Drugs and the Government

[Dragula219]

Re: Drugs and the Government

With that said, one of the major reasons in my opinion that Marijuana, Shrooms, and other natural drugs (Notice I said "natural", as in not coke, methanol, etc...) are so "bad" for our people is that the government makes it so.

I first want to point out that this a completely illogical argument. By this you are saying that quote "Un-Natural" Drugs are as bad as the government makes them out to be. Now, I'm not saying I don't agree with you, but I am saying you don't really know what a drug is. It's not marijuana or shrooms as a whole that that get you high, it is the chemical(s) inside them (Delta-9 THC and Psilocybin being the main chemicals, along with other ones that have a small affect on brain function.) Also, you seem not to know much about Cocaine either, or else you would know that pure cocaine is 100% natural, it is derived from the coca plant being ground in many different steps. By methanol, I'm pretty sure you meant Methamphetamine.

My point is, you can't say a drug is necessarily "better" because it is natural. It has nothing to do with how dangerous the chemicals inside them are. There are many natural plants that can kill you more quickly than 2C-I or other synthesized chemicals could kill you.

Wrong. I repeat what I said: more out of a shipment. Of course a dealer will be charging more, which is how they get the most out of a shipment. If they charged the same amount for a more potent shipment, then they wouldn't need to make it more potent.

Even though I do agree with you (to an extent), you're still missing the other main idea of drug dealing. I agree with you for higher ups in drug dealing, If A shipment comes in that is higher quality than normal than of course the buyer will be expected to pay more. But when you get down to lower amounts for common drugs, the main benefit to having higher quality product is not to make more money, because you could easily get lower quality product for less money and still sell it just fine. No, it is because customers want to get as high as they can for the money the spend and If they are completely satisfied with the transaction, they tell other people, Many people start coming to you. Better product = Less competitors, Less competitors = More customers, More customers = More deals more often. Drug Dealing is a lot more about the Time to Profit ratio than about the profit.

There is one fundamental reason why marijuana will almost certainly remain illegal in the United States in perpetuity. I won't spoil it just yet, I'm sure you guys can come up with it on your own.

I'll give you a hint, it has nothing to do with tobacco companies, or the moral rightness/wrongness of marijuana, nor does it have anything to do with the percieved or actual consequences or after-effects of marijuana smoking.

You're right, it has a lot more to do with the fact marijuana can make a higher quality paper than trees, an acre of marijuana plants produces more paper than an acre of trees with less waste, and the best part is you can grow another crop in months as apposed to years. Hemp can also create a very high quality fabric that's comfortable and much more durable than cotton. One pot plant can also produce an extremely high amount cellulose (Due to the fibers in the stems) to make more methanol (an alternative to gasoline for fuel). And again, best part is you can keep growing it, almost a new crop every quarter, as opposed to using up all our non-renewable resoruces.

No, Marijuana Being illegal has little to nothing to do with "morals" or being bad, It's all about businesses and economy. Could you imagine everyone in Lumber/Paper, Oil, and Textile (and some other fields) companies being suddenly unemployed due to the legalization of a plant?

[Atman]

Re: Drugs and the Government

BUT, the whole reason of legalizing it would be to make it easier for those people who have trouble obtaining the product. All those people in jail for ONLY using or in possession of, those slots would be free. I think the government wouldn't be obligated to WASTE so much money on keeping this substance off the streets, out of the homes. Personal opinion right there.

I would love to see Marijuana advertising companies pop up in magazines and billboards. Spliff-easy Ciggaweed, a 60 40 blend that will send you flying. But really guys, you ever see the great government produced "Reefer Madness" PSA/show?.. ,not remembering exactly what it was, but it showed people smoking marijuana then while "high" killing loved ones and all around being cranky.

About legalization though, I'm not sure what reason your thinking would be the gov's reasoning behind not legalizing it, but i wouldn't want it to be anyway. As an avid "stoner" I have a relatively easy and safe passage whenever I feel like making a purchase. I know exactly where my product is coming from half of the time and its usually good quality.... I would hate to lose the experience of hanging out with friends (who would happen to be dealers) and smoking the plant I've seen grow from seedling form. Which is what I think would happen if it became Legal. The common Citizen loses the right to grow, whatever company does its patents blah blah and has the R.J.Reynolds of Pot. I know the prices would be a great increase and the strains used for most would degrade.

