|
Elotana posted:Additionally, since almost all of the actual damage is from the physical act of smoking (nicotine itself is rather innocuous) governments should be thumbing the scales towards snuff and e-cigs instead of trying to lump them into the same moral panic. Nicotine itself is still a carcinogen. Snuff/dip can still cause cancer, and there is a lot more nicotine in the average dip than there is in a cigarette. You're essentially trading off respiratory issues from smoking with a greater physical dependence to nicotine and more problems with your mouth and dental hygiene. And it's not like every smoker is sucking down a pack and a half a day. Many of them do, but there are a lot of people that only smoke when they're drinking, and I'm a daily smoker that goes through about a pack a week (basically a smoke with morning coffee and then one after lunch and/or dinner). I'm not saying that tobacco use isn't harmful, smoking especially, but I wouldn't claim that using dip is much less harmful than smoking. Like most drugs, the harm caused by tobacco correlates to the frequency of use.
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 06:57 |
|
|
Nicotine also improves prospective memory (Remembering things you plan to do later): http://dept.wofford.edu/neuroscience/neuroseminar/pdffall2006/rusted-mem3.pdf Increases IQ score: http://www.gwern.net/docs/nicotine/1994-stough.pdf Improves reaction times: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/bsj04d00;jsessionid=9D63E12C687558F06037793B93A2229B.tobacco04 It is very effective at habit formation - if you only permit yourself a cigarette after exercising, you are actually a lot more likely to exercise, probably a net win in life expectancy. A lot of the physical addiction comes from the MAOIs in cigarettes, and won't be present in other nicotine products, leaving you free to reinforce whatever habit you please without the withdrawal. Also I don't understand your learning/memory link - the other studies I've found suggest there are many facets of memory that improves with nicotine use. I can't read the fulltext and I guess I don't know enough neurology to follow your implication. PS It's possible that it is a carcinogen, but please cite your source if you have one. I do not have one. Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 18:19 on May 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:A morbidly obese diabetic would probably have trouble putting down $10 of sugar water most days, That's what, three soft drinks in a high COL area? It's far from impossible.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
NMDA channels regulate synaptic potentiation, that is, the way neurons form and regulate the connections between them. I'm not saying nicotine is an evil molecule or that it should be banned. I was responding to someone claiming that all the harm with smoking is caused by combustion products and other parts of the cigarette and nicotine us perfectly safe in its own. This claim is factually not true.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
superjew posted:The latest poll in Florida addressing legalization of marijuana for medical and recreational purposes shows approval going up across the board. The numbers for "Marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol" belief is unfortunately low. Didn't Washington and/or Colorado determine that this was the single best criteria for determining whether or not the fearmongers attack ads would work? Activists there should really focus on that.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:NMDA channels regulate synaptic potentiation, that is, the way neurons form and regulate the connections between them. I'm not saying nicotine is an evil molecule or that it should be banned. I was responding to someone claiming that all the harm with smoking is caused by combustion products and other parts of the cigarette and nicotine us perfectly safe in its own. This claim is factually not true. I think the harms are in different orders of magnitude and may well be offset by the benefits in some cases. They are nowhere close to the dangers of smoking tobacco. There would have been no "war on tobacco" if those things were the worst side effects. That study cites very high doses(4.23 mg/kg/day), I'm curious if it would replicate at a dose closer to an average nicotine user. I didn't read you as saying it is evil or anything, no worries. I have little emotional investment in the matter and just want to know the truth, though I have considered replacing caffeine with nicotine. Thanks for the links.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
eggyolk posted:I'm actually really enjoying the thread more now, though it'd be nice to see more relevant current news articles. What difference does it make if you get your high from the nicotine in a cigarette, the alcohol in a bottle, the THC in a brownie, or the opiate in a needle? Different delivery systems for essentially the same pursuit of pleasure in various forms. The notion of "hard" versus "soft" is right up there with reefer madness levels of scientific accuracy. If you want to get high, you've got the funds, then you should be able to do it in a safe, regulated manner, regardless of social stigma against your particular high of choice, without having to turn to dangerous "back alley" type delivery systems. For those of us that need mj as a medicine it makes a difference. Pretty much all the "hard" drugs listed have some kind of prescription alternative. I don't disagree that the entire system needs to be redone, but I feel like there is room to have 2 threads since mj legalization is actually having activity with current news, while the other drugs are not really getting current articles and everyone is just discussing ideas on how to rework the system.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
computer parts posted:That's what, three soft drinks in a high COL area? It's far from impossible. Isn't a Super Big Gulp 40 oz and $1.50? So you'd have to drink about 280 oz a day to have a $10 a day habit and you'd still be $90 a day less than heroin.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
