posted August 06, 2003 09:37 AM              

I mentioned the alcohol thing before. I still like to indulge. Yet, it's not an every day thing anymore. I think until someone has been there (walked in my shoes) that they honestly can't understand what it's like to come to a point when you've let yourself become addicted to something. It's never intentional ... it just happens.

As I said before, I threw it down and didn't touch it again for a long time. There are others out there that really have a problem with giving something up. I don't think that they want to be addicted to these substances... it just happens and they don't know how to control it.

Cigarettes... Well, I can't be perfect.. can I?! I really need to quit these things... why does everything bad have to be so enjoyable?!

Beer? Vodka? I love this stuff! I could drink a drink a drink and drink some more... but... I don't

I'm hooked on my coffee... bad? Yes. I still love it

I'm hooked on running... I feel like crud if I don't do it.
Sex could even be lobbed in there.

All those things give me (and others.. admit it guys) a high.

posted August 06, 2003 12:25 PM            

If you choose to use something as insane and "High Times" or Potsmoker University (AKS: Humboldt, SDSU,etc) then I'll through those out as not being credible due to the inability to be objective.

I believe I already stated at anything can be toxic in a dosage that is high enough. That is the FIRST thing taught in Toxicology (have you taken that?) I have also stated that when you look at the dosage versus affect of various substances, we find that chemicals such as X, THC and others product more adverse reactions per dose that tobacco, alcohol and caffiene.

You still HAVE NOT DISPUTED THOSE POINTS. You and Lioneye can bring up all the banal points you want to, but it will not change the toxicological findings of those drugs. IF you feel you are somehow better than the scientific and medical communities, then by all means, BRING IT ON. Get your data published, have NIDA tear apart your findings and prove you right.

Until then you are only stating opinions not backed up by scientific facts. For the time being, I am going to put more stock in Casarat and Doull's take on the toxicological consequences of illicit drugs that I will on a few people that have tried drugs and think they know more. Get your doctorate, prove me and the scientific community wrong and then I will change my view.

Lioneye: Cough medicine vs Marijuana? Hmmmm, yeah that is similar. Let's see, dose for dose...A person smokes a joint or drinks half a bottle of Tylenol cough medicine. What do you think will produce the most adverse reaction? 1 beer versus 1 joint: again dose for dose. That is how science looks at it.

I am not passing judgement on you. If you want to smoke pot, take X, shoot up with Heroin, hell that's your own life. Just don't tell me that the majority of the population must agree with you to make you feel better and make it legal.

Just like I stated before, better to keep it ILLEGAL so that you can get your pretty little hands on it, once it's legal, then we'll have massive lawsuits.

posted August 06, 2003 04:16 PM            

By the way Lost leo: The dose for dose theory is one used in scientific testing of chemicals. We look for what is called the LD50, where 50 percent of the testing population will die at a certain dosage. When you test drug against drug you look at these specific factors.

Yes, Tobacco is used more than others (hello, we already covered this one), but one cigarette is not as lethal (physiologically: dose for dose) as marijuana. LOOK AT THIS OBJECTIVELY FOR GOODNESS SAKES. I am not asking your opinion as a moderate drug user. I already said, I am not passing judgement on you personally, BUT I WILL ATTACK YOUR PROOF. Damnit, that is what I do. If you can't handle that, then do not go into law. There is nothing I am pointing out here that some shark of an attorney will not do to you in a court of law.

I know that you are a very intelligent person, but I do have a right to counter your position.

posted August 06, 2003 05:58 PM            

Then you would not fair well in most cases in a court of law. Defense attorney's have tried to prove various scientific principals and tests wrong. Those tests include, DNA results, latent fingerprints, drug analysis and the collection of evidence. They failed on all accounts UNLESS they could prove that the samples(evidence)itself was tampered with, which would render the result false.

In our judicial system many medical / scientific facts are indisputable. Take the controversial DNA. At one time defense attorneys tried to throw out the use of DNA stating that blood could somehow mutate to have the same alleles as their defendant. After extensive scientific testing from private labs such as Cellmark, Bode and even the FBI, it was determined that there is only a one in 100 Billion or Trillion chance that they DNA could come from someone other than what the result showed (unless it was a twin). Therefore, when the DNA tested points to the defendent, it is indisputable. Better to attack the method of collection than the science. (I just went over this with my Ex. He is the commander of forensic services as well as an expert in DNA, drug chemistry and blood spatter analysis.)I should also mention he is a Virgo with a Gemini moon so he loved to lecture about his findings and court dealings. I, of course, being the "forever student" listened, took notes (really I have a binder on some of his big cases) and bought textbooks to read for fun. Just like I took toxicology for fun as an elective.

