecdotal - no date)
http://www.rxmarihuana.com/shared_comments/testicularchemo.htm
Crossover comparison of the antiemetic efficacy of nabilone and alizapride in patients with nonseminomatous testicular cancer receiving cisplatin therapy
(abst- 1986)
http://www.cannabis-med.org/studies/ww_en_db_study_show.php?s_id=127
97
CANCER - THYMOMA
A comparative study on cannabidiol-induced apoptosis in murine thymocytes and EL-4 thymoma cell (abst- 2008)
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/article/cannabinoids-may-have-therapeutic-role-play-treating-thyoma
CANCER - THYROID
Control by the endogenous cannabinoid system of ras oncogene-dependent tumor growth (full - 2001)
http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/reprint/15/14/2745?ijkey=1b6e92836655dd275d36c82a7957423ec2106c6 a
Inhibitory effects of cannabinoid CB1 receptor stimulation on tumor growth and metastatic spreading: actions on signals involved in angiogenesis and metastasis1 (full - 2003)
http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/reprint/17/12/1771
Endocannabinoids in endocrine and related tumours (full - 2008)
http://erc.endocrinology-journals.org/cgi/reprint/15/2/391.pdf
Cannabinoid 2 receptor induction by IL-12 and its potential as a therapeutic target for the treatment of anaplastic thyroid carcinoma. (abst - 2008)
http://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/ebm/record/18197164/full_citation/Cannabinoid_2_receptor_induction_by_IL_12_and_its_ potential_as_a_therapeutic_target_for_the_treatmen t_of_anaplastic_thyroid_carcinoma_
A metabolically stable analogue of anandamide, Met-F-AEA, inhibits human thyroid carcinoma cell lines by activation of apoptosis (abst - 2009)
http://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/ebm/record/19189054/abstract/A_metabolically_stable_analogue_of_anandamide_Met_ F_AEA_inhibits_human_thyroid_carcinoma_cell_lines_ by_activation_of_apoptosis_
CANCER - VARIOUS/ UNNAMED
Unpublished Federal Study Found THC-Treated Rats Lived Longer, Had Less Cancer (news - no date)
http://www.drugsense.org/mcwilliams/www.marijuanamagazine.com/toc/rats.htm
Analgesic effect of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol. (abst - 1975)
98
http://www.cannabis-med.org/studies/ww_en_db_study_show.php?s_id=16
The analgesic properties of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and codeine.
(abst - 1975)
http://www.cannabis-med.org/studies/ww_en_db_study_show.php?s_id=17
Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol as an antiemetic for patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. A comparison with prochlorperazine and a placebo. (abst - 1979)
http://www.cannabis-med.org/studies/ww_en_db_study_show.php?s_id=5
Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol as an antiemetic in cancer patients receiving high-dose methotrexate A prospective, randomized evaluation (abst - 1979)
http://www.cannabis-med.org/studies/ww_en_db_study_show.php?s_id=23
Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) as an antiemetic in patients treated with cancer chemotherapy; a double-blind cross-over trial against placebo
(abst - 1979)
http://www.cannabis-med.org/studies/ww_en_db_study_show.php?s_id=27
Amelioration of cancer chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting by delta-9--tetrahydrocannabinol. (abst - 1979)
http://www.cannabis-med.org/studies/ww_en_db_study_show.php?s_id=107
Superiority of nabilone over prochlorperazine as an antiemetic in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. (abst - 1979)
http://www.cannabis-med.org/studies/ww_en_db_study_show.php?s_id=126
The antiemetic activity of tetrahydrocanabinol versus metoclopramide and thiethylperazine in patients undergoing cancer chemotherapy. (abst - 1980)
http://www.cannabis-med.org/studies/ww_en_db_study_show.php?s_id=24
A multi-institutional Phase III study of nabilone vs. placebo in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. (abst - 1982)
http://www.cannabis-med.org/studies/ww_en_db_study_show.php?s_id=156
Prospective randomized double-blind trial of nabilone versus domperidone in the treatment of cytotoxic-induced emesis (abst - 1986)
http://www.cannabis-med.org/studies/ww_en_db_study_show.php?s_id=129
Efficacy of tetrahydrocannabinol in patients refractory to standard anti-emetic therapy (abst - 1988)
http://www.cannabis-med.org/studies/ww_en_db_study_show.php?s_id=31
Dronabinol enhancement of appetite in cancer patients. (abst - 1990)
http://www.cannabis-med.org/studies/ww_en_db_study_show.php?s_id=149
Dronabinol and prochlorperazine in combination for treatment of cancer chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. (abst - 1991)
http://www.cannabis-med.org/studies/ww_en_db_study_show.php?s_id=28
99
A phase II study of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol for appetite stimulation in cancer-associated anorexia (abst -1994)
http://www.cannabis-med.org/studies/ww_en_db_study_show.php?s_id=52
NTP Technical Report on the Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of 1-Trans-Delta9-Tetrahyrdocannabinol (CAS No. 1972-08-3) in F344/N Rats and B6C3F1 Mice (Gavage Studies), (full - 1996)
http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/hemp/Trans-Delta%20Report.pdf
Toxicity and Carcinogenicity of {Delta}9-Tetrahydrocannabinol in Fischer Rats and B6C3F1 Mice (abst - 1996)
http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/30/1/109?maxtoshow=&hits=80&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=marihuana&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=240&resourcetype=HWCIT
Study: THC Not Cancer-Causing (news - 1997)
http://www.ukcia.org/research/cancer.php
Anandamide Induces Apoptosis in Human Cells via Vanilloid Receptors
(full - 2000)
http://www.jbc.org/content/275/41/31938.full
Therapeutic Aspects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids (full - 2001)
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/reprint/178/2/107.pdf
Anti-Tumor Effects (news - 2001?)
http://www.ukcia.org/research/AntiTumorEffects.htm
Targeting the endocannabinoid system in cancer therapy: A call for further research (full - 2002)
http://www.fuoriluogo.it/medicalcannabis/documenti/bifulco2002.pdf
Endocannabinoids in the immune system and cancer. (abst - 2002)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12052046
Cannabinoids: Potential Anticancer Agents (full - 2003)
http://americanmarijuana.org/Guzman-Cancer.pdf
Inhibition of tumor angiogenesis by cannabinoids (full - 2003)
http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/reprint/02-0795fjev1?ijkey=93a5d281f850b12428c0ce7239c7af67fe 8fab6f
Established and potential therapeutic applications of cannabinoids in oncology
(abst + intro - 2003)
http://www.springerlink.com/content/py9cunbm343und5v/
The effects of smoked cannabis in painful peripheral neuropathy (abst - 2003)
http://www.cannabis-med.org/studies/ww_en_db_study_show.php?s_id=96
100
Therapeutic potential of cannabinoids in CNS disease. (abst - 2003)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12617697
Cannabinoid receptor systems: therapeutic targets for tumour intervention
(abst - 2003)
http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1517/14728222.7.6.749
Cannabis May Help Combat Cancer-causing Herpes Viruses (news - 2004)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/09/040923092627.htm
THC in marijuana may block the spread of forms of cancer causing herpes viruses
(news - 2004)
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2004/09/22/4990.aspx
Cancer Killer (news - 2004)
http://www.november.org/stayinfo/breaking2/CancerKiller.html
Involvement of Cannabinoids in Cellular Proliferation (full - 2005)
http://www.bentham.org/mrmc/sample/mrmc5-1/0008N.pdf
Derivatives of cannabis for anti-cancer treatment win Kaye Award for Hebrew University student (news - 2005)
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-06/thuo-do060605.php
Marijuana Use and the Risk of Lung and Upper Aerodigestive Tract Cancers: Results of a Population-Based Case-Control Study (full - 2006)
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/15/10/1829.full
Cannabinoids and cancer: pros and cons of an antitumour strategy (full - 2006)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1617062/?tool=pmcentrez