Well I don't remember where I was planning on going with this but ill leave you with a main point I guess. I love the drug community (around where I live anyway) and I sort of take pride in how my friends and I are part of this business/family tree ladder of runners and dealers... its a great company to get into... though its not for everyone. Theres plenty of things wrong and dangerous about the drug in certain situations, but its a lot less frightening than Alcohol.

[lord_carbo]

Re: Drugs and the Government

(Mostly a response to devonin's post, also to an extent Dragula's)

So...you're saying that making something illegal makes it more potent on the grounds that "If I'm breaking the law, I might as well break it as much as possible"?! I'm not entirely sure I buy that. In the example, if beer was 2.00 and whiskey was 5.00, and the fine for drinking alcohol was 5.00, they seem to be saying "In that situation, its as though beer became -more- more expensive than the whiskey did, so people who previously drank beer will drink whiskey"

Their example uses prohibition, making all alcohol illegal, as being the equivalent of a tax being put equally on all alcohol. Nowhere I've looked still has exact statistics or listed penalties available, but I find it hard to believe that the punishment for prohibition was identical for making/selling/drinking 0.5% beer as it was for making/selling/drinkin 75% moonshine you made in a still out back.

I too doubt identical, but very close. A felony is a felony. If I were caught with marijuana as opposed to heroin, I'd probably get less of a sentence but I'd still have a huge mark on my criminal record.

But believe what you may, it is true. what? Gonna try smuggling a kilogram of marijuana, or 500 grams with ten times the potency? If you sell by potency, you're getting the same amount and one is tons easier to smuggle. Here, this article says even more about the issue:

http://www.marijuananews.com/marijua...crack_by_r.htm

The article also talks about the demand perspective as the second reason, i.e. the consumers. Rather, the trend in who would be a consumer given its regulation. This more or less affects the types of drugs sold, not as much the single drug's potency levels. With really strict control and laws against them (to the point where it's unjust), marijuana sale and distribution would be damn near nonexistent. So in a sense, Izzy's reason (minus the details) was not entirely incorrect.

But either way, you are not trying to sell more potent drugs because people want to buy a drug that's more potent because there are dealer wars and people want to buy from the dealer who sells the most potent drugs. This may happen frequently but it is not the main reason, else we'd see this same trend dominant in the alcohol market today (potent alcohol exists, yes, but it is not mainly sold). Remember, general liquor potency increased during Prohibition and fell again when it ended. That goes undisputed.

I'd really like to hear from some sources for what you believe, though. Your viewpoint still seems vague to me.

[TK_Breed]

Re: Drugs and the Government

See, here's the thing though...if the government were to legalize marijuana and try to tax it, they would absolutely -NOT- make a ton of money from it.

The kind of cigarettes most people are addicted to take a -lot- of processing between "A tobacco plant" and "A cigarette"

Alcohol that is any good requires a long time, and special facilities to make.

We have a vested interest in letting the government tax cigarettes and alcohol because the extra cost doesn't come close to outweighing the time and expense involved in manufacturing it ourselves.

Now look at pot. There's really just about -one- step between a plant and a joint, and that one step is easy, involves no special machinery and very little time. You see where I'm going with this?

People are already growing pot on their own, in their basements, and back gardens, and processing it themselves. All legalizing it would do is make it that much cheaper and easier to grow and use your own. The government would derive -very- little revenue from it, because very few people would have an incentive to buy it through government systems when they could just grow their own.

You are ever so wrong my friend. Making a cigarette is only hard to do in the manner that companies do it. A REAL cigarette is dried tobacco leaf crumbled up and wrapped in either a tobacco leaf or any paper(which is the same process of a joint). now take into consideration how many people want to grow there own tobacco. tobacco is even easier to grow then marijuana and yet nearly nobody does it because going to the local store to buy your smokes is massively easier then growing yourself. now to get to my point, nobody would want to go through the extreme effort of growing cannabis which needs a precise environment and constant care, especially for marijuana and would MUCH rather just drive down the road, spend 5 minutes and 5 bucks to get themselves 20 precisely rolled joints packaged up nice and cute.


Secondly, and more importantly, the government would benefit greatly from this for so many reasons i could not list them all off of the top of my head here and now. Marijuana is for smoking, so when purely talking about marijuana the benefits are just for taxes and new business, but the cannabis plant would revolutionize the material making world. better clothing, better paper material, more oxygen apparently as claimed by someone earlier, better medicine, more food, alternate energy sources, and for America, many more tourists.



