The reason why people who use harder drugs also use marijuana is .... why not?
If you are someone with a mindset to eventually use hard drugs, then you will have no reason not to use weed, since it's pretty awesome for most people anyway as an intoxicant (much more enjoyable and less dangerous and no hangover when compare to most people's favorite intoxicant-BOOZE) and cheap compared to most other drugs. And no addiction. So it is incredibly backwards to say the weed led them to the other drugs.
You may have a habit of smoking it that makes it hard for you to break, but make no mistake about it, all the research shows there is no physical addiction. There are a lot of enjoyable habits that are hard to break that you would never argue against science that they are real physical addictions. Take... showering, for instance.
I don't advocate getting high and driving as opposed to not getting high and driving, but I'd like to point out to everyone who doesn't know very much about the subject that one way cops have been told to identify a driver using cannabis is that they'll be driving PERFECTLY! hahahaha!!!!! any idea why? because you're being super cautious. In fact, in some testing done in recent years people embarassingly actually performed better in driving tests after getting high than they did sober. This of course depends on your experience with the altered state. How many fatalities on the road happen as a result of marijuana? Not enough to even quanitfy in a percentage above .0-something. So that aspect of the debate is not really even relevant to come up in the decision. I know, I know, too hard to let go of, BUT I'm afraid statistically it isn't a danger to us on the road. Besides that, people don't really want to drive when they're high. Now how many people do you hear saying "I'M NOT DRUNK! I CAN DRIVE FINE!" Any stoner will be the first to tell you "man, I'm soooooo stoned right now" As for brain damage, read the scientific literature. Too many people believe the propaganda and commercials and anti-drug campaigns which do the reverse of educating the public. If you don't know our country's history with hemp, you're missing out on a hilarious and tragic era where people were onced required by law to grow it (not just to smoke, it's a miraculously strong fiber and grows faster than any other plant) and then in the 30's told to TELL YOUR CHILDREN it's evil. Why tell them? Because if you can raise a generation to think it's bad, it will become looked upon as such. It worked. Hell, even George Washington and Thomas Jefferson loved the stuff and before the invention of the cotton gin, most plantations grew HEMP here!
You can read about this huge part of history that will make you go "whu?!!!" here- http://www.jackherer.com/chapters.html
As for cancer, get with the program!!! For one thing, you can vaporize it now (I have a vaporizer) and since the herb doesn't burn and carbonize, you get absolutely no carcinogens from the vapor of the herb. The carcinogens came from the actual burning process, as with anything that you set on fire. Actualy, it has properties which stop the growth of and even shrink some tumors! This isn't just heresay, it's scientific fact I don't have the time to link to as I'm at work. Easily enough found with a quick google search. It has so many medical uses, and with no side-effects (besides getting a little high, which you develop a tolerance to), it's no wonder pharmeceutical companies have been trying to synthesize it for years just so you have to buy it from them and can't grow it yourself. THC isn't the only active part of it, there are several cannabinoids, some of which we've been able to identify as active but not synthesize so far, which is why it's so hard to make a fake product that even comes close. And why is research so off-limits? hmmmmmmm that's a good question that makes me pretty pissed off because there is no good answer.
I know I sound like some raving stoner but the subject is so misunderstood and it's a pet topic of interest for me because of that and this all flew out of me on my ten minute break =)
If you are someone with a mindset to eventually use hard drugs, then you will have no reason not to use weed, since it's pretty awesome for most people anyway as an intoxicant (much more enjoyable and less dangerous and no hangover when compare to most people's favorite intoxicant-BOOZE) and cheap compared to most other drugs. And no addiction. So it is incredibly backwards to say the weed led them to the other drugs.
You may have a habit of smoking it that makes it hard for you to break, but make no mistake about it, all the research shows there is no physical addiction. There are a lot of enjoyable habits that are hard to break that you would never argue against science that they are real physical addictions. Take... showering, for instance.
I don't advocate getting high and driving as opposed to not getting high and driving, but I'd like to point out to everyone who doesn't know very much about the subject that one way cops have been told to identify a driver using cannabis is that they'll be driving PERFECTLY! hahahaha!!!!! any idea why? because you're being super cautious. In fact, in some testing done in recent years people embarassingly actually performed better in driving tests after getting high than they did sober. This of course depends on your experience with the altered state. How many fatalities on the road happen as a result of marijuana? Not enough to even quanitfy in a percentage above .0-something. So that aspect of the debate is not really even relevant to come up in the decision. I know, I know, too hard to let go of, BUT I'm afraid statistically it isn't a danger to us on the road. Besides that, people don't really want to drive when they're high. Now how many people do you hear saying "I'M NOT DRUNK! I CAN DRIVE FINE!" Any stoner will be the first to tell you "man, I'm soooooo stoned right now" As for brain damage, read the scientific literature. Too many people believe the propaganda and commercials and anti-drug campaigns which do the reverse of educating the public. If you don't know our country's history with hemp, you're missing out on a hilarious and tragic era where people were onced required by law to grow it (not just to smoke, it's a miraculously strong fiber and grows faster than any other plant) and then in the 30's told to TELL YOUR CHILDREN it's evil. Why tell them? Because if you can raise a generation to think it's bad, it will become looked upon as such. It worked. Hell, even George Washington and Thomas Jefferson loved the stuff and before the invention of the cotton gin, most plantations grew HEMP here!
You can read about this huge part of history that will make you go "whu?!!!" here- http://www.jackherer.com/chapters.html
As for cancer, get with the program!!! For one thing, you can vaporize it now (I have a vaporizer) and since the herb doesn't burn and carbonize, you get absolutely no carcinogens from the vapor of the herb. The carcinogens came from the actual burning process, as with anything that you set on fire. Actualy, it has properties which stop the growth of and even shrink some tumors! This isn't just heresay, it's scientific fact I don't have the time to link to as I'm at work. Easily enough found with a quick google search. It has so many medical uses, and with no side-effects (besides getting a little high, which you develop a tolerance to), it's no wonder pharmeceutical companies have been trying to synthesize it for years just so you have to buy it from them and can't grow it yourself. THC isn't the only active part of it, there are several cannabinoids, some of which we've been able to identify as active but not synthesize so far, which is why it's so hard to make a fake product that even comes close. And why is research so off-limits? hmmmmmmm that's a good question that makes me pretty pissed off because there is no good answer.
I know I sound like some raving stoner but the subject is so misunderstood and it's a pet topic of interest for me because of that and this all flew out of me on my ten minute break =)
