Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Canadian Political Free-for-All -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lino... who wrote (72)	10/30/2000 1:14:23 AM
From: Gulo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 37457

>shown pot to be up to three times deadlier than cigarette smoke Pot has a higher level of tar. Burned tar is the main carcinogen in cigarette and pot smoke. Medical marijuana users generally take a toke or two every few hours - sometimes a little as once a day. Cigarettes are larger and are smoked by the pack. Although pot has more tar per gram, cigarette smokers smoke far more grams. Both increase the risk of heart disease and cancer, but cigarettes are worse because of the quantity smoked. In addition, tobacco contains nicotine, which is physically addictive. Pot doesn't have any physically addictive compounds. THC is the medicinal/psycotropic drug in pot. It can provide relief for chronic pain that is not treatable with narcotics or opiates (which are used legally by prescription, for example, morphine or Tylenol 3). It is also the drug of choice for glaucoma patients and patients on certain AIDS medications. How would it be regulated? I don't care. I don't really see a need to regulate it. I'm sure the government would want to put an excise tax on it, like they do on cigarettes. I don't think that is a good idea, because an artificially inflated price will maintain a black market for drug dealers - much like it does for tobacco. High cigarette prices help prevent smoking in youth. This is a good thing because tobacco is physically addictive. You don't need an 'addictive' personality to become hooked. The argument doesn't apply with pot, because most people that start smoking pot stop soon after on their own. Cocaine and opium should be tightly regulated, because they can be very addictive and destructive. Addictions are still medical conditions, self-inflicted or not, and require treatment. >Does it seem right that medical services are rationed to most Canadians at the same time that "free" treatment is available to those that suffer the results of illegal substance abuse? Given that a good chunk of our health dollars are spent treating self-inflicted diseases, I don't really see the difference. It would be nice to see some accountability reflected in health care premiums, though. >Will we have inspectors running around to make sure there are warning labels on the little baggies? Maybe, if it is regulated the way cigarettes are. Otherwise a bit of education should do it. Personnaly, I don't worry much about the marijuana issue, except when reflecting on how our laws are shaped by public concerns that are shaped by government propaganda that is full of lies. Did you ever see Reefer Madness? Its hilarious, until you stop to think that it wasn't a joke. -g