EyeReesh;440087']the following is a paper I wrote because of getting caught at my dorm smoking in order to stay in housing (I'm moving to a new dorm which is ironically a lot better for indoor smoking). I whipped it up in about 45 minutes and its 4 1/2 pages double spaced. I didn't even really proofread so if there are mistakes, my bad.

 

Marijuana: From Medicine to Menace

An examination into the legality and historical implications of the drug.

By James Thomas aka EyeReesh

 

In this country’s great depression era, a movement swept across the nation to crack down on users of a drug which has its roots in ancient civilizations. Marijuana has been stigmatized by the U.S. governmental elite for very clear reasons. The following is a factual look into one of the biggest controversies of the 20th century: the drug war and more specifically marijuana policy. Please note that the point of this paper is in no way to encourage its use, but rather to give perspective to a government policy of which few people know the implications.

Drugs have been used by mankind for thousands of years. Marijuana, opium, cocaine, and other drugs have been around for all of this time. In fact, next to opium, marijuana is one of the world’s oldest known medicinal substances. The Chinese applied it to menstrual pains (which Queen Victoria also did thousands of years later) and stomach cramps. From the east, the plant traveled to the rest of the world through trade and conquest. Napoleon introduced it to Europe after bringing it back from Egypt as a spoil of war. His soldiers preferred its use to alcohol because it did not (and does not) create hangovers. It grows anywhere but the Arctic Circle. The 20th century, however, is the first instance in which the world has seen a huge war against marijuana and other drugs. One could say that we, and not the plants which create these drugs, have changed in that time. Drugs are not healthy to use. That simply goes without saying. However, the drugs used throughout history have also not been healthy. One must ask the question, “Why are they illegal now if they have not been so in history?” The answer is, like with most controversial laws, that there has been an agenda behind their criminalization other than health implications or concerns which are touted as rationalizations for the laws.

The first federal law against marijuana was enacted in 1937. Since then, over 20 million Americans have been arrested and incarcerated for using it. Marijuana captured the position of America’s drug of choice in 1920, when it was basically the only legal drug around. Prohibition of alcohol left Americans wanting a different way of becoming intoxicated. It was sold like cigarettes in pharmacies and jazz clubs. New Orleans in this time period experienced a crime wave and an ambitious newspaper tycoon, William Randolph Hearst, was ready for his next sensational story. Perhaps you remember his name from high school U.S. history class, where you learned how he used yellow journalism to agitate the Spanish-American war. This man used his newspaper for his own political agendas, and to argue otherwise is absolutely futile. It is interesting to note that he was the first one to start damning the use of Marijuana in such a public way. The following is an example of one of his outrageously exaggerated headlines (the date of which is not clear): “MARIHUANA MAKES FIENDS OF BOYS IN 30 DAYS; HASHEESH GOADS USERS TO BLOOD-LUST.” As contemporary news tycoon Rupert Murdoch has shown us all in a very disturbing way, news need not be factual or unbiased. A decade before this wave of propaganda by Hearst, cocaine was made illegal based on the rationalization that it made negroes “immune to bullets” (PubH 1003 trivia).

In New Orleans, marijuana was associated with violence among the black community, and subsequently Louisiana along with over a dozen states banned its distribution for non-medicinal purposes. This association was more of a stigmatization than a factual, researched explanation for a connection between the drug and violence. Use of the drug among minorities was more prevalent and in accordance with this country’s awful history of marginalization of its minorities, it was banned. In the southwest, the agenda behind the banning of marijuana was also one tied closely to racism. Remember that this was the time of the great depression, and unlike a decade or two earlier when the cheap labor of Mexicans was needed, the shortage of labor subsequent of the great depression left Americans looking for any job they could come across. In 1931, Mexican repatriation became law. What followed was a period of harassment of Mexicans in this region. Those who did not leave the country were often charged with vagrancy and because of the frequency of marijuana use among Mexicans, laws against it were used for the purpose of driving them out of the country or into prison (anywhere but back to the labor force). In Texas, for example, possession of one joint could land someone in jail for life.