The stress-regulated protein p8 mediates cannabinoid-induced apoptosis of tumor cells. (full - 2006)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WWK-4JP3G9H-8&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=3d40339063a535f66fd180bef7aac1e9&searchtype=a
Cannabinoids As Cancer Hope (article - 2006)
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6814
Different views on the association between cannabinoids and cancer
(abst - 2006)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=16835997&dopt=abstractplus
The synthetic cannabinoid nabilone improves pain and symptom management in cancer patients (abst - 2006)
http://www.cannabis-med.org/studies/ww_en_db_study_show.php?s_id=177
101
Comparison of orally administered cannabis extract and delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in treating patients with cancer-related anorexia-cachexia syndrome: a multicenter, phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial from the Cannabis-In-Cachexia-Study-Group. (abst - 2006)
http://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/ebm/record/16849753/abstract/Comparison_of_orally_administered_cannabis_extract _and_delta_9_tetrahydrocannabinol_in_treating_pati ents_with_cancer_related_anorexia_cachexia_syndrom e:_a_multicenter_phase_III_randomized_double_blind _placebo_controlled_clinical_trial_from_the_Cannab is_In_Cachexia_Study_Group
Cannabinoids Halt Pancreatic Cancer, Breast Cancer Growth, Studies Say
(news - 2006)
http://www.thehempire.com/index.php/cannabis/news/cannabinoids_halt_pancreatic_cancer_breast_cancer_ growth_studies_say
Marijuana Smoking Found Non-Carcinogenic (news - 2006)
http://www.medpagetoday.com/HematologyOncology/LungCancer/tb/3393
Inhibition of Cancer Cell Invasion by Cannabinoids via Increased Expression of Tissue Inhibitor of Matrix Metalloproteinases-1 (full - 2007)
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/100/1/59
A Cannabinoid Anticancer Quinone, HU-331, Is More Potent and Less Cardiotoxic Than Doxorubicin: A Comparative in Vivo Study (full - 2007)
http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/content/322/2/646.full
Sativex: Fact Sheet (full - 2007)
http://www.bayer.ca/files/sativex_fs_fd_109461_e%20_GW_.pdf
Sativex: Health Care Professional letter (letter - 2007)
http://www.bayer.ca/files/sativex_dhcpl_lapds_109461_e%20_GW_-2.pdf
Science: The use of cannabis does not influence the efficacy of two anti-cancer drugs, a clinical study finds (news - 2007)
http://www.cannabis-med.org/english/bulletin/ww_en_db_cannabis_artikel.php?id=242#2
No Decrease in Pulmonary Function Associated with Long-Term Cannabis Smoking, Study Says (news - 2007)
http://www.illinoisnorml.org/content/view/366/27/
Nabilone relieves many advanced Ca symptoms (news - 2007)
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb4365/is_9_40/ai_n29428135/?tag=content;col1
Cannabinoids May Inhibit Cancer Cell Invasion (news - 2007)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071226004546.htm
Marijuana could suppress Tumor Cell Growth (news - 2007)
http://www.healthjockey.com/2007/12/29/marijuana-could-suppress-tumor-cell-growth/
102
Hypothesizing that marijuana smokers are at a significantly lower risk of carcinogenicity relative to tobacco-non-marijuana smokers: evidenced based on statistical reevaluation of current literature. (full - 2008)
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Hypothesizing+that+marijuana+smokers+are+at+a+sign ificantly+lower...-a0196052086
Cannabinoids for Cancer Treatment: Progress and Promise (full - 2008)
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/full/68/2/339
Endocannabinoids in endocrine and related tumours (full - 2008)
http://erc.endocrinology-journals.org/cgi/reprint/15/2/391.pdf
How Cannabis Compares to other aging treatments (article - 2008)
http://www.medical-marijuana-testimonials.org/aging-medication-comparision-and-medical-marijuana.htm#top
Aging and cancer using medical marijuana (article - 2008)
http://www.medical-marijuana-testimonials.org/Aging-and-cancer-medical-marijuana.htm
Cannabis Smoke and Cancer: Assessing the Risk (news - 2008)
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6891
Marijuana May Prevent Cancer, Not Cause It (news - 2008)
http://www.entheology.org/edoto/anmviewer.asp?a=293&print=yes
Changes in the Endocannabinoid System May Give Insight into new and Effective Treatments for Cancer (full - 2009)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2791688/?tool=pmcentrez
Cannabinoids as novel anti-inflammatory drugs. (full - 2009)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2828614/?tool=pubmed
TRB3 links ER stress to autophagy in cannabinoid antitumoral action
(abst with link to full PDF - 2009)
http://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/autophagy/article/9508
Cannabinoids in the treatment of cancer (abst - 2009)
http://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/ebm/record/19442435/abstract/Cannabinoids_in_the_treatment_of_cancer_
Use of cannabinoid receptor agonists in cancer therapy as palliative and curative agents. (abst - 2009)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19285265
Hexahydrocannabinols, novel synthetic cannabinoid derivatives, suppress the tumor growth by inhibiting the VEGF secretion and angiogenesis (abst - 2009)
http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/meeting_abstract/23/1_MeetingAbstracts/761.3?maxtoshow=&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=cannabis&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT
103
A Population-Based Case-Control Study of Marijuana Use and Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma. (abst - 2009)
http://cancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/2/8/759
Cannabinoid receptor ligands as potential anticancer agents--high hopes for new therapies? (abst - 2009)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19589225?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed _ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=14
Cannabinoids in the treatment of cancer (abst - 2009)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T54-4W8KHSM-3&_user=10&_origUdi=B6WP9-4VVXSVH-1&_fmt=high&_coverDate=11%2F18%2F2009&_rdoc=1&_orig=article&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=c1529858de8a6c6f6b563b84cb3efbdb
Use of cannabinoid receptor agonists in cancer therapy as palliative and curative agents (abst - 2009)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WBD-4VTDPJT-B&_user=10&_coverDate=02%2F28%2F2009&_alid=1221159786&_rdoc=37&_fmt=high&_orig=mlkt&_cdi=6708&_sort=v&_st=17&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=1290&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=0357d6d618eddfb6a9a9cb73d2ba8113
Cannabis Compounds have "Palliative" and "Curative" Effects on Cancer
(news - 2009)
http://www.illinoisnorml.org/content/view/1013/27/
Could smoking pot cut risk of head, neck cancer? (news - 2009)
http://www.health.am/cr/more/could-smoking-pot-cut-risk-of-head-neck-cancer/
NEW USE FOR CANNABINOID-CONTAINING PLANT EXTRACTS
Patent application number: 20100249223 (full - 2010)
http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20100249223
Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study of the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of THC:CBD extract and THC extract in patients with intractable cancer-related pain. (abst - 2010)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19896326
Targeting the Endocannabinoid System for the Treatment of Cancer - A Practical View. (abst - 2010)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20370711?dopt=Abstract
Antitumorigenic Effects of Cannabinoids beyond Apoptosis (abst - 2010)
http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/content/332/2/336.abstract
Cannabidiol inhibits cancer cell invasion via upregulation of tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinases-1. (abst - 2010)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19914218
104
Vets use hemp seed oil on animals with cancer (news - 2010)
http://www.examiner.com/x-33448-LA-County-Environmental-News-Examiner~y2010m3d22-Vets-use-hemp-seed-oil-on-animals-with-cancer
Cannabis Rx: Cutting Through the Misinformation : Dr. Andrew Weil
(news - 2010)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-weil-md/can-cannabis-treat-cancer_b_701005.html
Not just a high (news - 2010)
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/59872/title/Not_just_a_high

