http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/27/suppl_1/s74.full

Better info. The particular ADA page I listed didn't have much about the study (if anything). I need to find the link to the actual study.

@Putin while they are stoned?That could be a social thing though as well rather than weed

They've controlled for social factors and still found a strong link. Many of these findings are surprising because the scholars anticipated finding no link.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11286431

@daug fair enough I work in the medical field and had never heard that link that's why i questioned it
@Putin sorry but you can throw as many studies as you want at me from personal work experience I known that alcohol causes far more violence then any other drug.people who are stoned just are not violent.

A small aside and I wish i could remember where I heard it maybe qi that the American government tried to patent weed and when they couldn't they made it illegal

@Putin is what your saying compared to sober people or alcohol dependent people because of it is sober it doesn't have that much relation to my particular point

@trim - I agree about the drunk vs. high violence. I may not partake, but grew up in the country with plenty of stoners and boozers. And even the same person, when stoned would be mellow but when drunk would get belligerent.

And there is some research shows that pot specifically has some possible positive suide effects for type 2 diabetics (and diabetics in general). But I would recommend trying the pot in non-smoked form. The negative effects of the smoked form outweigh the benefits of the pot as a whole.

That I agree with completely draug, of the 2 though I truely believe weed is far better both for you and creates less pressure on society

"@Putin is what your saying compared to sober people or alcohol dependent people because of it is sober it doesn't have that much relation to my particular point"

Please try reading before you go off dismissing me. The study shows that marijuana is linked, after controlling for 51 other variables, with higher incidence of weapons offenses. The only other drug in the study associated with this is alcohol. But it demonstrates quite conclusively that this myth of the pacifist stoner is just that. Marijuana leads to greater violence and crime.

All the potheads have is silly anecdotal evidence and stereotypes. This visceral dislike of any data or study is quite remarkable, because revealing the sheer absurdity of your argument.

Just wanna get a general consensus of the forum's feeling on the drug
Not necesarilly argue the leaglity of it, just why (or why not) you use it.
And what the drug means to you

Putin, I only have access to the abstract but it is clearly only directed at a certain demographic. I'm not anthropologist but I'm fairly positive that the mind set and outcome of drug use will change with demographic. For example, Timothy Leary and Bradley Nowell both were big advocates for psychedelic drugs. However, one wrote about the possible positive psychological effects and one wrote about "screaming 187 on a mother fuckin' cop."

I used to smoke it a lot in high school because we were bored and it was cheaper than booze.
At the time there was a lot of confusion (at least in our minds, in the UK) about the legality / long-term effects (they had just lowered the criminal status), and I think they should have been much clearer that it's not really a terrible drug, but you shouldn't take it while your brain is developing. The most credible studies I've seen e.g. on mice show that it doesn't have long term neurological effects on adult mice, but will have them on juvenile mice

It's not the worst thing in the world though.. regarding legalization I could go either way as long as it's kept away from kids (and if that's too difficult then forget it)

to be completely honest i have never smoked anything in my life nor have i drank or done anything like that so im pretty much as clean as it gets, however i have alot of opinions about this thread.

first of all, i don't care for discussing the legalization of pot or anything like that not only because that wasnt the aim for this thread but also because quite frankly i just dont give a fuck.

I know many people who use pot regularly and some of them happen to be my close friends, one in particular was in need of some money because there was problems in their family so i lent him $120 to get started selling weed. Within a month he repaid my loan with interest and had nearly $4000 which he then used to help out his family.

As for the laced pot being an urban legend, i can guarantee 100% that it is NOT. the same friend who i lent the money to was at a party and the pot they got was from a very shady person who lived nearby and they found out later he laced the weed with acid because he thought it gave a better high and he could charge more for it.

Also, I personally was looking into the "legally" growing pot with a doctors signature thing. i say "legally" because although its legal in some states it's still a federal crime so you still have to hide it even with the doctors approval and all the correct paperwork.

I have also researched the negative health effects of smoking pot and watched countless documentaries about it as well as the positive effects and even legalization which didn't concern me all that much. In all of this what i found out was that if you smoke it correctly in moderation the negative effects on your body are very minimal if you experience them at all. Most of the negative effects are actually caused because of the joint being passed between multiple people or other things like that where the smokers are not safely smoking. the THC which is actually what gives you the high when inhaled is absorbed into your lungs almost immediately because the molecules are so small. Just about all the negative things you breath in that cause problems such as carbon monoxide and CO2 are much larger than the THC molecules and more of them are absorbed if you hold the smoke in your lungs longer. The safest way is to hold the joint right at the end so your lips are touching your fingers not the actual joint. This provides airflow along the sides of your fingers as well so the THC is absorbed more easily, along with quick breaths that are not as deep you can become high without bringing as much of the harmful things into your body.