Aside from a handful of southwestern states, marijuana went unregulated and legal in most states. It was not until Harry J. Anslinger became the head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics that the distribution of marijuana was widely made illegal throughout the country. Anslinger had the difficult task of convincing the nation’s legislature that they should outlaw a weed, something that went unprecedented at the federal level. His chief tactic was propaganda, associating marijuana with rape and murder and insanity. This tactic was manifested through movies which expressed exaggerated notions of the drug’s danger. What would a political agenda be without a few white lies, right? Eventually, marijuana becomes banned in the same way that machine guns had been essentially banned. The machine gun ban required stamps for the selling and distribution of the guns. The catch was that the government printed those stamps, and basically did not distribute any. This was a way to stop the distribution entirely. Anslinger found his model for a national ban against marijuana. Hilarity ensues when one realizes that Anslinger convinced the legislature that marijuana is as dangerous as a machine gun.

Part of the way Anslinger convinced congress that marijuana is so dangerous is that it is a stepping stone, or a gateway into other drugs. This is a widely cited reason for why marijuana is and should be illegal. However, logic would dictate otherwise. The idea of a gateway drug is based on the possibility that the devious people supplying one with marijuana would likely know people who supply more serious narcotics. If marijuana were legal and regulated and taxed by the government, however, it would take the “black market” factor out of the marijuana culture which is the basis on which the gateway theory is founded.

Few government commissioned studies have ever taken place about marijuana relative to its widespread use. One year after Anslinger’s law is introduced, a powerful man became a critic. This man was none other than mayor of New York City Fiorello Henry LaGuardia. LaGuardia commissioned a study of his city’s marijuana “problem” and medical professionals from the New York Academy of Medicine conducted it. The conclusions that these professionals made showcase the irrationality of men such as Anslinger and Hearst, the latter of which resided in New York. After 4 years of study, some amazing conclusions were drawn. Some of these were that smoking marijuana does not lead to addiction, marijuana was not widespread among schoolchildren (Hearst and Anslinger used that point repeatedly), and that marijuana is NOT a determining factor in major crimes. LaGuardia obtained the marijuana for the study from Anslinger, and after this Anslinger did not allow the distribution of the drug for further study. Due to political party pressure, the drug remains illegal in New York City despite the study’s findings. Anslingers law was overturned by the Supreme Court 30 years after its introduction, and a new federal law against marijuana was enacted in 1970 citing that it was of no medicinal use, which is a subject on which one could write a doctoral thesis because of its complexity.

In conclusion, the reasons for which marijuana is illegal are many, they are complicated, and they are widely irrational or racist. The ultimate basis for why marijuana is illegal on a federal level is that it has no medicinal use. Suffering cancer patients may tell you otherwise and a handful of states now either have medicinal marijuana legalized, marijuana in general decriminalized, or both.

 

 

 

 

Tell me what you think.

 

 

lol he really expects me to read this :X

I could care less about alcohol and marijuana

but legalizing drugs wont help a damn thing

Both are depressants.

THC is a far more effective depressant, slowing reaction times 5x as much as alcohol could.

THC not only kills brain cells, but puts much more tar in your lungs than commercial cigarettes.

THC stimulates the production of some steroids, one of them being estrogen. Moderate to high levels of estrogen in a male body lead to receding hair line, lower catabolic metabolism, and bitch tits.

Alcohol kills brain cells only.

The benefits of 2 drinks of alcohol far outweigh it's harmful effects.

Alcohol clearly has benefits, while THC has none.

 

If you stopped trying to act so smart, you wouldn't look like such an idiot.

 

Your fallacy is that you assume all marajuana contains THC.

Both are depressants.

THC is a far more effective depressant, slowing reaction times 5x as much as alcohol could.

THC not only kills brain cells, but puts much more tar in your lungs than commercial cigarettes.

THC stimulates the production of some steroids, one of them being estrogen. Moderate to high levels of estrogen in a male body lead to receding hair line, lower catabolic metabolism, and bitch tits.

Alcohol kills brain cells only.

The benefits of 2 drinks of alcohol far outweigh it's harmful effects.