scissorhands

11th February 2011, 16:35

google 'granny storm crows list'

420 pages of LINKS re cannabis and health:yes:

Usarka

11th February 2011, 16:45

If god didn't want weed to be smoked he wouldn't have invented:

a) weed

b) mint chock chip ice cream

c) movies

d) sex

Scuba_Steve

12th February 2011, 08:28

If god didn't want weed to be smoked he wouldn't have invented:

a) weed

b) mint chock chip ice cream

c) movies

d) sex

If god didn't want us to get infected he wouldn't have invented:

a) Fucking

b) Gonorrhea

c) Syphilis

d) AIDS

:facepalm:

Usarka

12th February 2011, 08:32

Exactly - that's the punishment he hands out for shagging a slapper! All part of his mysterious plan.

Plus he also invented condoms at some point!

onearmedbandit

12th February 2011, 09:22

Using 'god' as a reason for smoking weed to me is akin to saying santa delivered my presents, or the easter bunny gave me chocolate eggs last year.

mashman

2nd July 2011, 18:25

If there was ever a reason to do it. (http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/9771888/another-legal-weed-ordered-off-the-shelves/).

The worthy replacements are faulty. Yet they are legal and contain potentially "damaging" chemicals.

The demand is there.
We have "criminals" selling cannabis Tax Free.
There's a distribution network (and taxation).
We have dairys selling the legal stuff (booze too :)).
We have an outlet.

A product that has been tried and tested over Milennia v's Something a bit fuckin dodgy that kids can get a hold of easily?

Also...

Tax revenue?
Tourism revenue? (clean and green baby)
Medical research? (a whole country of willing lab rats)
Save the cops a bit of hassle too I guess?
Remove legal alternatives from the shelves?
A few less people in jail to support?
Less nutcases strung out on unknown levels of phenazapan?