To me the drug provides many opportunities at what seems to me to be a very small risk so I have no problem with the drug being as abundent as it is.

Oh yeah and @Putin since your so opinionated about everything I'd just like to add that all the people I know who smoke pot get it from the same dealer and they grow it themself so there is no terrorist drug cartel shit going on here, your comments on this thread so far seem to tell me one thing and one thing only; thats that your opinion is worth the same as anyone else's here and even though you may not realize it (or you do and just dont care) your posts make you sound more and more like an arrogant 14year old kid who google searches and posts links/quotes to help prove your point without much thought. One of your early links even says in the url that its an opinion which cant really be considered facts which you used to try and prove a point. Overall i must agree with what was said before and put you into the forum troll group that was putting itself together in my mind since before i stopped playing this game for a while.

Who needs studies when you have anecdotal evidence and that Excalibur of online debate, the "troll" epithet.

From the point of view of a neurobiologist who has studied the affects of drugs on the brain, I have a couple of points I's like to add to the discussion.

1) Absolute abstinence is, of course, the healthiest option.
2) There is a subset of the population that is afflicted by a) severe anxiety disorders (such as PTSD or related Borderline Personality Disorder, as examples), b) debilitating insomnia, c) very poor apatite due to the above, diseases such as Chron's, or very commonly due to side affects common with prescription drugs such as chemo agents, ect.
3) For this subset the use of marijuana can and does provide clinically relevant symptom relief when used in MODERATION. Again, for healthy individuals, absolute abstinence IS the healthiest choice.
4) Expanding on the above, for individuals with genuine mental and/or physical syndromes, marijuana can provide very effective relief when compared to current alternatives. For anxiety disorders it can be more effective than benzos such as Klonopin, Xanax, ect, without the severe effects on individuals and society at large these drugs tend to have due to their high propensity for addiction, subsequent abuse, and death (especially when mixed with alcohol). For apatite disorders, marajuana is quite simply the best antiemetic yet discovered.

5) Marijuana, like any other psychoactive drug, can be disruptive to normal brain development, which concerning the frontal cortex (that which makes us sentient humans) occurs from prenatal development through the early 20s. A little longer for males than females, in general like most development.

6) All drugs have both "intended" effects, from the medical point of view, and side effects. Marijuana is no exception. Its use does have serious drawbacks, not limited to memory disruption, psychological addiction, and pernicious apathy.

7) to address the link between marijuana and violence discussed here: correlation does not prove causality. This is a basic tenet of logic and science. My individual opinion is that any violence associated with marijuana use and distribution is due to its illegality, and said violence is caused by its relegation to the black market in the vast majority of nations, not due to any direct effects of the drug itself on the brain (it likely has the opposite effect. see: the amygdala).

Finally 8) again, an individual opinion: we as a modern society should accept that a certain subset of the population has and always will turn to drugs, prescription or otherwise, for a variety of reasons. Enforced complete prohibition has never been, and will never be, a realistic goal. Therefore we should focus our efforts on controlling those substances which have the most likelihood to harm the individual user and society at large. I'll leave it to you to decide whether marijuana fits this description.

Thanks Matticus for the detailed and well presented argument. However, I have a question regarding number 8.

You say that we should "focus our efforts on controlling those substances which have the most likelihood to harm the individual user and society at large." My question is: do you extend this mantra to all activities or strictly to drugs?

The reason I ask is because I feel like the bar is raised for drugs in comparison to other recreational activities and often it simply comes down to an individual's personal preference for recreation.

p.s. Putin, have the muted me or simply ignored my last few posts?

I've used pot on a regular basis since the 1960's. I treat it like I do a bottle of wine. If I'm going to drink a bottle of wine I'm going to sit somewhere and not operate heavy machinery or drive. When I pull bong hits I do the same. I like to get stoned before eating an expensive meal at a restaurant, when I garden, when I take my dogs for a long walk, when I go to a concert, and anytime insomnia hits. I especially like the way that the unbelievable quality of the pot I can get today. I haven't smoked a joint in decades because on or two hits on a bong or a pipe totally does the job anymore.

It is absolutely no different than a bottle of wine to me.

TC, I would have thought that of a man of such unimaginable wealth as yourself could spend the extra money to enjoy the finer subtleties of smoking a joint.

in truth weed is better for you then achool and it being horrible for you is a myth

"I've used pot on a regular basis since the 1960's. "

That explains a lot.