Alcohol clearly has benefits, while THC has none.

 

If you stopped trying to act so smart, you wouldn't look like such an idiot.

 

Ok, you are a retard. Here's a laundry list of reasons why:

 

"Alcohol clearly has benefits, while THC has none." -- Just an opinion, not a fact. You're a douche bag if you think that line puts ANYONE in their place. Alcohol may have TEMPORARY benefits, but avid use of alcohol will make you an alcoholic (depending on how much you drink). Alcoholism is one of the ugliest diseases, with withdrawls so powerful can cause hallucinations. Weed addiction consists of eating too much (if you're not a total fatass, you at least have SOME self control), and watching too much TV. Also, if there are no benefits for THC usage, then there'd be no reason to have medical marijuana. There is no medicinal form Alcohol.

 

"The benefits of 2 drinks of alcohol far outweigh it's harmful effects." Just another opinion.

 

"THC not only kills brain cells, but puts much more tar in your lungs than commercial cigarettes." True, but you have to think about the fact nobody smokes 20 joints a day. Some people smoke well over 20 cigarettes. You'd have way more tar in your lungs as a cigarette smoker. Homo.

 

 

"Alcohol kills brain cells only." What the fuck kind of argument is that? Falling down on your ass kills brain cells. That's not even really important. If you are intoxicated, you're surely bound to at least lose a few. If you think that's all that's wrong with alcohol, you're a moron. Alcohol companies know marijuana is a much safer alternative, so they have huge campaigns against it. A lot of "truth"-like commericals are funded by alcohol companies. You should read up on Jack Herrer, or Norml. Then you'd actully have an opinion.

 

"THC is a far more effective depressant, slowing reaction times 5x as much as alcohol could." HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHA! That's why there's so many drunk driving accidents, and almost no accidents related to marijuana intoxication, right? Wrong.

 

 

The only valid argument you made was about bitch-tits. You probably have them anyway. Go figure.

MAKONG;440302']"THC is a far more effective depressant' date=' slowing reaction times 5x as much as alcohol could." HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHA! That's why there's so many drunk driving accidents, and almost no accidents related to marijuana intoxication, right? Wrong. [/quote']

 

I agree with your other statements, but tere is a flaw in this example logic. You assume that the same number of people use marajuana as do alcohol, when in reality the number of marajuana users is far less. Thus, it makes sense that there would be fewer marajuana realated accidents.

I agree with your other statements, but tere is a flaw in this example logic. You assume that the same number of people use marajuana as do alcohol, when in reality the number of marajuana users is far less. Thus, it makes sense that there would be fewer marajuana realated accidents.

 

yes i suppose you are correct, but you have to wonder statistically how wide that gap really is.

 

i have not seen a "how many americans smoke weed?" 2007 survey

 

and even if there was one, not everyone would participate so we would never really know for sure.

Paper is well written on all accounts.

I agree with your other statements, but tere is a flaw in this example logic. You assume that the same number of people use marajuana as do alcohol, when in reality the number of marajuana users is far less. Thus, it makes sense that there would be fewer marajuana realated accidents.

 

 

Along that same path of logic....

 

I would make an argument than more people consume alcohol, but there are fewer people on the road over .08 BAC than are stoned out of their minds.

 

Almost every weed smoker frequently smokes in cars. How many people do you know drink in theirs on a regular basis, or even drive them while over the legal limit?

 

Therefore, I would not rule out the fewer accidents caused by weed statistic.

MAKONG;440302']

"Alcohol clearly has benefits, while THC has none." -- Just an opinion, not a fact. You're a douche bag if you think that line puts ANYONE in their place. Alcohol may have TEMPORARY benefits, but avid use of alcohol will make you an alcoholic (depending on how much you drink).

 

Yes. Excessive alcohol consumption is very detrimental, even deadly. Thats the case with anything else in life.

 

 

MAKONG;440302']Weed addiction consists of eating too much (if you're not a total fatass' date=' you at least have SOME self control), and watching too much TV. Also, if there are no benefits for THC usage, then there'd be no reason to have medical marijuana.[/quote']

 

1.Weed addiction does not exist, but some cases of psychological addiction have been reported.

