Chris, see***below.

Natalia


----- Original Message -----
From: Christoph Reuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 3:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] Possible U.S. cutbacks?


> Darryl wrote:
> >
> >  > It is addictive (see below).  Or why else do you think
> >  > there are Marijuana Addiction Treatment Programs like
> >  > http://www.solutions4recovery.com/marijuana.htm ?
> >  >
> >  > Denial won't solve problems -- on the contrary.
> >  >
> >  > Chris
> >
> >  The "addiction" from marijuana when no other intoxicants or drugs are
used
> > is minimal;

>***The word addiction was enclosed by "       ", and perhaps "side-effects"
should have been used instead. If I fail to have a coffee in the morning,
the side-effects for me will result in a headache. If I eat too much
sugar--the same, or else I become incredibly sleepy. If I fail to drink
water, I become thirsty or dehydrated. Do you know how many doctors refuse
to start a day of workshops/seminars unless coffee is provided? Symptoms of
not eating--blood sugar level drops, people get headaches. Smoke a
cigarette, blood sugar level rises, then drops. Use Aspartame--blood sugar
drops 8-10X faster than normal sugar, blow diet big time!

> I guess "when no other intoxicants or drugs are used" applies to 0.001% of
> marijuana users or so.
>*** If you want to use a fairly safe rule, go by the efficacy factor used
by
pesticide and pharmaceutical companies. 2.5% of the population will possibly
have adverse reactions to pretty much anything they produce.
> ***Most pot smokers do not do other drugs, though they may experiment.
They smoke pot because of the way it elevates dopamine levels. Alcohol and
heroin are processed within the portion of brain that creates dependency,
and I believe that tobacco works on the same portion similarly. Had an
operation lately? I 've heard of millions who have, and they're almost all
getting heroin or meth as their pain killer. Legally. Aren't you afraid for
them?

> > physical desires are gone within 3 to 5 days although the smoking of the
> > plant creates a similar addiction, if there is high usage, as cigarettes
> > from the tar and slight nicotine content.
>
> So you admit that it's addictive.

> ***As above, there are mild side-effects. Pot does not work on the the
body's
own morphine receptors usually occupied by natural opiates. When heroin is
used, the amount of natural opiates is reduced, leading to increased
craving. If the drug is not supplied, we get "withdrawl response". Where we
have addiction indication from pot use, it is either psychological or it is
withdrawl
from the tar or nicotine in the case of over-use. Doesn't everyone feel
lousy during withdrawl from tobacco addiction, or an addictive relationship?
If you drink alchohol once a week, you should consider yourself addicted.
Same with coffee/tea. Your arguments and poor examples are revealing an
unrounded general knowledge of the subject. More akin to fear.
>
> > If we are considering those users who smoke to relieve their emotional
> > problems, then it is not used recreationally, it is being used as an
> > escape or a band-aid solution because the medical establishment will not
> > or cannot treat the emotional problems reasonably or safely. The use of
> > pharmaceuticals (anti-depressants or the harder psychotropics) is
usually
> > much more damaging to the individual (physically, due to side-effects,
and
> > emotionally) and creates a much more intense "addiction" than marijuana.
>
> Strawman.  I wasn't advocating to replace one band-aid with another, I was
> advocating to address the root causes so band-aids aren't necessary.

******Strawman? Chris, insults are not necessary just because people
disagree with your sources of information nor even if you consider dead
brain
cells to be a concern. You have acquired the establishment's stereotypical
views on pot as a dangerous "drug". And it seems you fear it more than
really
dangerous drugs or politicians. But, since you brought it up,
what root causes would you address effectively? And don't even think of
B.I.(!!!) as a solution for this small portion of people who are classified
as addicted, who have signed up for these studies because their welfare
workers will not allow them to stay on the dole unless they participate
in such a study/rehab programs.
>
>
> >  > "This study provides additional important data to better illustrate
that
> >  > marijuana is a dangerous drug that can be addictive," Dr. Alan
Leshner,
> >  > head of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), which paid for
the
> >  > study, said in a statement.
> >
> >  This is the root of the problem here. This is a federally funded
> > organization and if the findings are not those the government wishes to
> > see, the report is shelved and the researchers and director are fired
>
> First you admit that it's addictive and when a study finds the same, you
> dismiss is as a conspiracy.
>
> ***As in any recreational substance, a small percentage will exhibit
adverse reactions. With LEGAL drugs, up to 30% of people have adverse
reactions, and in the case of drugs issued to control mental health, the
percentage is far higher and usually far more fatal. Though most people
manage their alcohol, most domestic abuse, like up to 60 %, is as a result
of alcohol abuse. Remember drunk drivers? Yeah, they're not addicted,
right? Alcohol is manageable for them.

> >  > More than 80 percent of the boys and 60 percent of the girls were
> >  > clinically dependent on marijuana.
> >
> >  There is no chemical dependency on marijuana. If there were, one would
be
> > unable to leave the substance for even a day without severe physical and
> > emotional upheaval.           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> The number of days is just a matter of degree.
>
>
> >  > When asked, 97 percent of the teens said they still used marijuana
even
> >  > after realizing it had become a problem for them.
> >  >
> >  > Eighty-five percent admitted their habit interfered with driving,
school,
> >  > work and home life, while 77 percent said they spent "much time"
getting,
> >  > using or recovering from the effects of marijuana, according to the
study,
> >  > published in the journal Drug and Alcohol Dependence.
> >
> >  This is absurd propaganda. These are high percentages of an extremely
> > small group and would never in any other field be considered an
appropriate
> > statistic
>
***Kids will also say a lot of things if it means that staying with the
program means a roof over their heads for a month or two, just as with so
many alcoholic kids who participate in these programs primarily during
winter months. But we are still talking about the small minority that can
exhibit symptoms of addiction. The real epidemic is still tobacco and
alcohol, known to cause hundreds of thousands of deaths every year.
Why are you not afraid for these addicts?