I am addressing these lightly now, but could get heavily into it. my word of advice is do some research or at least a little bit of thinking before you post.

[TK_Breed]

Re: Drugs and the Government

I first want to point out that this a completely illogical argument. By this you are saying that quote "Un-Natural" Drugs are as bad as the government makes them out to be. Now, I'm not saying I don't agree with you, but I am saying you don't really know what a drug is. It's not marijuana or shrooms as a whole that that get you high, it is the chemical(s) inside them (Delta-9 THC and Psilocybin being the main chemicals, along with other ones that have a small affect on brain function.) Also, you seem not to know much about Cocaine either, or else you would know that pure cocaine is 100% natural, it is derived from the coca plant being ground in many different steps. By methanol, I'm pretty sure you meant Methamphetamine.

My point is, you can't say a drug is necessarily "better" because it is natural. It has nothing to do with how dangerous the chemicals inside them are. There are many natural plants that can kill you more quickly than 2C-I or other synthesized chemicals could kill you.

tell me how THC harms the human body? because it doesnt, before you attack someone else on a subject, the thc enters the bloodstream and exits through your pee, not taking anything with it. the only reason you loose brain cells is because your not exercising your mind because you are so relaxed by the release of the serotonin. to add on to that you are constantly losing brain cells anyways and the only reason you get smarter is by connecting synapses in your brain, and when you are high you lose them the same way but the synapses are less likely to be connected and so you appear to be getting dumber.

*edit* your point is correct though

[devonin]

Re: Drugs and the Government

Well here's one: http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...648629,00.html

The study by New Zealand's Medical Research Institute found that longtime pot smokers can develop symptoms of asthma and bronchitis, along with obstruction of the large airways and excessive lung inflation. The paper was released Tuesday ahead of its publication in the journal Thorax. "The study shows that one cannabis joint causes a similar degree of lung damage as between 2.5 and five tobacco cigarettes," said lead author Sarah Aldington.

[lord_carbo]

Re: Drugs and the Government

Just to rebut an old statement in the thread, an open letter signed in part by renowned economist Milton Friedman delivers an economic evaluation that says ending the drug war could save $7.7 billion in govt. spending annually. Although Friedman acknowledges that there very well could and probably would be economic benefits, though, he has been quoted for saying that the drug war is much more of a moral battle, and it's possible he signed it for the mere reason of supporting anything that may help end the drug war.

http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/endorsers.html

As a counterpoint, though, I (and Reason Magazine) do agree that the government would not legalize marijuana unless they saw/found financial benefits.

Anyway, a new subject has arisen.

TK_Breed has quoted completely out of context... well, he made a straw man by changing Dragula's wording of "get you high" to "harm." But devonin, please demonstrate how this study concludes that asthma and bronchitis are results of the THC inside of cannabis and not the cannabis itself. Note that his post was in complete reference to the main psychoactive drug found inside the marijuana, THC, not the plant itself.

[jewpinthethird]

Re: Drugs and the Government

Well here's one: http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...648629,00.html

Well, it's kind of a given whenever you smoke something.

[devonin]

Re: Drugs and the Government

Yeah, but their point is that it is one way in which cannibis joints are actually worse than tobacco cigarettes.

[TK_Breed]

Re: Drugs and the Government

Yeah, but their point is that it is one way in which cannibis joints are actually worse than tobacco cigarettes.

some people smoke 40 cigarettes a day, the biggest pot smokers smoke 5 to 8 times a day, that puts an end to that.

TK_Breed has quoted completely out of context... well, he made a straw man by changing Dragula's wording of "get you high" to "harm."

You are right my friend, I jumped to a conclusion too quickly and didnt read carefully enough. The more times i read what dragula put the more and more right it seems.

Well here's one: http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...648629,00.html

its not what gets you high that ruins your lungs. that why people should be more aware of vaporizers which eliminate almost all the harmful substances leaving you with a nice thc vapor, hence the phrase vaporizer. smoke is bad for you no matter what the substance or type of smoke, that is proven and should never be argued.

[Coolgamer]

Re: Drugs and the Government

A low amount of teenagers in the Netherlands smoke pot, even though it is legal. They have tried it, but don't indulge, because the thrill a lot of people get from it is that they are doing something "bad". I support legalized grass, and E with tight controls.