snorch posted:I really like the idea of a drug license for higher-risk drugs, mostly because so many dumb drug incidents and accidents can be avoided with proper education and training for dealing with emergencies. It might also be smart to categorize higher potency marijuana products (concentrates, high-potency edibles...) as class II simply because it freaks a lot of people out. You know, I think that's a good idea. My logic with marijuana was that pretty much no matter the dose you can't hurt yourself, but it's true that marijuana overdoses result in a lot of emergency room visits each year because people freak out. Requiring safety classes for use of concentrates and potent edibles would probably go a long way towards decreasing the ER trips taken, which would save users money and free up hospital's resources.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:I think the harms are in different orders of magnitude and may well be offset by the benefits in some cases. They are nowhere close to the dangers of smoking tobacco. There would have been no "war on tobacco" if those things were the worst side effects. That study cites very high doses(4.23 mg/kg/day), I'm curious if it would replicate at a dose closer to an average nicotine user. Yeah, that's a good concern and a common problem with rodent studies. Since mice or rats will only be consuming a substance for a few weeks, instead of years for a human, and have much higher metabolisms and lower body weights, it's hard to know what's really an equivalent dose.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
davebo posted:Isn't a Super Big Gulp 40 oz and $1.50? So you'd have to drink about 280 oz a day to have a $10 a day habit and you'd still be $90 a day less than heroin. In New York the maximum size is 16 oz.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
computer parts posted:In New York the maximum size is 16 oz. Are you not aware that was never actually implemented, or what?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Are you not aware that was never actually implemented, or what? Doesn't really change my point; Most places don't sell a 40 oz cup anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
But for addicts, which is what we're talking about, it doesn't matter that your local 5 star restaurant doesn't offer a 40 oz cup of soda. You'll walk the extra half block to a 7-11 and get the thing you want at the price you can afford and not many people need to jack someone's car stereo to afford a soda.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Snuff also causes some pretty horrific cancers, but even that aside pure nicotine is far from harmless. - Characterizing a study about generalized NMDA regulation in generalized regions (especially the dang NAcc) as "harming learning and memory" is about half a step up from phrenology. If you want to show learning and memory deficits then show learning and memory deficits. - This is why I said "fairly innocuous" and not "harmless." Chronic stimulant exposure diminishing dopamine levels is "no poo poo" to the max; you're essentially saying withdrawal is a thing, and identifying why we have bupropion. It gets better. - [your third link was an accidental dupe of your second] - Well, yes. Pregnant women shouldn't touch any drugs as a general rule. But that goes to information distribution which I fully support. We generally don't regulate on the assumption that the consumer is a pregnant woman. KernelSlanders posted:I was responding to someone claiming that all the harm with smoking is caused by combustion products Elotana posted:Additionally, since almost all of the actual damage is from the physical act of smoking  Preem Palver posted:Nicotine itself is still a carcinogen. quote:Snuff/dip can still cause cancer, and there is a lot more nicotine in the average dip than there is in a cigarette. You're essentially trading off respiratory issues from smoking with a greater physical dependence to nicotine and more problems with your mouth and dental hygiene.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
davebo posted:But for addicts, which is what we're talking about, it doesn't matter that your local 5 star restaurant doesn't offer a 40 oz cup of soda. You'll walk the extra half block to a 7-11 and get the thing you want at the price you can afford and not many people need to jack someone's car stereo to afford a soda. Heh, you think addicts can walk.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
davebo posted:Isn't a Super Big Gulp 40 oz and $1.50? So you'd have to drink about 280 oz a day to have a $10 a day habit and you'd still be $90 a day less than heroin. You can buy three cases of generic soda from Grocery Outlet for $10.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Alcohol has held specific cultural significance in human culture for millennia, even in the countries that specifically ban intoxicants. If we ever invent space flight that's mostly automated I can guarantee that alcohol will be on there. Alcohol has already been taken into and consumed in space by the Russians (who kept a "medicinal" supply of cognac and/or vodka aboard Mir, and probably at least one of their preceding space stations as well), and was almost included in the Skylab diet as a weekly serving of sherry.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
Iunnrais posted:The numbers for "Marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol" belief is unfortunately low. Didn't Washington and/or Colorado determine that this was the single best criteria for determining whether or not the fearmongers attack ads would work? Activists there should really focus on that. quote:Marijuana is equally as dangerous as alcohol, 43 percent of voters say, while 39 percent say it is less dangerous and 12 percent say it is more dangerous. Are these categories exclusive of each other, so it's like 82% same "equal to or less dangerous than alcohol"? That'd sound like a runaway success to me. Is it really vital that people think it's less-bad than booze, or good enough if they think it's no worse than something already omnipresent and legal?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
You're all forgetting that you can buy this: http://www.ebay.com/itm/IMI-Corneli...=item4ad3ea1cbf For the low cost of only $200, you can have your very own soda fountain! Let's see how much soda costs when you're just buying syrup and CO2. You can get 5 gallons of Dr. Pepper syrup for $82. At a 6:1 ratio, that's 30 gallons of soda, or 48,000 calories! Most homebrew supply stores will refill your CO2 tank for about $1 per pound. A 20 pound CO2 tank should last about a year with normal use. So with a minor upfront investment, you can get more soda than anyone can possibly drink for the cost of a gram of coke. Alternatively, you can wait until 2 liters are on sale for $1 at Walmart.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:Are these categories exclusive of each other, so it's like 82% same "equal to or less dangerous than alcohol"? That'd sound like a runaway success to me. Is it really vital that people think it's less-bad than booze, or good enough if they think it's no worse than something already omnipresent and legal? They are exclusive, but the opposite interpretation is that 55% believe that it is equal to or more dangerous to alcohol, which sounds like runaway ignorance to me.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
