SC sheriff may seek charges against Michael Phelps

[iamanmpd]

Originally Posted by Beaver-Cleaver

Yep, you're right. You're perfect. You, sir, are a saint. I bow to your superiority and perfection.

Thank you, I am glad you finally realized that!

[LateApex]

Originally Posted by This_person

Are you really suggesting that the government is lying to you to stop people from smoking a joint? And, after this long of their tactic not working, they keep doing it?

Lying?

Misguided, maybe.

Is the war on drugs working?

Do you still believe that there are/were WMD's?

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I firmly believe that there were other motives involved pertaining to their stance on marijuana use.

[pcjohnnyb]

Originally Posted by LateApex

Lying?

Misguided, maybe.

Is the war on drugs working?

Do you still believe that there are/were WMD's?

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I firmly believe that there were other motives involved pertaining to their stance on marijuana use.

Betcha they can sell more cigarettes (which are actually addictive), which are taxed, if pot isn't legal...

[LateApex]

Originally Posted by This_person

I'm not a doctor.

A government study, and numerous (just Google "addictive properties of THC") independant studies call it mildly addictive - physically and psychologically. So, you have a valid point about the psychological effects, but it appears to be the general conclusion of the medical community that it is also physically addictive, if mildly so for most (85%+) - and strongly for others (10-15%).

When human subjects were administered daily oral doses of 180-210 mg of THC - the equivalent of 15-20 joints per day - abrupt cessation produced adverse symptoms, including disturbed sleep, restlessness, nausea, decreased appetite, and sweating. The authors interpreted these symptoms as evidence of physical dependence. However, they noted the syndrome's relatively mild nature and remained skeptical of its occurrence when marijuana is consumed in usual doses and situations. Indeed, when humans are allowed to control consumption, even high doses are not followed by adverse withdrawal symptoms

You can google things up all day long and in minutes I can find something that refutes what you will find.

[LateApex]

Since 1982, UCLA researchers have evaluated pulmonary function and bronchial cell characteristics in marijuana-only smokers, tobacco-only smokers, smokers of both, and non-smokers. Although they have found changes in marijuana-only smokers, the changes are much less pronounced than those found in tobacco smokers.

The nature of the marijuana-induced changes were also different, occurring primarily in the lung's large airways - not the small peripheral airways affected by tobacco smoke. Since it is small-airway inflammation that causes chronic bronchitis and emphysema, marijuana smokers may not develop these diseases

Myth 2...

[LateApex]

MARIJUANA CAUSES BRAIN DAMAGE

The original basis of this claim was a report that, upon postmortem examinations, structural changes in several brain regions were found in two rhesus monkeys exposed to THC. 51 Because these changes primarily involved the hippocampus, a cortical brain region known to play an important role in learning and memory, this finding suggested possible negative consequences for human marijuana users.

Additional studies, employing rodents, reported similar brain changes.

However, to achieve these results, massive doses of THC - up to 200 times the psychoactive dose in humans - had to be given . In fact, studies employing 100 times the human dose have failed to reveal any damage. 52

In the most recently published study, rhesus monkeys were exposed through face-mask inhalation to the smoke equivalent of four to five joints per day for one year. When sacrificed seven months later, there was no observed alteration of hippocampal architecture, cell size, cell number, or synaptic configuration. The authors conclude:

"while behavioral and neuroendocrinal effects are observed during marijuana smoke exposure in the monkey, residual neuropathological and neurochemical effects of marijuana exposure were not observed seven months after the year-long marijuana smoke regimen." 53

Thus, 20 years after the first report of brain damage in two marijuana-exposed monkeys, the claim of damage to brain cells has been effectively disproven.

No postmortem examinations of the brains of human marijuana users have ever been conducted. However, numerous studies have explored marijuana effect on brain-related cognitive functions. Many employ an experimental design - in which subjects are given marijuana in a laboratory setting, and then compared to controls on a variety of measures involving attention, learning and memory.

In a number of studies, no significant differences were detected. 54 In fact, there is substantial research demonstrating that that marijuana intoxication does not impair the retrieval of information learned previously. 55 However, there is evidence that marijuana, particularly in high doses, may interfere with users' ability to transfer new information into longterm memory. 56

While there is general agreement that, while under the influence of marijuana, learning is less efficient, 57 there is no evidence that marijuana users - even longterm users - suffer permanent impairment. Indeed, numerous studies comparing chronic marijuana users with non-user controls have found no significant differences in learning, memory recall or other cognitive functions. 58

[Pushrod]

Originally Posted by iamanmpd

No moron, I wasn't proving your point. I know that you were never allowed to play sports and probably spent much of your high school years stuffed in a locker, but those of us who did participate in high school and college athletics looked up to these people and aspired to become them. So when they send a message to adolescents that you can behave with reckless abandonment and still be successful, it sends a wrong message to those athletes who don't have the same opportunities, or skills as these athletes, but because of their youth they believe they do!

I disagree, how can we blame Phelps when our estemed leader has admitted to not only smoking maryjuana (Of course I inhaled, thats how you do it isn't it? (or some such quote)), but also snorting cocaine! Now that is being a role model!!!

Myself, I don't think it should a law should effect what you do in the privacy of your own home as long as it doesn't interfer with someone elses rights, but until the law is changed, IT IS ILLEGAL!!!

[This_person]

Originally Posted by LateApex

Lying?

Misguided, maybe.

Is the war on drugs working?

Do you still believe that there are/were WMD's?

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I firmly believe that there were other motives involved pertaining to their stance on marijuana use.

No, the war on drugs is not working - because they've been fighting it wrong all along, IMO.

Yes, I believe that the WMD's Saddam used on Iran and the Kurds were real, and thus there at least were WMD's.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by LateApex

You can google things up all day long and in minutes I can find something that refutes what you will find.

My source was linked, and was Brown University and the US Gov't.

Yours?

[LateApex]

Originally Posted by This_person

No, the war on drugs is not working - because they've been fighting it wrong all along, IMO.

Yes, I believe that the WMD's Saddam used on Iran and the Kurds were real, and thus there at least were WMD's.

You believe.

WMD's as pertaining to Iraq meant nuclear capabilities.

None were found.

I believe a 50 cal Barrett Sniper Rifle is a WMD.

If you gave me one of those there would be the potential of mass deaths...