[Chrissi]

Re: Drugs and the Government

And for alcohol and such, yeah, I don't know why. Most minors believe all the myths people say about beer, like it'll make you feel good and crap. Well, it don't.

No, alcohol can certainly make you feel good.

The effect of alcohol is a narrowsightedness; whatever's in front of you is what you think about. Alcohol blunts your attention so that you find it hard to seriously think about things that aren't actually happening.

So basically, if you're at a party where things are going well, alcohol will definitely make you feel better. However, if you're depressed and you sit at home and drink by yourself with nothing to distract you, alcohol will definitely make you feel worse.

[Parsnips]

Re: Drugs and the Government

No, alcohol can certainly make you feel good.

The effect of alcohol is a narrowsightedness; whatever's in front of you is what you think about. Alcohol blunts your attention so that you find it hard to seriously think about things that aren't actually happening.

So basically, if you're at a party where things are going well, alcohol will definitely make you feel better. However, if you're depressed and you sit at home and drink by yourself with nothing to distract you, alcohol will definitely make you feel worse.

Lies. I'm sorry but I cannot stand this anymore. Someone has to stand up for my dear friend.

Beer is made from tears of joy wept from rainbow unicorns, and if I sit by myself, drink and do nothing, I will have a blissed out smile on my face. It is true that if you drink too MUCH, you can get emotional and loser-drunk; many young teens with low tolerance reach this zone and I figure that's where solopro is coming from, but you. I expect better.

Wikipedia: "...alcohol generally produces feelings of relaxation and cheerfulness..."

Benjamin Franklin: "Beer is proof God loves us and wants us to be happy."

Also, sometimes I hear people saying that alcohol is a depressant, in an attempt to further prove the sort of idea you had, that alcohol doesn't make you happy. The word depressant is used to specify what it does to the body; stimulants make your heart beat faster, depressants slow down your breathing. It does NOT classify the emotional affects. Just thought to clear that up beforehand if it comes up.

[Coolgamer]

Re: Drugs and the Government

According to the prestigious European medical journal, The Lancet, "The smoking of cannabis, even long-term, is not harmful to health. ... It would be reasonable to judge cannabis as less of a threat ... than alcohol or tobacco."

Around 50,000 people die each year from alcohol poisoning. Similarly, more than 400,000 deaths each year are attributed to tobacco smoking. By comparison, marijuana is nontoxic and cannot cause death by overdose.

Enforcing marijuana prohibition costs taxpayers an estimated $10 billion annually and results in the arrest of more than 786,000 individuals per year -- far more than the total number of arrestees for all violent crimes combined, including murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault.

In 1972, a Congressionally created commission called the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, whose members were appointed by then-President Richard Nixon, completed one of the most comprehensive reviews ever undertaken regarding marijuana and public policy. Their report, "Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding," proclaimed that "from what is now known about the effects of marihuana, its use at the present level does not constitute a major threat to public health," and recommended Congress and state legislatures decriminalize the use and casual distribution of marijuana for personal use.

Since then, researchers have conducted thousands of studies regarding marijuana’s health impacts. None of these have revealed any findings dramatically different from those described by Nixon’s 1972 Commission.

[Coolgamer]

Re: Drugs and the Government

Myth: Marijuana's Harms Have Been Proved Scientifically. In the 1960s and 1970s, many people believed that marijuana was harmless. Today we know that marijuana is much more dangerous than previously believed.

Fact: In 1972, after reviewing the scientific evidence, the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse concluded that while marijuana was not entirely safe, its dangers had been grossly overstated. Since then, researchers have conducted thousands of studies of humans, animals, and cell cultures. None reveal any findings dramatically different from those described by the National Commission in 1972. In 1995, based on thirty years of scientific research editors of the British medical journal Lancet concluded that "the smoking of cannabis, even long term, is not harmful to health."

Myth: Marijuana Has No Medicinal Value. Safer, more effective drugs are available. They include a synthetic version of THC, marijuana's primary active ingredient, which is marketed in the United States under the name Marinol.