Lots of people know it's not, they just think it's bad to admit it. These are the same people who smoke pot and try to hide it from their kids, then act surprised when their kid gets arrested for possession.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
Preem Palver posted:Nicotine itself is still a carcinogen. Snuff/dip can still cause cancer, and there is a lot more nicotine in the average dip than there is in a cigarette. You're essentially trading off respiratory issues from smoking with a greater physical dependence to nicotine and more problems with your mouth and dental hygiene. You are seriously underestimating the grave effects of smoking cigarettes on virtually organ and system in the human body and don't fully understand cigarettes or addiction. First of all, there many other chemicals in cigarettes smoke like carbon monoxide and ammonia. These aren't present in electronic cigarettes (and low nitrosamine smokeless tobacco) and are believed to be pharmacologically active, modulate craving and enhance the rewarding effects of nicotine in the brain: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/232039258_Does_carbon_monoxide_play_a_role_in_cigarette_smoke_dependence/file/79e4150bcc4f1ef6b6.pdf http://www.biblioteca.cij.gob.mx/Archivos/Materiales_de_consulta/Drogas_de_Abuso/Tabaco/Articulos/69899177.pdf http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/content/6/2/199.extract Secondly, physical dependence is an example of the brain behaving exactly as it should. There is nothing aberrant about it: quote:research has shown that when opiates are administered to a naive animal, adaptation begins to occur after the first dose so that the second dose has a discernibly decreased effect from the first. After several days of taking the medication, abrupt cessation produces a withdrawal syndrome varying with the duration of treatment and the dose level. This is an expected pharmacological response, and although it may occur among addicts, it is quite distinct from compulsive drug-seeking behavior. This has resulted in confusion among clinicians regarding the difference between “dependence” in a DSM sense, which is really “addiction,” and “dependence” as a normal physiological adaptation to repeated dosing of a medication. The result is that clinicians who see evidence of tolerance and withdrawal symptoms assume that this means addiction, and patients requiring additional pain medication are made to suffer. Similarly, pain patients in need of opiate medications may forgo proper treatment because of the fear of dependence, which is self-limiting by equating it with addiction. http://journals.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=96549 Finally, just because someone may be using nicotine daily does not mean their relationship with nicotine will have an adverse effect on their life. Because vaping has no known adverse consequences, the word 'addiction' is not well suited to people using electronic cigarettes* (even if they have some level of physical dependence on nicotine). Also see 'Is Caffeine Addictive': http://www.sallysatelmd.com/html/2006-12-05_IsCaffeineAddictive.pdf *http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/add.12473/pdf eggyolk posted:The notion of "hard" versus "soft" is right up there with reefer madness levels of scientific accuracy. You have no idea how happy it makes me to hear someone say that. The imaginary 'hard'/'soft' drug divide seem almost impossible to stomp out of existence. It has no rational scientific basis: http://books.google.com.au/books?id...epage&q&f=false KingEup fucked around with this message at 23:27 on May 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
I liked the thread more when it was weed-specific too, mostly because that's the more immediately-attainable goal and one based on changing more directly on changing popular opinion about a substance, as opposed to heroin/meth/cocaine stuff that's based more on changing approaches to substance abuse concerns, incarceration, etc. In any case, I didn't want to clutter up the thread with my storytelling about getting signatures for legal marijuana in DC, so I started a thread in A/T for any folks who've been in marijuana campaigns to share ideas, and folks interested to ask questions: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3631780
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 23:49
|
|
You all may be interested in the work of American philosopher Alan Gewirth, which was summarized and applied to drug use by a guy by an Australian academic (I believe) by the name of Stevens. From a paper I wrote incorporating his discussion:quote:According to Stevens, Gewirth, in Reason and Morality, “provided a sound, universal basis for defining human needs, and therefore for defining rights and harms.” For Gewirth, people need freedom in order to achieve their own ends, and if one accepts that this applies to oneself, then one must also accept that this applies to others, as well. From this, Gewirth constructs a hierarchy of rights, where more basic rights cannot be infringed upon by less basic rights. The most basic rights are “basic rights,” which include life and good health. Harms to these rights are intolerable because they destroy agency. Next in line are nonsubtractive rights, which are meant to protect against objective partial losses, such as by theft. Finally, there are additive rights, which are those things that increase one’s abilities to fulfill goals. Stevens asserts that drug use is an additive right, and as such, we can use Gewirth’s argument to guide drug policy formulation (2011). And given that several studies, mostly from European countries where personal possession is decriminalized, have found that decriminalization/legalization is not related to increases in things like acquisitive crime, personal use, in a liberal society, at least, isn't particularly objectionable. Only when an individual's personal use impairs his own agency do things become problematic, and in that instance, because the individual has been denied his basic rights (probably primarily psychologically), the government is justified in intervening. I find Gewirth's conception of the Principle of Generic Consistency, which is what was summarized above, to be incredibly useful in discussions of values and entitlements because it provides a really excellent framework that is philosophically compatible with liberalism.