Change the law. Go!

Sounds like a win win to me. That'll do donKey.

Brett

2nd July 2011, 18:29

mashman

2nd July 2011, 18:37

FJRider

2nd July 2011, 18:41

... Plus he also invented condoms at some point!

ALWAYS wear your gumboots ...

yod

2nd July 2011, 19:31

The sooner they make that shit illegal, the better. Legalize pot?...hope that day never happens. Too many people out there with fucked up brains and personality issues thanks to drugs. Stick to beer. Personally, I prefer whiskey or a reisling or sav.

lolololol

yeah, cos nobody's ever fucked themselves up on alcohol....it's sooooo much better for you than cannabis

ffs :facepalm:

FJRider

2nd July 2011, 19:36

The sooner they make that shit illegal, the better. Legalize pot?...hope that day never happens. Too many people out there with fucked up brains and personality issues thanks to drugs. Stick to beer. Personally, I prefer whiskey or a reisling or sav.

If they made it legal (dope) ... taxed it ... and toughened the laws regarding working/driving under the "influence" of it ... the more we can as a country ... afford the current welfare/ACC system ...

onearmedbandit

2nd July 2011, 19:37

The sooner they make that shit illegal, the better. Legalize pot?...hope that day never happens. Too many people out there with fucked up brains and personality issues thanks to drugs. Stick to beer. Personally, I prefer whiskey or a reisling or sav.

Folks, this is a great example of what taking alcohol, a known poison (with fatal consequences in excessive quantities) can do to the 'logic-processing' centre of the human brain. Remember kids, it's not cool to drink poison.

mashman

2nd July 2011, 20:24

If they made it legal (dope) ... taxed it ... and toughened the laws regarding working/driving under the "influence" of it ... the more we can as a country ... afford the current welfare/ACC system ...

Give it exactly the same "status" as alcohol. I mean give it exactly the same legal and social rights and wrongs legislation. Over 18 blah blah blah. no driving etc...

The "manmade" stuff has the potential to be tainted with manmade pharmacological drugs that could be pretty dangerous. A potential fuckin nightmare if they "are" affecting people v's a relatively well known product... comes with a population tested guarantee.

Get the "tested" stuff on the market quickly. An possible electric shock for the economy? "Free" Money? No need to borrow? (especially with the world cup looming :yes:).

Blackshear

3rd July 2011, 14:46

Not a huge fan of it myself, especially in the lower socio-economic rung.
Seen a few people dig themselves a deeper hole by being pretty tight on the purse but still manage to find enough compromise for buds breakfast, lunch and dinner. To each their own, I've never shared my opinion vocally (Really, who am I to tell people what to do with their taxpayers money?), but it becomes your problem when they start relying on other people to share the compromise. One example is uni student with one class, no job and his partner working 6 days to keep me from paying a cent extra from my own pocket.

Unless ya got a medical reason for it...

Brett

5th July 2011, 16:45

Folks, this is a great example of what taking alcohol, a known poison (with fatal consequences in excessive quantities) can do to the 'logic-processing' centre of the human brain. Remember kids, it's not cool to drink poison.

LMAO fair call, badly worded statement on my behalf.

Edit... I am also a person that drinks in moderation...

Brett

5th July 2011, 16:48

lolololol

yeah, cos nobody's ever fucked themselves up on alcohol....it's sooooo much better for you than cannabis

ffs :facepalm:

Well to be totally correct, yes alcohol is better for you than pot...

But yes, alcohol is not much of a better equivalent. The drinking culture in this country is pathetic and a real problem. Probably gonna get shot up for that statement too...

Banditbandit

5th July 2011, 16:50

If god didn't want weed to be smoked he wouldn't have invented:

a) weed

b) mint chock chip ice cream

c) movies

d) sex

Naaa mate ... God didn;t want us to smoke weed - that's why he gave us draft beer ...

Banditbandit

5th July 2011, 16:51

If they made it legal (dope) ... taxed it ... and toughened the laws regarding working/driving under the "influence" of it ...

It's already illegal to drive under ther influence of THC ... just bloody hard to test for it on the road-side ...

mashman

5th July 2011, 19:58

It's already illegal to drive under ther influence of THC ... just bloody hard to test for it on the road-side ...

Kronic doesn't have THC in it... that law doesn't apply?

scracha

5th July 2011, 20:24

Well to be totally correct, yes alcohol is better for you than pot...

But yes, alcohol is not much of a better equivalent. The drinking culture in this country is pathetic and a real problem. Probably gonna get shot up for that statement too...

Everyone owns their own body. As far as I'm concerned, if I choose to drink, smoke, eat KFC, snort coke and stick a syringe full of heroin between my toes then so long as I'm not harming anyone else (I don't fight or drive under the influence) and not forcing anyone else to pay for me (I get out their bed in the morning and go to work) then why the hell is it anyone else's business, never mind illegal?

You know what they say, everything in moderation.

Teach Kiwi's about moderation and being responsible for their actions regardless of whatever "influence" THEY CHOSE to be under and you'd have a lot less social problems in this country.

Brett

6th July 2011, 00:25

Everyone owns their own body. As far as I'm concerned, if I choose to drink, smoke, eat KFC, snort coke and stick a syringe full of heroin between my toes then so long as I'm not harming anyone else (I don't fight or drive under the influence) and not forcing anyone else to pay for me (I get out their bed in the morning and go to work) then why the hell is it anyone else's business, never mind illegal?

You know what they say, everything in moderation.

Teach Kiwi's about moderation and being responsible for their actions regardless of whatever "influence" THEY CHOSE to be under and you'd have a lot less social problems in this country.