Fact: Marijuana has been shown to be effective in reducing the nausea induced by cancer chemotherapy, stimulating appetite in AIDS patients, and reducing intraocular pressure in people with glaucoma. There is also appreciable evidence that marijuana reduces muscle spasticity in patients with neurological disorders. A synthetic capsule is available by prescription, but it is not as effective as smoked marijuana for many patients. Pure THC may also produce more unpleasant psychoactive side effects than smoked marijuana. Many people use marijuana as a medicine today, despite its illegality. In doing so, they risk arrest and imprisonment.

Myth: Marijuana is Highly Addictive. Long term marijuana users experience physical dependence and withdrawal, and often need professional drug treatment to break their marijuana habits.

Fact: Most people who smoke marijuana smoke it only occasionally. A small minority of Americans - less than 1 percent - smoke marijuana on a daily basis. An even smaller minority develop a dependence on marijuana. Some people who smoke marijuana heavily and frequently stop without difficulty. Others seek help from drug treatment professionals. Marijuana does not cause physical dependence. If people experience withdrawal symptoms at all, they are remarkably mild.

Myth: Marijuana is a Gateway Drug. Even if marijuana itself causes minimal harm, it is a dangerous substance because it leads to the use of "harder drugs" like heroin, LSD, and cocaine.

Fact: Marijuana does not cause people to use hard drugs. What the gateway theory presents as a causal explanation is a statistic association between common and uncommon drugs, an association that changes over time as different drugs increase and decrease in prevalence. Marijuana is the most popular illegal drug in the United States today. Therefore, people who have used less popular drugs such as heroin, cocaine, and LSD, are likely to have also used marijuana. Most marijuana users never use any other illegal drug. Indeed, for the large majority of people, marijuana is a terminus rather than a gateway drug.

Myth: Marijuana Offenses Are Not Severely Punished. Few marijuana law violators are arrested and hardly anyone goes to prison. This lenient treatment is responsible for marijuana continued availability and use.

Fact: Marijuana arrests in the United States doubled between 1991 and 1995. In 1995, more than one-half-million people were arrested for marijuana offenses. Eighty-six percent of them were arrested for marijuana possession. Tens of thousands of people are now in prison or marijuana offenses. An even greater number are punished with probation, fines, and civil sanctions, including having their property seized, their driver's license revoked, and their employment terminated. Despite these civil and criminal sanctions, marijuana continues to be readily available and widely used.

Myth: Marijuana Policy in the Netherlands is a Failure. Dutch law, which allows marijuana to be bought, sold, and used openly, has resulted in increasing rates of marijuana use, particularly in youth.

Fact: The Netherlands' drug policy is the most nonpunitive in Europe. For more than twenty years, Dutch citizens over age eighteen have been permitted to buy and use cannabis (marijuana and hashish) in government-regulated coffee shops. This policy has not resulted in dramatically escalating cannabis use. For most age groups, rates of marijuana use in the Netherlands are similar to those in the United States. However, for young adolescents, rates of marijuana use are lower in the Netherlands than in the United States. The Dutch people overwhelmingly approve of current cannabis policy which seeks to normalize rather than dramatize cannabis use. The Dutch government occasionally revises existing policy, but it remains committed to decriminalization.

Myth: Marijuana Kills Brain Cells. Used over time, marijuana permanently alters brain structure and function, causing memory loss, cognitive impairment, personality deterioration, and reduced productivity.

Fact: None of the medical tests currently used to detect brain damage in humans have found harm from marijuana, even from long term high-dose use. An early study reported brain damage in rhesus monkeys after six months exposure to high concentrations of marijuana smoke. In a recent, more carefully conducted study, researchers found no evidence of brain abnormality in monkeys that were forced to inhale the equivalent of four to five marijuana cigarettes every day for a year. The claim that marijuana kills brain cells is based on a speculative report dating back a quarter of a century that has never been supported by any scientific study.

Myth: Marijuana Causes an Amotivational Syndrome. Marijuana makes users passive, apathetic, and uninterested in the future. Students who use marijuana become underachievers and workers who use marijuana become unproductive.

Fact: For twenty-five years, researchers have searched for a marijuana-induced amotivational syndrome and have failed to find it. People who are intoxicated constantly, regardless of the drug, are unlikely to be productive members of society. There is nothing about marijuana specifically that causes people to lose their drive and ambition. In laboratory studies, subjects given high doses of marijuana for several days or even several weeks exhibit no decrease in work motivation or productivity. Among working adults, marijuana users tend to earn higher wages than non-users. College students who use marijuana have the same grades as nonusers. Among high school students, heavy use is associated with school failure, but school failure usually comes first.