|
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
http://m.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/05/07/explosions-in-colorado-linked-to-legalized-marijuana/?tid=hp_mm Hash go boom. 
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
AYC posted:http://m.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/05/07/explosions-in-colorado-linked-to-legalized-marijuana/?tid=hp_mm Do people who make hash oil in mass still use butane or can they do this with a less explosive solvent and rotovap it dry. Running a butane extraction without a laboratory hood is just insane.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:Do people who make hash oil in mass still use butane or can they do this with a less explosive solvent and rotovap it dry. Running a butane extraction without a laboratory hood is just insane. Small businesses are the true innovators.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
AYC posted:http://m.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/05/07/explosions-in-colorado-linked-to-legalized-marijuana/?tid=hp_mm This could be solved by proper zoning requirements, no? I'm pretty sure I'm not allowed to manufacture linoleum in my apartment either.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
And this is somehow about legalized weed, not unregulated home businesses and environmental regulations. e: b
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
Don't forget to tune to the livestream on Marijuana policy tomorrow: May 09, 2014 | 10:00 a.m. http://oversight.house.gov/hearing/mixed-signals-administrations-policy-marijuana-part-three/
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 02:10
|
|
|
AYC posted:http://m.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/05/07/explosions-in-colorado-linked-to-legalized-marijuana/?tid=hp_mm And now you see why washington state passed a much stricter set of rules 
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
I don't know why people are bothering with this high explosive poo poo:quote:What is the best and healthiest way to prepare Cannabis oil? KingEup fucked around with this message at 02:46 on May 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
http://www.straitstimes.com/news/asia/australianew-zealand/story/new-zealand-bans-synthetic-drugs-after-failed-attempt-regulate- New Zealand has dropped its plans to regulate drugs intelligently after too many cries of "think of the children!!", and have decided to just ban everything because that was working so well. gently caress everything.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
thekeeshman posted:http://www.straitstimes.com/news/asia/australianew-zealand/story/new-zealand-bans-synthetic-drugs-after-failed-attempt-regulate- Wow, up to half a mil just for possession? That seems a little steep. What sort of sentences do people usually get in NZ for possession?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 06:39
|
|
|
Lacrosse posted:Wow, up to half a mil just for possession? That seems a little steep. What sort of sentences do people usually get in NZ for possession? Up to 3 months jail for class C and B, 6 for class A. Getting done for importation/manufacture/supply or "supply" is much worse, up to a maximum of 14 years, depending on the drug. Same as murder. As posted before, gently caress everything.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 06:57
|
|
|
thekeeshman posted:http://www.straitstimes.com/news/asia/australianew-zealand/story/new-zealand-bans-synthetic-drugs-after-failed-attempt-regulate- That is rather disingenuous. No plans have been dropped. They have elected to ban the substances until the testing regime has been established. Once that has happened, they can be tested and if found safe will be sold again. If you want to argue that banning them all now with ~1 weeks warning is a stupid move then go for it, but don't make out that this isn't a temporary thing. Lacrosse posted:Wow, up to half a mil just for possession? That seems a little steep. What sort of sentences do people usually get in NZ for possession? Possession of the drugs that were banned today is punishable by a $500 fine. See here http://www.police.govt.nz/advice/drugs-and-alcohol/illicit-drugs-offences-and-penalties
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 07:23
|
|
|
quote:Obama's DEA Chief Refuses To Support Drug Sentencing Reforms Yeah, so how about those cops.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 14:48
|
|
|
"Without mandatory minimums, how can we terrorize people into confessing?"
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 15:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 06:57 |
|
|
KingEup posted:Don't forget to tune to the livestream on Marijuana policy tomorrow: I missed this, did anyone watch? I figured it would have been uploaded immediately but I guess it hasn't yet.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 16:07
|
|
