Why are so many Americans giving in to pot smoking?

I notice you did not list any benefits, or dispel any myths.

Maybe I can help.

~ ~

Article Source: http://ezinearticles.com/1550088A total of 2,964 babies were drug-tested at birth to see if they were positive for drugs - cocaine, opioids or cannabis were studied. 44% of the infants tested positive for all varieties of drugs, including the 3 being studied. During the first two years of their lives, 44 babies from the original group died. Since statistics are a drag to slog through, I'll cut right to the chase - the deaths per thousand live births - the numbers tell the story.

"No drugs at birth" deaths....... 15.7 deaths per 1000 live births

"Cocaine positive" deaths.......17.7 deaths per 1000 live births

"Opiate positive" deaths.......18.4 deaths per 1000 live births

"Cannabis positive" deaths.... 8.9 deaths per 1000 live births

The cocaine and opiate babies have a higher death rate than the "No drugs" babies - that was to be expected. But look at the "cannabis" babies! Having extra cannabinoids in their bodies at birth (and likely later, from 2nd-hand exposure, or breast milk) seems to have some sort of a protective effect. The "cannabis" infants have a mortality rate almost half of what the "No drugs" infants have!

Cannabis has a remarkable safety record - it has never caused a single death by overdose, so it is safer than the Tylenol that we give to our children. Some cannabinoids, like CBD, can't get you high no matter how much you take, but are still quite effective medically. Perhaps it is time that someone considers doing a study of pediatric, non-psychoactive cannabinoid use to treat "failure to thrive" infants! http://www.salem-news.com/articles/june272010/mari...

~ ~

Cannabinoids may cause antitumor effects by various mechanisms, including induction of cell death, inhibition of cell growth, and inhibition of tumor angiogenesis invasion and metastasis. One review summarizes the molecular mechanisms of action of cannabinoids as antitumor agents. Cannabinoids appear to kill tumor cells but do not affect their nontransformed counterparts and may even protect them from cell death. These compounds have been shown to induce apoptosis in glioma cells in culture and induce regression of glioma tumors in mice and rats. Cannabinoids protect normal glial cells of astroglial and oligodendroglial lineages from apoptosis mediated by the CB1 receptor.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabi...

~ ~

The study was fascinating because if the adolescents used cannabis in addition to binge drinking, the damage was notably less than if they binge drank alone. Therefore, cannabis use was somewhat neuroprotective to the brain in terms of the damage caused by binge drinking.

This does not mean that cannabis use is good for your brain, or that it does not damage the brain. But no study of cannabis use has ever found anything as dramatic as extensive white matter losses in the brain (that’s a pretty serious type of damage). So, if anything, binge drinking in adolescence (which many adolescents do) is remarkably worse for your brain than using cannabis in adolescence, which is an amazing thing to say right there.

http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2009/10/08/cann...

~ ~

Comparing the two groups, the neonates of mothers who used marijuana showed better physiological stability at 1 month and required less examiner facilitation to reach an organized state and become available for social stimulation.

The results of the comparison of neonates of the heavy-marijuana-using mothers and those of the non-using mothers were even more striking…

• The heavily exposed neonates were more socially responsive and were more autonomically stable at 30 days than their matched counterparts.

• quality of their alertness was higher;

• their motor and autonomic systems were more robust;

• they were less irritable;

• they were less likely to demonstrate any imbalance of tone;

• they needed less examiner facilitation to become organized;

• they had better self-regulation;

• judged to be more rewarding for caregivers than the neonates of non-using mothers at 1 month of age

http://patients4medicalmarijuana.wordpress.com/200...

~ ~ ~

Compare these results with alcohol.

The study concluded that: "...An important practical objective of this study was to determine whether degrees of driving impairment can be actually predicted from either measured concentration of THC in plasma or performance measured in potential roadside "sobriety" tests of tracking ability or hand and posture stability. The results, like many reported before, indicated that none of these measures accurately predicts changes in actual performance under the influence of THC...".

The researchers found that it "appears not possible to conclude anything about a driver's impairment on the basis of his/her plasma concentrations of THC and THC-COOH determined in a single sample". Note: "THC" stands for Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, which is the intoxicating ingredient in marijuana. THC is fairly quickly converted by the body into inert metabolites, which can stay in the body for hours or even days. It is these metabolites that police blood tests in DUI arrests detect and measure.

In other words, (1) marijuna may not impair driving ability at all, and (2) the blood "evidence" only measures an inactive substance which may have been there for days.

Lawrence Taylor is a former prosecutor, Fulbright professor of law, and author of the standard legal textbook, "Drunk Driving Defense, 6th Edition". He is the senior member of an AV-rated firm of California DUI lawyers practicing DUI defense exclusively since 1979.

http://ezinearticles.com/?Does-Marijuana-Impair-Dr...