Because unfortunately these activities project negative externalities onto other members of society whether you like it or not. You personally may keep it a part of only your life, but many many thousands of people clearly cannot and it rips their lives apart as well as innocent bystanders. You barely have to keep in touch with the news to see the effects of people on drugs.

ducatilover

6th July 2011, 01:49

My good lord and pant wearing gimp buddy, why have I not seen this thread already? :facepalm: So much fun!!!!!

scissorhands

6th July 2011, 05:04

Well to be totally correct, yes alcohol is better for you than pot...

Better in what way huh? My granny was a apothecary who administered cannabis to the sick. I dont remember booze on the shelf, though it has great medicinal value too, hence monks brewing grog. And in other parts of the world, religions using weed, all sorts of ethnobotanicals.

And to be totally correct:facepalm: cannabis tincture was the #1 medicine for hundys of years.

The probs in NZ with weed are the same culteral probs with booze, and junk food.

Media, taxation and oligarchy is the tail that wags your dog, and Pavlov really knows how to make you drool, doesn't he?

Good boy for defending your masters, now go chase a stick

Banditbandit

6th July 2011, 09:36

Kronic doesn't have THC in it... that law doesn't apply?

No it probably doesn't - but Peter Dunne is about to change all that ..

Banditbandit

6th July 2011, 09:38

You barely have to keep in touch with the news to see the effects of people on drugs.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: YES!!!! Hundreds of people in blue uniforms are having a devastating effect on drug crops all over the country ...

Brett

6th July 2011, 11:53

Better in what way huh? My granny was a apothecary who administered cannabis to the sick. I dont remember booze on the shelf, though it has great medicinal value too, hence monks brewing grog. And in other parts of the world, religions using weed, all sorts of ethnobotanicals.

And to be totally correct:facepalm: cannabis tincture was the #1 medicine for hundys of years.

The probs in NZ with weed are the same culteral probs with booze, and junk food.

Media, taxation and oligarchy is the tail that wags your dog, and Pavlov really knows how to make you drool, doesn't he?

Good boy for defending your masters, now go chase a stick

I am not even going to bother going here. Head vs brickwall scenario. You know what? Go smoke yourself stupid.

Paul in NZ

6th July 2011, 12:11

Over a relatively long life lived through periods where booze and drug fads have come and gone I cannot count the number of 'opinions' I've held or more to the point the number of sermons I've sat through on the rights and wrongs of both and how legalising this n that would make everything good...

All said and done NOT ONE of the people who I've personally known who has defined their life with a substance or liquid has ever amounted to anything. I've watched them all fall by the way, crash bikes, wreck marriages and couse hurt and harm all around.

If having the occasional drink (and I do mean occasional) is the only legal way to alter reality it is surely more than enough.

If you have the energy - go solve the worlds REAL problems and stop inventing new ones.

scissorhands

6th July 2011, 12:28

I am not even going to bother going here. Head vs brickwall scenario. You know what? Go smoke yourself stupid.

Have not had weed since Friday night. The last 3 weeks, I wait till after 9pm if I do

But I suppose that sort of thing is unbelievable to you, huh?

All stoners are obnoxious, useless people, huh?

Who's the real anti social here, ruining NZ?

I suppose you believe in an Arian ideal and that gays are sick? Who's attitude is causing the most harm? Why cant you accept others have different ways? You actively make worse for those unfortunates at the bottom of the ladder. Talk about unfair oppression

The problems you see are not authentic to cannabis, booze or junk food...

Guns dont kill people, people kill people.

Trying to help the unfortunate people by taking away cannabis will do nothing for them. They will just turn to state sponsored, more harmful legal substances that are toxic and more damaging to their bodies and society.

The cost to the state for diabetes, heart disease and such, would increase if cannabis was removed from NZ culture

Then you can whine about their booze and junk food addictions ruining our country.

Oral addictions are rampant in NZ, and you ignorant knee jerk statements do little to improve the lot of the neurodiverse and the downtrodden.

Have a heart

onearmedbandit

6th July 2011, 12:35

You barely have to keep in touch with the news to see the effects of people on drugs and/or alcohol.

There, fixed that for you. Alcohol is a legal poison, that taken in moderation can be quite enjoyable. However, when consumed in larger quantities it can cause a number of changes in human behaviour, mostly with a negative result on society. Examples include instances of drunk driving, physical assaults, sexual assaults, theft, damage to property - all issues NZ faces on a daily basis generated from alcohol. Prolonged excessive consumption can lead to obesity, liver failure, mental issues and other ill-effects.

You can argue that drugs are bad for society all day long, and I'd mostly agree with you, but don't for one minute think alcohol isn't one of those drugs.

mashman

6th July 2011, 12:38

Because unfortunately these activities project negative externalities onto other members of society whether you like it or not. You personally may keep it a part of only your life, but many many thousands of people clearly cannot and it rips their lives apart as well as innocent bystanders. You barely have to keep in touch with the news to see the effects of people on drugs.

You're including alcohol in there too I assume?

No it probably doesn't - but Peter Dunne is about to change all that ..

He's gonna put some in :blink:? heh, the guy outlined the problem on TV the other night. Because these drugs are synthetic, the manufacturer can change 1 component and the whole stop this stop that falls apart... they should just bite the bullet and legalise Cannabis... t'would help solve a whole raft of problems in one hit (pun intentded)... at least they can test for THC (not easily granted... but we didn't always have breathalisers)

If you have the energy - go solve the worlds REAL problems and stop inventing new ones.

Got the energy, just need the $$$ :rofl:...

mashman

6th July 2011, 12:40

Trying to help the unfortunate people by taking away cannabis will do nothing for them. They will just turn to state sponsored, more harmful legal substances that are toxic and more damaging to their bodies and society.

Like Champix :shifty:

Brett

6th July 2011, 14:08

Have not had weed since Friday night. The last 3 weeks, I wait till after 9pm if I do

But I suppose that sort of thing is unbelievable to you, huh?

All stoners are obnoxious, useless people, huh?