Myth: Marijuana Impairs Memory and Cognition. Under the influence of marijuana, people are unable to think rationally and intelligently. Chronic marijuana use causes permanent mental impairment.

Fact: Marijuana produces immediate, temporary changes in thoughts, perceptions, and information processing. The cognitive process most clearly affected by marijuana is short-term memory. In laboratory studies, subjects under the influence of marijuana have no trouble remembering things they learned previously. However, they display diminished capacity to learn and recall new information. This diminishment only lasts for the duration of the intoxication. There is no convincing evidence that heavy long-term marijuana use permanently impairs memory or other cognitive functions.

Myth: Marijuana Can Cause Permanent Mental Illness. Among adolescents, even occasional marijuana use may cause psychological damage. During intoxication, marijuana users become irrational and often behave erratically.

Fact: There is no convincing scientific evidence that marijuana causes psychological damage or mental illness in either teenagers or adults. Some marijuana users experience psychological distress following marijuana ingestion, which may include feelings of panic, anxiety, and paranoia. Such experiences can be frightening, but the effects are temporary. With very large doses, marijuana can cause temporary toxic psychosis. This occurs rarely, and almost always when marijuana is eaten rather than smoked. Marijuana does not cause profound changes in people's behavior.

Myth: Marijuana Causes Crime. Marijuana users commit more property offenses than nonusers. Under the influence of marijuana, people become irrational, aggressive, and violent.

Fact: Every serious scholar and government commission examining the relationship between marijuana use and crime has reached the same conclusion: marijuana does not cause crime. The vast majority of marijuana users do not commit crimes other than the crime of possessing marijuana. Among marijuana users who do commit crimes, marijuana plays no causal role. Almost all human and animal studies show that marijuana decreases rather than increases aggression.

Myth: Marijuana Interferes With Male and Female Sex Hormones. In both men and women, marijuana can cause infertility. Marijuana retards sexual development in adolescents. It produces feminine characteristics in males and masculine characteristics in females.

Fact: There is no evidence that marijuana causes infertility in men or women. In animal studies, high doses of THC diminish the production of some sex hormones and can impair reproduction. However, most studies of humans have found that marijuana has no impact of sex hormones. In those studies showing an impact, it is modest, temporary, and of no apparent consequence for reproduction. There is no scientific evidence that marijuana delays adolescent sexual development, has feminizing effect on males, or a masculinizing effect on females.

Myth: Marijuana Use During Pregnancy Damages the Fetus. Prenatal marijuana exposure causes birth defects in babies, and, as they grow older, developmental problems. The health and well being of the next generation is threatened by marijuana use by pregnant women.

Fact: Studies of newborns, infants, and children show no consistent physical, developmental, or cognitive deficits related to prenatal marijuana exposure. Marijuana had no reliable impact on birth size, length of gestation, neurological development, or the occurrence of physical abnormalities. The administration of hundreds of tests to older children has revealed only minor differences between offspring of marijuana users and nonusers, and some are positive rather than negative. Two unconfirmed case-control studies identified prenatal marijuana exposure as one of many factors statistically associated with childhood cancer. Given other available evidence, it is highly unlikely that marijuana causes cancer in children.

Myth: Marijuana Use Impairs the Immune System. Marijuana users are at increased risk of infection, including HIV. AIDS patients are particularly vulnerable to marijuana's immunopathic effects because their immune systems are already suppressed.

Fact: There is no evidence that marijuana users are more susceptible to infections than nonusers. Nor is there evidence that marijuana lowers users' resistance to sexually transmitted diseases. Early studies which showed decreased immune function in cells taken from marijuana users have since been disproved. Animals given extremely large doses of THC and exposed to a virus have higher rates of infection. Such studies have little relevance to humans. Even among people with existing immune disorders, such as AIDS, marijuana use appears to be relatively safe. However, the recent finding of an association between tobacco smoking and lung infection in AIDS patients warrants further research into possible harm from marijuana smoking in immune suppressed persons.

Myth: Marijuana is More Damaging to the Lungs Than Tobacco. Marijuana smokers are at a high risk of developing lung cancer, bronchitis, and emphysema.