~ ~

Antitumor Effects

One study in mice and rats suggested that cannabinoids may have a protective effect against the development of certain types of tumors. During this 2-year study, groups of mice and rats were given various doses of THC by gavage. A dose-related decrease in the incidence of hepatic adenoma tumors and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) was observed in the mice. Decreased incidences of benign tumors (polyps and adenomas) in other organs (mammary gland, uterus, pituitary, testis, and pancreas ) were also noted in the rats. In another study, delta-9-THC, delta-8-THC, and cannabinol were found to inhibit the growth of Lewis lung adenocarcinoma cells in vitro and in vivo . In addition, other tumors have been shown to be sensitive to cannabinoid-induced growth inhibition.

Cannabinoids may cause antitumor effects by various mechanisms, including induction of cell death, inhibition of cell growth, and inhibition of tumor angiogenesis invasion and metastasis. One review summarizes the molecular mechanisms of action of cannabinoids as antitumor agents. Cannabinoids appear to kill tumor cells but do not affect their nontransformed counterparts and may even protect them from cell death. These compounds have been shown to induce apoptosis in glioma cells in culture and induce regression of glioma tumors in mice and rats. Cannabinoids protect normal glial cells of astroglial and oligodendroglial lineages from apoptosis mediated by the CB1 receptor.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabi...

~ ~~

Cannabis Is Neuroprotective

A fascinating new study shows that cannabis offers some neuroprotection to young people who engaged in binge drinking episodes. The binge drinkers were young – aged 16-19. This is an age at which the effects of drugs on the brain may be particularly bad, since the brain is continuing to develop.

What was shocking was that binge drinking in adolescents caused the type and degree of damage that it did. Binge drinking caused actual losses of white matter in the brain, similar to the damage seen with drugs like cocaine and methamphetamine.

The study was fascinating because if the adolescents used cannabis in addition to binge drinking, the damage was notably less than if they binge drank alone. Therefore, cannabis use was somewhat neuroprotective to the brain in terms of the damage caused by binge drinking.

This does not mean that cannabis use is good for your brain, or that it does not damage the brain. But no study of cannabis use has ever found anything as dramatic as extensive white matter losses in the brain (that’s a pretty serious type of damage). So, if anything, binge drinking in adolescence (which many adolescents do) is remarkably worse for your brain than using cannabis in adolescence, which is an amazing thing to say right there.

http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2009/10/08/cann...

Why legalize pot? Well, from your post you've proven that you know absolutely nothing about the plant.

Many more than 10% of Americans can benefit medicinally from Marijuana. Why do you think the legalization movement is succeeding so rapidly?

What benefit is it to keep a completely harmless plant illegal? Decriminalizing and making safe places of purchase for patients or even recreational users is a huge threat to any illegaldrug organization. The only reason they are so powerful is because they have a monopoly on a 'product' that cannot be easily found elsewhere.

To compare the difference between alcohol and pot simply by saying one is legal and the other is not, to me is counter productive to your whole argument. To me, this argument doesn't have a wobbly leg to stand on.

Legalizing pot would help keep it AWAY from teens. Why? There would be a responsible supply of it to responsible adults and less demand for illegal operations. Teens will get their hands on pot either way if they really want to.. but legalization would not make the process any easier on them. If anything, it would make it harder.

The only reason pot is bad is because someone told you so. Open your mind and look at the facts. Marijuana does not affect anyone but those who chose to partake in it. Marijuana poses no threat to anyone's quality of life other than those who chose to partake in it. If they decide it helps them, why not?

So now, with that said and much more information still to be said in favor of legalization, what reason do we have not to legalize a plant that has the potential to help millions of people?

There are only a few good arguments against pot and even less FOR it (maybe one or two.) Yes, taxes are good and we vote our congressmen make the best allocation of resources, and even though we don't always agree, that is not a good reason to NOT tax something...

But more to the point, it is absolutely a personal choice, to use it or not in the case of legal pot, like alcohol becomes a personal choice depending on its effects. The application of the use of marijuana is recreational if not medical.

My experience has shown me, that pot is a hallucinogen and the danger with that is flashbacks, which could, yes, interfere with normal everyday functions. And surelly, you've noticed the disorganized writing here in this example, just as I noticed or observed that your rant (LOL) is a little disorganized, so I know you've smoked. Few people will fool the professional cross purpose of a dignified, respectable, and an uncompromised behavior.

"ITS LEGAL, POTS NOT"

Most liberals I know do not just support status quos because they are the status quo. I know that just because something is illegal doesnt mean its dangerous. Most of the laws surrounding marijuana were implemented out of fear and racist propaganda, and that is still what maintains them today.

In a word, its called civil disobedience. Liberals are usually the ones to stand up to crappy laws while republicans abide by them for the sheer fact that someone at some point made it a law.

Also, you need to check your medical facts

Because its a quick easy way to release natural dopamine from ones brain.

I don't drink or smoke pot, if I had a choice to make one illegal it would definitely be alcohol.

People need educating on how to release dopamine from healthier ways.

Most, if not all, of those dangers you listed could be caused by alcohol, as well. Yet alcohol is legal and people continue to use it.