> Nope, group size was big enough for significance.
>
> ***Disagree. Only big enough to support your fears. We've known
probably thousands of pot smokers, and perhaps two or three were
addicted to hard-core street drugs or a higher percentage for alcohol.
This count comes mostly out of our volunteer work across seven years+
in the teen to late thirties age groups. Personal friends and acquaintances,
same observation. So your study is lame.
Now, prescription drugs--they're everywhere you turn. That's scary!

> >  > Most also said their problems started before they started using
marijuana.
> >
> >  Note the above line carefully. Marijuana was not the problem. The
problems
> > began before.
>
> ...and then pot added to their problems.

***Just as alcohol or heroin would to a troubled youth. For most others,
pot enhances relaxation and good times. Because it can excite brain
activity, some smokers will learn to stay clear of it when they're
especially confused about things. When your buddies say, I need a drink, do
you escort them to the nearest treatment centre?You should, if you are anti-
addiction. My brother passed away at age 51 from alcoholic addiction.
His father was addicted to control and violence, though he couldn't tolerate
alcohol himself. Made him too relaxed, and sleepy-like. All substances
affect people differently.
>
>
> > Therefore, treat the problem not the result of the problem.
>
> That's what I said from the start.  But you want to give them the band-aid
> which will add to their problems.
>
>***There was not one mention of advocating it as a solution to problems.

> >  The current medical establishment would have made these same
individuals
> > extremely dependent upon any of the "prescription drugs" (is Prozac a
big
> > seller these days?) as well as damaging the liver or other organs or
> > glandular activity. Some anti-psychotics come with a higher price,
requiring
> > heart monitoring for their use. A friend of ours died at age 45 due to
> > heart failure from one.
>
> I'm sorry, but your friend should have addressed the roots of addiction
> instead of smoking pot.
>
>***Our friend never smoked pot. He used legal drugs. Please read what is
there.
He did not wish to be addicted to those either, but his medical handlers
made sure of it.

> >  Chris, to pull one very limited report and hold it up as God's Truth,
as
> > well as it being from a country that has waged war on this plant ever
since
> > the tobacco and alcohol lobby of the late 20's sought to rid themselves
of
> > this competition to their profits, is not what I have grown to expect
from
> > you.
>
> I am well aware that your gov't uses the "war on drugs" as a cynical
pretext
> to do very nasty things, while not being credible at all (cf. Contragate,
> support for Noriega, KLA & Afghan drug lords etc.).  But that doesn't
change
> the fact that drug use is a scourge to mankind and shouldn't be promoted.
>
>***Drugs certainly are a big problem, including what Eli Lilly puts out,
but the people who are making most of the money off of them will continue to
promote them in the ways that are current, legally or through the black
market,  until politicians and government officials attain the moral
convictions that you espouse or until we collectively take a stand.
 ***By the way, since you've bought the statistics on the alleged
multi-billion dollar industry, how are these welfare moms able to afford the
average 20,000-50,000 dollar addictions that the small percentage of those
that are actually using drugs have? Who but the top 5% of wage earners or
those who inherit vast sums can really dish out that kind of money,
annually?Drug busts would claim that people actually have the amount of
money to purchase what can be generated, street value, by what they take in.
Look at those head lines a little more carefully, especially the ones for
heroin and cocaine busts. Huge seizes, tons and tons, supposedly but a small
percentage. At these rates, everyone should be crawling to the nearest
dealer. Propaganda to distract, Chris.

> > The pleasantness, camaraderie, ability to retain functionality and
>                     ^^^^^^^^^^^
> > clarity make marijuana a more acceptable high than even liquor.
>
> If "camaraderie" needs drugs to function then there's something wrong
> with the comrades.  From the pot smokers I had to experience, I can only
> say that talk of "camaraderie" is cynical nonsense.

***Some talk certainly will be, just as most talk from a straight individual
at the office, uninebriated or legally doped up.
The above did not say drugs or pot was needed for camaraderie. Yet, I'll
take a chance here to say I'll bet you find the bravado of a wine or beer
drinker really funny and genuine. I worked in bars, mostly as a bartender,
and I found most of the clientele, which was considered to be middle to
upper class, unbearably aggressive, and quite tiresome. They were almost all
addicted to alcohol as well. They almost all drove their cars home, and many
would be beating up their wife and kids upon arrival. But they all talked
that upwardly moving, corporate natter. They were all quite proud to have a
job helping their bosses to weasel more money out of the masses. One was
Lord Conrad Black, who failed to listen to our staff complaints about not
getting paid by owners he had loaned money to in order to start up this
establishment in Toronto. So sorry he got caught twenty-five years later
embezzling. Didn't see that coming.

***Peace, Man!
Natalia
>
> Chris
>
>
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the
keyword
> "igve".
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Futurework mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework



_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

Reply via email to