Who's the real anti social here, ruining NZ?

I suppose you believe in an Arian ideal and that gays are sick? Who's attitude is causing the most harm? Why cant you accept others have different ways? You actively make worse for those unfortunates at the bottom of the ladder. Talk about unfair oppression
t

Wow...you are inferring a hell of a lot from one post. You know absolutely nothing about me other than that I am not pro-legalisation of weed and yet you make the comments above re: Arian views and anti-homosexuality? Pull your head out of your arse.

I never said any of the shit you seem to be telling me that I did. I never said that stoners are "obnoxious useless people". I simply believe that drugs create problems that outweigh any benefit that they may bring.

Brett

6th July 2011, 14:09

There, fixed that for you. Alcohol is a legal poison, that taken in moderation can be quite enjoyable. However, when consumed in larger quantities it can cause a number of changes in human behaviour, mostly with a negative result on society. Examples include instances of drunk driving, physical assaults, sexual assaults, theft, damage to property - all issues NZ faces on a daily basis generated from alcohol. Prolonged excessive consumption can lead to obesity, liver failure, mental issues and other ill-effects.

You can argue that drugs are bad for society all day long, and I'd mostly agree with you, but don't for one minute think alcohol isn't one of those drugs.

I agree with 100% of what you have posted. First post was badly worded in respect to alcohol.

scissorhands

7th July 2011, 09:46

I simply believe that drugs create problems that outweigh any benefit that they may bring.

Alcohol much?

That could be said about politicians too, or hyperpowerful sports bikes if you want to get really zen. Surfing, rugby, pet ownership, wanking online.

We all still do it, unless your a idealistic fundamentalist weaner and live in a bullshit lined ivory tower

And......prohibition? Does prohibition create more problems than benefits?

Educate the masses and save NZ fucking billions per year.

Check the expiry date on your Victorian prudishness...........

'Dame Judi Dench, Sir Richard Branson, and Sting have joined an ex-drugs minister and three former chief constables in calling for the decriminalisation of the possession of all drugs.

The high-profile celebrities together with leading lawyers, academics, artists and politicians have signed an open letter to David Cameron to mark this week's 40th anniversary of the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act. The letter, published in a full-page advertisement in Thursday's Guardian, calls for a "swift and transparent" review of the effectiveness of current drugs policies.

Its signatories say that all the past 40 years has produced is a rapid growth in illicit drug use in Britain, and significant harm caused by the application of the criminal law to the personal use and possession of all drugs.'

Tomorrow a report from a group of world leaders that includes former UN secretary general Kofi Annan, former U.S. secretary of state George Shultz, and former U.S. Fed chairman Paul Volcker will call for an end to the war on drugs and for a move toward legalization and regulation.

The Weekly was told Virgin’s Richard Branson, former Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardoso, former Swiss President Ruth Dreifuss, and former Columbian President César Gaviria would be on-hand in New York for the report’s unveiling.

According to a statement from Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) the report calls the war on drugs “a failure” and encourages “nations to pursue legalizing and regulating drugs as a way to put a stop the the violence inherent in the illegal drug market.”

ducatilover

7th July 2011, 12:54

All said and done NOT ONE of the people who I've personally known who has defined their life with a substance or liquid has ever amounted to anything. I've watched them all fall by the way, crash bikes, wreck marriages and couse hurt and harm all around.

This is one of the problems, the chronic users. I know a few people who smoke in moderation and have successful careers and are not "drug fucked" as per se. On the other side of the fence, I know many who are chronic smokers, they are screwed. Quite a few of them are thieves also (Whether or not that's related to the pot I cannot say) and all of the chronic users I know suffer from paranoia and some tasty schizophrenia-esque traits (I'm aware of these being a mental health caregiver and psych student blah blah)
So the question changes to; if we legalise it, how will we market/moderate it? And I still haven't heard and answer to why it should be legalised in the first place? I have seen many ill effects stem from marijuana use, the link to schizophrenia is a worry and because of a genetic predisposition to mental health disorders, namely depression and schizophrenia I will not smoke it, chances are, it will trigger something...
So, like alcohol and cigarettes, it IS a harmful substance. Not all the time, but, nor are cigarettes.... I can smoke cigarettes in private and not harm anyone except for myself and continue to try make myself a career in something useful, if I smoked pot, that wouldn't happen, same goes for alcoholism.

mashman

7th July 2011, 13:32

There was a doco on recently where a UK study using rats (no not politicians) where given cannabis at various stages of their development. Essentially too much too early on in the development of the rat left it more prone to psychological problems in later life... personally, i'm pretty content being fucked in the heed

ducatilover

7th July 2011, 13:39

personally, i'm pretty content being fucked in the heed

Me too, why make myself slower when I can be a mad dribbling fucker who can speak properly?

scissorhands

7th July 2011, 13:45

Quite a few of them are thieves also (Whether or not that's related to the pot I cannot say) and all of the chronic users I know suffer from paranoia and some tasty schizophrenia-esque traits (I'm aware of these being a mental health caregiver and psych student blah blah)

the link to schizophrenia is a worry and because of a genetic predisposition to mental health disorders, namely depression and schizophrenia I will not smoke it, chances are

continue to try make myself a career in something useful, if I smoked pot, that wouldn't happen, same goes for alcoholism.

Schizophrenia rates have remained stable since the 60's, cannabis use has sky-rocketed. Fail

Your career and cannabis would only clash if you are an abusive addict, or because of prohibition and your boss. Both can be easily changed. Get a boss who likes a puff!

When I lived amongst cannabis legalization areas in Sumatra, Thailand, Tahiti and parts of Australia, the vibe and everything, is just the same as with drinking.

All of your valid points can be attributed to alcohol, junk food, excessive wanking, and riding Hondas

Most of my old friends who are moderate users at parties/surfing/weekends, never steal, are on benefits, poor characters, never.