2.The reason many states have decriminalized cannabis, but have no legislation on medicinal cannabis, is simply that there are better, more effective analgesics than cannabis.

 

 

MAKONG;440302']There is no medicinal form Alcohol.

 

There is. It is called isopropyl alcohol, which is found in all first aid kits and a crucial ingredient to any snake bite kit.

 

MAKONG;440302']"The benefits of 2 drinks of alcohol far outweigh it's harmful effects." Just another opinion.

 

I disagree. So do these people.

 

Rimm, E. B., Klatsky, A., Grobbee, D., and Stampfer, M. J. Review of moderate alcohol consumption and reduced risk of coronary heart disease: Is the effect due to beer, wine or spirits? British Medical Journal, 1996, 312, 731-736.

Facchini, F, Chen, Y., and Reaven, G. Light-to-moderate alcohol intake is associated with enhanced insulin sensitivity. Diabetes Care, 1994, 17(2), 89-101.

Langer, R., Criqui, M., and Reed, D. Lipoprotein and blood pressure as biological pathways for effects of moderate alcohol consumption on coronary heart disease. Circulation, 1992, 85(3), 910-915.

Mennen, L., et al. Fibrinogen may explain in part the protective effect of moderate drinking on the risk of cardiovascular disease. Arteriosclerotic and Thrombodic Vascular Biology, 1999, 19, 887-892.

Paassilta. M., et al. Social alcohol consumption and low Lp (a) lipoprotein concentrations in middle aged Finnish men: Population based study. British Medial Journal, 1998, 316, 594-595.

Rimm, E., et al. Moderate alcohol intake and lower risk of coronary heart disease: meta-analysis of effects on lipids and hemostatic factors. British Medical Journal, 1999, 319, 1523-1528.

Thun, L., et al. Alcohol consumption in middle-aged and early U. S. adults. New England Journal of Medicine, 1997, 336, 1705-1714.

Wang, Z., and Barker, T. Alcohol at moderate levels decreases fibrinogen expression in vivo and in vitro. Alcohol: Clinical and Experimental Research, 1999, 23, 1927-1932.

 

 

MAKONG;440302']"THC not only kills brain cells' date=' but puts much more tar in your lungs than commercial cigarettes." True, but you have to think about the fact nobody smokes 20 joints a day. Some people smoke well over 20 cigarettes. You'd have way more tar in your lungs as a cigarette smoker. Homo.[/quote']

 

Since cannabis contains 5 to 6 times as much tar as an equal amount of tobacco. Also, since cigarettes are made with less and less tobacco, and most contain a filter to stop tar, the amount of tar in cigarettes is slowly decreasing.

 

MAKONG;440302']"Alcohol kills brain cells only." What the fuck kind of argument is that? Falling down on your ass kills brain cells. That's not even really important. If you are intoxicated' date=' you're surely bound to at least lose a few. If you think that's all that's wrong with alcohol, you're a moron. Alcohol companies know marijuana is a much safer alternative, so they have huge campaigns against it. A lot of "truth"-like commericals are funded by alcohol companies. You should read up on Jack Herrer, or Norml. Then you'd actully have an opinion.[/quote']

 

You had no argument. You only made ad hominem attacks and unconnected statements.

 

 

MAKONG;440302']"THC is a far more effective depressant' date=' slowing reaction times 5x as much as alcohol could." HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHA! That's why there's so many drunk driving accidents, and almost no accidents related to marijuana intoxication, right? Wrong.[/quote']

 

Since alcohol is much more widely available than cannabis is, especially regarding cannabis's legal status, this comparison crumples under scrutinization.

Right away in my paper I said that it wasn't a paper encouraging the use of weed. Health and drugs don't go together very well. I'm not gonna sit around and debate whats better/worse for you, the point of the fucking paper is that the criminalization of weed, REGARDLESS of its effects, is bogus. The health debate has no place in this discussion, which is one of agendas.

god damn you are all the most uptight stoners i have ever seen

Both are depressants.