"p.s. Putin, have the muted me or simply ignored my last few posts?"

No, I don't mute anyone. It was only one post I ignored, because I frankly wanted to exit the argument since nobody was persuaded by studies which dared dispute the dominant narrative of "harmless" marijuana.

Fair enough, I was just wondering.

I don't think my post suggested that I dismiss all studies against the "harmless" narrative. In fact, anyone who has or knows someone who smokes a lot knows that there are both physical and mental repercussions. However, I thought there were issues with the study you posted and called you out for it.

In simple terms, my argument is that Marijuana isn't bad enough to ban it. In fact, I think most drug laws are biased judgments on how people want to spend their free time and money. If the same level of 'babysitting' was applied to all activities as it is to drugs then many, many, more things would be criminal offences. At some point it comes down to personal preference as to how much you want your government to dictate your daily activities. Some people may prefer it to be legislated that everyone has to walk around in bubblewrap and some people may prefer people to be allowed to dabble in psychoactive drugs.

If you think these drugs have repercussions, you sure don't act like it. You've been single biggest promoter and advocate of recreational drug use on here.

This isn't the first time we've had this discussion. Over the several arguments we've had almost every study has been negated on account of you raising the supposed specter of some unseen variables that weren't dealt with, even though this particular study had 51 control variables and tested whether they, rather than marijuana, were closely associated with violent behavior. Your response I suppose is that if inner city black men use drugs, then yes it will contribute to violent behavior. But I guess if suburban diplomacy-playing white kids use it it's ok? I don't think you thought through the implications of your response. One of the consequences being that apparently you don't care much about what happens to poor inner city areas with a predominant black population. Or at least the cost of widespread marijuana use in these areas doesn't outweigh the convenience of your habit being legal.

But the larger point is that if only drug users held their own arguments to the same 'rigorous' standards they hold academic studies which counters their points. Instead all we get is countless appeals to personal anecdotes or "everyone knows all potheads do is act mellow and get the munchies". That's it. That's all I ever hear. Or in your case I get the usual slippery slope - government is controlling and judging us because they won't let me smoke pot - spiel. Most recreational activities don't cause mental illness, don't cause increases in crime, don't cause increases in healthcare costs don't cause your motor function and reflexes to be impaired, etc, etc. Drug users want the world to go along with them in their fairy tale that they live on an island and should be able to engage in any self indulgent behavior they want to and damn the consequences. Sorry, the consequences matter. And you don't get to tell society to pay for your habit without them making demands on you to change your behavior that is costing us.

It's true, the study you showed suggested that pot use correlates with increased violence in black inner city communities.That is a real concern and something should be done. The difference between the two of us, is that we don't agree on the same solution.

I'm not going to pretend I have the solution but until you can show some causality beyond stigmatization and illegality then I don't think banning the drug is an effective or appropriate action.

In fact, the idea that the correlation b/w weed use and crime is only present in certain communities further suggests that the route of the problem is not the drug itself and that education/control may be a better route than prohibition.

"If you think these drugs have repercussions, you sure don't act like it. You've been single biggest promoter and advocate of recreational drug use on here."

I'm sorry if I'm been misunderstood. My intent is to try encourage fair and accurate drug education. I think, similarly to how education has helped improve society's views on sexual health, the same can be done with drugs. Education played a large roll in curbing cigarette smoking, drinking during pregnancy, etc.

Yonni, I would love to have the tolerance to smoke joints. A couple of pipe hits of what I have, which I just did (I'm housecleaning) is all I need. Nothing better for a dirty job than a buzz. Cheers.

Oh my god, Do i find myself agreeing with TC?

I'm gotta sit down....

+1 TC later on in life when i am well established with good pay i also would like to take part in using pot, i feel that with all the stress this world has to offer a little pot would only be beneficial for me. you only get to live once so why would you want to be stressed all the time instead of taking some hits and sitting back enjoying life.

idk if anybody else has heard of this song but i guess it kind of relates to this thread seeing as the whole thing is about drugs, it's one of my favorite songs of all time and i actually have it for my ringtone right now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zidiWe9yq88

Pot has its place in life like just about every other substance know to man that deadens the nerve endings. A strong margarita with a healthy dose of fresh lime poured into a tall chimney glass absolutely crammed with final crushed ice is another poison I like and am enjoying today. You have to pack the glass and the lime juice must be fresh. It's like drinking a spiked lime-ade from Sonic.