Fact: Moderate smoking of marijuana appears to pose minimal danger to the lungs. Like tobacco smoke, marijuana smoke contains a number of irritants and carcinogens. But marijuana users typically smoke much less often than tobacco smokers, and over time, inhale much less smoke. As a result, the risk of serious lung damage should be lower in marijuana smokers. There have been no reports of lung cancer related solely to marijuana, and in a large study presented to the American Thoracic Society in 2006, even heavy users of smoked marijuana were found not to have any increased risk of lung cancer. Unlike heavy tobacco smokers, heavy marijuana smokers exhibit no obstruction of the lung's small airway. That indicates that people will not develop emphysema from smoking marijuana.

Myth: Marijuana's Active Ingredient, THC, Gets Trapped in Body Fat. Because THC is released from fat cells slowly, psychoactive effects may last for days or weeks following use. THC's long persistence in the body damages organs that are high in fat content, the brain in particular.

Fact: Many active drugs enter the body's fat cells. What is different (but not unique) about THC is that it exits fat cells slowly. As a result, traces of marijuana can be found in the body for days or weeks following ingestion. However, within a few hours of smoking marijuana, the amount of THC in the brain falls below the concentration required for detectable psychoactivity. The fat cells in which THC lingers are not harmed by the drug's presence, nor is the brain or other organs. The most important consequence of marijuana's slow excretion is that it can be detected in blood, urine, and tissue long after it is used, and long after its psychoactivity has ended.

Myth: Marijuana Use is a Major Cause Of Highway Accidents. Like alcohol, marijuana impairs psychomotor function and decreases driving ability. If marijuana use increases, an increase in of traffic fatalities is inevitable.

Fact: There is no compelling evidence that marijuana contributes substantially to traffic accidents and fatalities. At some doses, marijuana affects perception and psychomotor performances- changes which could impair driving ability. However, in driving studies, marijuana produces little or no car-handling impairment- consistently less than produced by low moderate doses of alcohol and many legal medications. In contrast to alcohol, which tends to increase risky driving practices, marijuana tends to make subjects more cautious. Surveys of fatally injured drivers show that when THC is detected in the blood, alcohol is almost always detected as well. For some individuals, marijuana may play a role in bad driving. The overall rate of highway accidents appears not to be significantly affected by marijuana's widespread use in society.

Myth: Marijuana Related Hospital Emergencies Are Increasing, Particularly Among Youth. This is evidence that marijuana is much more harmful than most people previously believed.

Fact: Marijuana does not cause overdose deaths. The number of people in hospital emergency rooms who say they have used marijuana has increased. On this basis, the visit may be recorded as marijuana-related even if marijuana had nothing to do with the medical condition preceding the hospital visit. Many more teenagers use marijuana than use drugs such as heroin and cocaine. As a result, when teenagers visit hospital emergency rooms, they report marijuana much more frequently than they report heroin and cocaine. In the large majority of cases when marijuana is mentioned, other drugs are mentioned as well. In 1994, fewer than 2% of drug related emergency room visits involved the use of marijuana.

Myth: Marijuana Is More Potent Today Than In The Past. Adults who used marijuana in the 1960s and 1970s fail to realize that when today's youth use marijuana they are using a much more dangerous drug.

Fact: When today's youth use marijuana, they are using the same drug used by youth in the 1960s and 1970s. A small number of low-THC sample sized by the Drug Enforcement Administration are used to calculate a dramatic increase in potency. However, these samples were not representative of the marijuana generally available to users during this era. Potency data from the early 1980s to the present are more reliable, and they show no increase in the average THC content of marijuana. Even if marijuana potency were to increase, it would not necessarily make the drug more dangerous. Marijuana that varies quite substantially in potency produces similar psychoactive effects.

Myth: Marijuana Use Can Be Prevented. Drug education and prevention programs reduced marijuana use during the 1980s. Since then, our commitment has slackened, and marijuana use has been rising. By expanding and intensifying current anti-marijuana messages, we can stop youthful experimentation.

Fact: There is no evidence that anti-drug messages diminish young people's interest in drugs. Anti-drug campaigns in the schools and the media may even make drugs more attractive. Marijuana use among youth declined throughout the 1980s, and began increasing in the 1990s. This increase occurred despite young people's exposure to the most massive anti-marijuana campaign in American history. In a number of other countries, drug education programs are based on a "harm reduction" model, which seeks to reduce the drug-related harm among those young people who do experiment with drugs.