 

THC not only kills brain cells, but puts much more tar in your lungs than commercial cigarettes.

 

Government studies have shown that THC does NOT kill brain cells, and the smoke that you inhale is a different kind of tar and smoke than cigarettes. It's much less harmful on the body.

 

Read up, brahs

i thought you were talking a bout a weed paper, like paper you could smoke and get high

MAKONG;440302']Ok, you are a retard. Here's a laundry list of reasons why:

 

"Alcohol clearly has benefits, while THC has none." -- Just an opinion, not a fact. You're a douche bag if you think that line puts ANYONE in their place. Alcohol may have TEMPORARY benefits, but avid use of alcohol will make you an alcoholic (depending on how much you drink). Alcoholism is one of the ugliest diseases, with withdrawls so powerful can cause hallucinations. Weed addiction consists of eating too much (if you're not a total fatass, you at least have SOME self control), and watching too much TV. Also, if there are no benefits for THC usage, then there'd be no reason to have medical marijuana. There is no medicinal form Alcohol.

 

"The benefits of 2 drinks of alcohol far outweigh it's harmful effects." Just another opinion.

 

"THC not only kills brain cells, but puts much more tar in your lungs than commercial cigarettes." True, but you have to think about the fact nobody smokes 20 joints a day. Some people smoke well over 20 cigarettes. You'd have way more tar in your lungs as a cigarette smoker. Homo.

 

 

"Alcohol kills brain cells only." What the fuck kind of argument is that? Falling down on your ass kills brain cells. That's not even really important. If you are intoxicated, you're surely bound to at least lose a few. If you think that's all that's wrong with alcohol, you're a moron. Alcohol companies know marijuana is a much safer alternative, so they have huge campaigns against it. A lot of "truth"-like commericals are funded by alcohol companies. You should read up on Jack Herrer, or Norml. Then you'd actully have an opinion.

 

"THC is a far more effective depressant, slowing reaction times 5x as much as alcohol could." HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHA! That's why there's so many drunk driving accidents, and almost no accidents related to marijuana intoxication, right? Wrong.

 

 

The only valid argument you made was about bitch-tits. You probably have them anyway. Go figure.

 

way to act 5 in your reply, seriously if you want to make a point, don't call him a homo after every point. wow, and none of you supplied any actual facts. im not saying anyone is wrong but you have to back up points with facts or else you all are spitting pure bullshit. kbye

both drugs have their shortcomings and most users I know aren't overly worried about adverse effects in the future. I smoke weed and drink alot, but I don't try and justify either as being healthy or "healthier" than an alternative.

 

 

That being said, alcohol is my personal choice between the two(alcohol and marijuana). I think the social benefits outweigh the negatives. And if you aren't a total pussy, most of the negatives shouldn't be apparent, anyways.

i thought this thread was about rolling papers and what to use or not and i realize is a long ass bullshit thread from some dumbass drunk irish kid

 

anyways i think the best rolling papers are swissers or optimos peach , make sure they not dry, i like the see through shit too

King size Rizzla silvers FTW!

zuZu;440865']i thought this thread was about rolling papers and what to use or not and i realize is a long ass bullshit thread from some dumbass drunk irish kid

 

.

zuZu;440865']i thought this thread was about rolling papers and what to use or not and i realize is a long ass bullshit thread from some dumbass drunk irish kid

 

anyways i think the best rolling papers are swissers or optimos peach , make sure they not dry, i like the see through shit too

 

Me too, instead it was filled with a ton of psuedo intellectuals trying to sound intelligent with a thesaurus and/or medical dictionary.

 

The internet is no place to argue. Also you should maybe read the book "why people believe weird things" and see how culture defines science. Or maybe think about what research projects get funded etc.

 

My point: everything is bullshit unless I discovered it.

zuZu;440865']i thought this thread was about rolling papers and what to use or not and i realize is a long ass bullshit thread from some dumbass drunk irish kid

 

anyways i think the best rolling papers are swissers or optimos peach , make sure they not dry, i like the see through shit too

 

Those plastic wraps actually work pretty good too.

 

If you get the chance to try them, I recommend them.