Most of the weed activists I know are neurodiverse use medicinally/daily for depression, anxiety etc and are trying to change an unfair law. I dont know any thief's there either. Their myriad psychological expressions would be there, weed or no weed...........

Most of the stoners on the bottom rungs of societies wonderful ladder, that do steal, are ratbags, etc etc etc..........they would be ratbags, weed or no weed

Fail

Banditbandit

7th July 2011, 13:46

ducatilover

7th July 2011, 13:53

Schizophrenia rates have remained stable since the 60's, cannabis use has sky-rocketed. Fail

Your career and cannabis would only clash if you are an abusive addict, or because of prohibition and your boss. Both can be easily changed. Get a boss who likes a puff!

When I lived amongst cannabis legalization areas in Sumatra, Thailand, Tahiti and parts of Australia, the vibe and everything, is just the same as with drinking.

All of your valid points can be attributed to alcohol, junk food, excessive wanking, and riding Hondas
Those "rates" mean nothing, they are like the domestic violence rates.
There can be an issue where marijuana smokers end up with schizophrenia due to the genetic predisposition to it, the marijuana triggers it, like my mother for instance, she's fucked now.
I am not saying it happens to all people, that would be bull shit and naive, but, it can and does happen to people and the majority of them are unaware of what can happen. Just like ecstasy and first time user deaths, plenty of them happening.

I just want to know, if it is to be legalised, how is it going to be distributed and what positive effects will it have on society? I'd like to hear from users and non users too. Not just users because that's biased, just like me saying cigarettes and motorbikes should stay legal.

Edit; I recovered form Hondas, not wanking yet.

scissorhands

7th July 2011, 14:12

like my mother for instance, she's fucked now.

I just want to know, if it is to be legalised, how is it going to be distributed and what positive effects will it have on society? I'd like to hear from users and non users too. Not just users because that's biased, just like me saying cigarettes and motorbikes should stay legal.

Lots of legal things will fuck you quicker and better than cannabis.

Try poisoning your liver on excessive grog, chips and pizza. Add magic mushrooms, acid, P, cleaning chemical exposure, petrochemical exposure, diesel fuel........ aaargh fuck it........ I'm not here to be a lion tamer with a whip and a chair.....

Plenty of fucked up people who never came near weed. Plenty of people who have, with no mental health issues whatsoever.

In fact, cannabis has a protective effect on your health in the troubled modern world. Same as a couple of nice stouts every now and then

Hops(beer) and cannabis have a similar effect on humans, and are related plants that can be grafted.

ducatilover

7th July 2011, 14:20

Lots of legal things will fuck you quicker and better than cannabis.

Try poisoning your liver on excessive grog, chips and pizza. Add magic mushrooms, acid, P, cleaning chemical exposure, petrochemical exposure, diesel fuel........ aaargh fuck it........ I'm not here to be a lion tamer with a whip and a chair.....

Plenty of fucked up people who never came near weed. Plenty of people who have, with no mental health issues whatsoever.

In fact, cannabis has a protective effect on your health in the troubled modern world. Same as a couple of nice stouts every now and then

Hops(beer) and cannabis have a similar effect on humans, and are related plants that can be grafted.
These are not reasons to legalise it, are you able to supply a peer reviewed article or report on the benefits of marijuana? I'd like to read one. I am not here to argue that other legal things can fuck you up, that stupid inhalant "rush" for example and of course alcohol is just as bad, if not worse in some cases.
I'm not going to compare it, that's boring, I want valid reasons for legalising it :yes: I'm not exactly for, or, against it either.
I personally think there's no problem with Bob and Betty having a puff in their home, but, I also think better education will have to be provided if it is legalised.

oneofsix

7th July 2011, 14:33

These are not reasons to legalise it, are you able to supply a peer reviewed article or report on the benefits of marijuana? I'd like to read one. I am not here to argue that other legal things can fuck you up, that stupid inhalant "rush" for example and of course alcohol is just as bad, if not worse in some cases.
I'm not going to compare it, that's boring, I want valid reasons for legalising it :yes: I'm not exactly for, or, against it either.
I personally think there's no problem with Bob and Betty having a puff in their home, but, I also think better education will have to be provided if it is legalised.

No fact just opinion here. First I will declare I am a non-user, I think you are a fuktard if you are a user.
I think legalizing it should be investigated. It's benefits haven't been fully explored because it was so heavily outlawed in the first place. One of the reasons it was heavily outlawed, to the extent that it wasn't even researched medicinally is because the cotton growers were afraid of it. It was only mid-last century it was outlawed. If legalized education, research, regulation, and taxation can all be used. Police resources can be reused, actually that is a worry as govt. is likely to see an excuse for reduction in resources - bugger.
Police the users who are out of self control because of the stuff not Bert and Betty. Users should only be allowed to use in environment where non-users will NOT be affected, home use or special smoke houses.

scissorhands

7th July 2011, 14:38

ducatilover

7th July 2011, 14:45

No fact just opinion here. First I will declare I am a non-user, I think you are a fuktard if you are a user.
I think legalizing it should be investigated. It's benefits haven't been fully explored because it was so heavily outlawed in the first place. One of the reasons it was heavily outlawed, to the extent that it wasn't even researched medicinally is because the cotton growers were afraid of it. It was only mid-last century it was outlawed. If legalized education, research, regulation, and taxation can all be used. Police resources can be reused, actually that is a worry as govt. is likely to see an excuse for reduction in resources - bugger.
Police the users who are out of self control because of the stuff not Bert and Betty. Users should only be allowed to use in environment where non-users will NOT be affected, home use or special smoke houses. :yes: I can agree with you on all points there.

sorry I dont have time to spend convincing you sorry

this link has many studies

https://www.greenpassion.org/index.php?/topic/13003-granny-storm-crows-mmj-reference-list-jan2010/

Some very interesting reading there, thank you, will be going through that for a while.