Now, what you are trying to tear apart in regards to the dose per dose is somewhat valid. If we looked at chronic use over time, then your theory would be somewhat valid. Chronic use of tobacco may lead to cancer (not always, but most likely). Chronic use of marijuana may lead to loss of motor functions, destruction of the microtubules in sperm and cancer from the inhalation of the smoke(not always, but most likely).

In working with getting drugs, chemicals or additives approved with the FDA and the EPA, I had to show what they initial dose response of the said product would be as well as the consequences of that use over time. For example, one use of our larvicide will kill all the larvae in a sample, but will not harm animals,people or the environment. One use of DDT, may kill all the insects, but will also cause severe damages to the DNA of animals and aquatic life. Therefore, DDT is more toxic that our larvicide and although it may NOT cause lethal problems in some animals, it will cause the damage in most, after just one dose.

So, back to the drug theory: Let's look at the initial consequence of one joint versus one cigarette versus one cup of coffee. Based on the reaction, the physiological effects due to the total chemical breakdown and biotransformation, what causes the most problems and how does that apply to the population? That is how the trials are set up.

Like with another of our products. We had to show how this low calorie sweetener is absorbed by the body, how it is secreted and through which organ. We had to label the chemical and track how it broke down and into what chemical formations it may have changed as a result of that break down.

posted August 06, 2003 06:33 PM              

She has to talk too.
My statements were made because something in starlover's post provoked me. It's important to keep focused when dealing with emotions in arguments otherwise it's personal.

This is not personal. By starlover saying that the drug is healthy and practically safe, she is endorsing it. I would try anything that was safe, if say I was 15 and reading her post, or gullible which I am most of the time. That is dishonest. Starlover has no actual knowledge. Before trying any drug, a person has to be informed honestly. That is what trust is founded on, honesty. So I did not trust her post. Everyone meaning me too, has the right to have an opinion based on honest experience. I repeat honest.

Protect and defend your own experiences, but do not protect, defend, or criticize others. That is where the emotion comes in and it doesn't help. I was trying stay unemotional.

Be real now.

Yes I have noticed that my Pisces moon friend becomes a big nutball when she drinks but swears she's just fine. Last time she had a beer I came home and found her drinking in my toolshed. I don't care if she drinks but why the toolshed? I even like to drink with her but she doesn't share. Secretive and mysterious yes, but elusive? I don't know, I would have found her eventually right?:>

posted August 06, 2003 06:41 PM              

No, marijauna and cough medicine are not at all the same thing, nor are marijuana and heroine, though Pid, and you keep lumping the two together. So, it's ok for you to make non-parallel comparisons, but not ok for anyone else. I see.

Yes, LL, marijuana definately can have that effect on some people. Do you suppose they would have been saved if not for that? Maybe, but more likely they'd be abusing some other substance, because they simply have no self restraint, and don't know the meaning of the word "moderation".

My point is that marijuana is the least harmfull of the lot in so many ways, but I'm not claiming that it's actually NOT harmfull at all. I'd be a friggin idiot if I actually believed that. If one MUST indulge in a little escapism occasionally, then mj is a relatively harmless choice.

posted August 06, 2003 06:41 PM              

I have serious coordination problems when drinking and always try to drive anyway. How do you drink and not drive someplace? My Sag friend is thrilled when I drink right? This way she gets to drive again. So you could say my other personality is sleeping beauty. I'm a doormat with an attitude problem.
Been to West Ireland? Public drinking is a real problem and everyone seems to drink and drive. Why? Not a lot to do.

BTW Saw T3 and it really was not good.
The analogy of that to drugs is that even if a movie is $2, better to walk out in the first 1/2 hour if it really sucks so you don't waste your time. Eventually you learn that this type of experience sucks and walk out and your time is not wasted.
Even free it still would suck.

posted August 09, 2003 04:23 PM              

One question, though, for all who've gotten testy...

How do you make a point in a circle?

(and why would you want to?)