Usarka

7th July 2011, 16:06

Some very interesting reading there, thank you, will be going through that for a while.

It'll take me a while too. I'm soooo stoned right now.

ducatilover

7th July 2011, 16:21

It'll take me a while too. I'm soooo stoned right now.

Got any decent munchies?

Usarka

7th July 2011, 16:28

Got any decent munchies?

Bag of doritos!

Banditbandit

7th July 2011, 16:34

Bag of doritos!

Shit maaan .. yer spellinks pretty damm hot for an out of it stoner ...

ducatilover

7th July 2011, 16:46

I could do some doritos. Who needs weed when you're high on being fuckin' awesome? :rockon:

mashman

7th July 2011, 17:22

I just want to know, if it is to be legalised, how is it going to be distributed and what positive effects will it have on society? I'd like to hear from users and non users too. Not just users because that's biased, just like me saying cigarettes and motorbikes should stay legal.

It'll save money and generate money at the same time, through saving Police time and effort chasing down cannabis growers, court time by not having prosecute anyone growing the stuff, jail costs by having less inmates etc... Where "criminals" can sell weed tax free to fund whatever, they could become the producers and earn an "honest" living. Then there's the Tourism revenues. There are likely all sorts of other benefits... and if it makes life better for you guys... I'm more than happy to smoke myself into a vegetative state :) to fund your charitable contribution breaks :)

The legal highs already generate billions in revenue (global according to the news)... what's the problem with cannabis? a product that does exactly the same thing?

A few positives???

ducatilover

7th July 2011, 17:51

It'll save money and generate money at the same time, through saving Police time and effort chasing down cannabis growers, court time by not having prosecute anyone growing the stuff, jail costs by having less inmates etc... Where "criminals" can sell weed tax free to fund whatever, they could become the producers and earn an "honest" living. Then there's the Tourism revenues. There are likely all sorts of other benefits... and if it makes life better for you guys... I'm more than happy to smoke myself into a vegetative state :) to fund your charitable contribution breaks :)

The legal highs already generate billions in revenue (global according to the news)... what's the problem with cannabis? a product that does exactly the same thing?

A few positives???

Well put and some good points.
From an economic point of view it could well be made to profit the gubbermint.
Another interesting thing to bring up is some of these legal highs that I could go purchase in town are going to be worse for me that marijuana (disregarding the genetic predisposition to be raped by it mentally)

scumdog

7th July 2011, 18:51

We've got alcohol and tobacco - and both are trouble, ban them.

So why legalise some other potentially troublesome product too?

Oh, and while pot allegedly makes people behave in a more more benign manner than alcohol does, in my experience a shitload of stoners are also piss-heads - and of a disposition that has a propensity to cause trouble.:yes:

mashman

7th July 2011, 23:59

Well put and some good points.
From an economic point of view it could well be made to profit the gubbermint.
Another interesting thing to bring up is some of these legal highs that I could go purchase in town are going to be worse for me that marijuana (disregarding the genetic predisposition to be raped by it mentally)

They're bright people? Where's the problem? it'll keep the legal high revenues from leaving NZ too... might even come with one of them Made in NZ stickers :)

True... their was the recent problem with legal highs containing bad bad ingredients. You could argue that the same could be done with cannabis. Although I'd hope that govt "controls" would prevent that from happening... meh...

We've got alcohol and tobacco - and both are trouble, ban them.

So why legalise some other potentially troublesome product too?

Oh, and while pot allegedly makes people behave in a more more benign manner than alcohol does, in my experience a shitload of stoners are also piss-heads - and of a disposition that has a propensity to cause trouble.

heh... we've got nuclear weapons, war and famine... can we ban them too? (not self inflicted)

:blink:

As scissorhands put it earlier. There are plenty of "fuckwits" out there that aren't "drugged" up? "Drugs" amplify it? The results of making cannabis legal in NZ cannot be determined. Best guesses the lot of 'em (mine included :yes:). Cannabis is already out there and has been used for millenia... why not suck it and see and make a few $$$ along the way? As mentioned by another, education will go a long way towards "helping".

Banditbandit

8th July 2011, 09:53

I am not in favour of legalizing the sale of cannabis ...

I am in favour of legalizing the growth and possession ... if people could grow a smal number of plants for their own use the illegal trade would dry up .. and the crims would lose a source of income ... and the petty crime associated with people trying to get money to purchase cannabis on the black market would also drop away ...

Legalize growth and possession but keep the sale of it illegal.

bogan

8th July 2011, 11:37

It'll save money and generate money at the same time, through saving Police time and effort chasing down cannabis growers, court time by not having prosecute anyone growing the stuff, jail costs by having less inmates etc... Where "criminals" can sell weed tax free to fund whatever, they could become the producers and earn an "honest" living. Then there's the Tourism revenues. There are likely all sorts of other benefits... and if it makes life better for you guys... I'm more than happy to smoke myself into a vegetative state :) to fund your charitable contribution breaks :)

The legal highs already generate billions in revenue (global according to the news)... what's the problem with cannabis? a product that does exactly the same thing?

A few positives???

Police would still need to chase down unregistered/untaxed growers, otherwise what would stop people from doing that? More investigation would be needed in many cases as now it's easy to tell who's doing illegal shit, but if some is legal and some is not, it gets a bit more difficult.

This article actually has some well thought out arguments. (http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-pro-marijuana-arguments-that-arent-helping/)

We've got alcohol and tobacco - and both are trouble, ban them.

So why legalise some other potentially troublesome product too?

Exactly, each argument for/against the substances should stand on it's own merits/detriments. Just because some things are as bad or worse in some aspects, it doesn't mean everything that is 'better' should be legalised!