Media Bias

[nonniey]

Ok listening to Smerconish (Why I'm using this thread) this morning got me going. So the subject was should the US adopt the same law New Zealand has in respect to nicotine/cigarettes? It bans the sale of nicotine products to anyone born after a certain year with the intent of having nicotine completely illegal in NZ in a couple of generations). His poll responders were about 50/50. The health risks and costs of cigarettes were the driving arguments for banning them. Now that said I think donuts to dollars that most of those wanting to go that route also were supportive of legalizing marijuana. However, smoking marijuana has more health risks than smoking cigarettes. I just don't get how people think. One thing a ban movement would have is financing as I'm sure the Mexican drug cartels would be willing to support an effort to outlaw cigarettes.

Note - I've never smoked (anything), don't like smoking and nag people I love that smoke to quit, but think it would be the dumbest move since alcohol prohibition if the US ever did ban cigarettes.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by nonniey

Ok listening to Smerconish (Why I'm using this thread) this morning got me going. So the subject was should the US adopt the same law New Zealand has in respect to nicotine/cigarettes? It bans the sale of nicotine products to anyone born after a certain year with the intent of having nicotine completely illegal in NZ in a couple of generations). His poll responders were about 50/50. The health risks and costs of cigarettes were the driving arguments for banning them. Now that said I think donuts to dollars that most of those wanting to go that route also were supportive of legalizing marijuana. However, smoking marijuana has more health risks than smoking cigarettes. I just don't get how people think. One thing a ban movement would have is financing as I'm sure the Mexican drug cartels would be willing to support an effort to outlaw cigarettes.

Note - I've never smoked (anything), don't like smoking and nag people I love that smoke to quit, but think it would be the dumbest move since alcohol prohibition if the US ever did ban cigarettes.

I don't think enough studies have been done to conclude that 100%. Weed doesn't have the cancer causing chemicals they put in cigarettes and while smoking a pack a day of cigarettes is the norm for plenty of people, smoking that same amount of weed in a day is not.

Inhaling smoke of any kind is not a great idea, but these days there are plenty of other ways to consume marijuana without smoking it.

[nonniey]

Originally Posted by MTK

I don't think enough studies have been done to conclude that 100%. Weed doesn't have the cancer causing chemicals they put in cigarettes and while smoking a pack a day of cigarettes is the norm for plenty of people, smoking that same amount of weed in a day is not.

Inhaling smoke of any kind is not a great idea, but these days there are plenty of other ways to consume marijuana without smoking it.

Oh yes marijuana does have the cancer causing effects that cigarettes do (or smoking Marijuana does to be clear.) Not only that it has a higher concentration of them. The study I read a few years back is that smoking a joint gives you about 4 times the carcinogens that a cigarette does.

Difference is a lot more people smoke cigs (and more of them) so it has much higher effect on health costs overall.

[Chico23231]

Why doesn’t the government make football illegal next with the evidence of CTE?

[SunnySide]

Originally Posted by nonniey

Ok listening to Smerconish (Why I'm using this thread) this morning got me going. So the subject was should the US adopt the same law New Zealand has in respect to nicotine/cigarettes? It bans the sale of nicotine products to anyone born after a certain year with the intent of having nicotine completely illegal in NZ in a couple of generations). His poll responders were about 50/50. The health risks and costs of cigarettes were the driving arguments for banning them. Now that said I think donuts to dollars that most of those wanting to go that route also were supportive of legalizing marijuana. However, smoking marijuana has more health risks than smoking cigarettes. I just don't get how people think. One thing a ban movement would have is financing as I'm sure the Mexican drug cartels would be willing to support an effort to outlaw cigarettes.

Note - I've never smoked (anything), don't like smoking and nag people I love that smoke to quit, but think it would be the dumbest move since alcohol prohibition if the US ever did ban cigarettes.

1. No one in the US smokes or uses mexican weed anymore (safe assumption). America has huge greenhouses growing the finest. Mexican brick brown dirt weed is a 80s thing. Pretty sure in MD, any weed sold in a MD dispensary had to be grown in MD, not 100% sure.





^^ this is Sun Med in Cecil County, MD, mid to low tier quality grower imo. I personally am not a fan, tend to buy the higher quality stuff as I only smoke maybe 3.5 gs a month.

Mexican cartel weed revenue is zero nowadays thanks to legalization and medical cannabis.

[SunnySide]

2. Smoking weed traditional style (flame to flower like a bowl or joint) def has tar and I am 100% sure can cause cancer but like Matty said ... people dont smoke weed like they do cigarettes.

Currently, I rarely smoke a joint or bowl. Its all vape pen of flower or oil and edibles. I bought some cookie dough yesterday.

Eating edibles or drinking elixir takes the tar/smoke worry away.

Long term weed users do have a higher chance of Schizophrenia. Is this chicken or egg correlation though?

Do people with latent suppressed schizo gravitate to weed at a higher rate as a form of self medication?

or

Does long term weed use increase your chance of schizo?

[SunnySide]

3. Addressing your actual question (lol)

Interesting discussion, going back to college days of discussing utilitarianism .. when does societal interests trump personal independence?

We have seat belt laws .. but thats not really taking something away from someone and that is to benefit the individual person, not taking from individual to benefit society.

We have laws against drunk driving ... thats taking away a persons individual freedom for the betterment of society. But there, the threat to society is "likely" and "immediate" and "deadly".

We can establish a clear line that if an individual's action creates a (1) likely/foreseebale (2) immediate and (3) potentially deadly result to another member of society = society can regulate that individual action

But thats an easy line to draw and agree with.

Real questions is .. can govt regulate an individual's action if it will only negatively effect that individual?

US certainly regulates cigarettes, alcohol, weed. They tax the shit out of it as cigarettes and alcohol put a huge strain on our health medical community.

Cigarette smoking cost the US approx 600 BILLION in 2018.

On top of that .. 74% of cigarette smokers are low income/medicaid so society needs to luxury tax those goods to offset the down the road costs.

-------------

Smoked cigarettes for decades, cold quit once I learned I was going to be a dad. Now I smoke maybe 5-10 a year

[BaltimoreSkins]

While I can't directly speak to what New Zealand wants to do my thoughts on what is happening in the United States has more to do with:

a. Cigarette companies lying and deceiving intentionally on the additives in their products and continuing to do so.
b. The desire to regulate marijuana so as to remove lethal additives added by drug cartels in order to enhance addictiveness
c. The therapeutic benefits found in marijuana from a medicinal stand point

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by BaltimoreSkins

While I can't directly speak to what New Zealand wants to do my thoughts on what is happening in the United States has more to do with:

a. Cigarette companies lying and deceiving intentionally on the additives in their products and continuing to do so.
b. The desire to regulate marijuana so as to remove lethal additives added by drug cartels in order to enhance addictiveness
c. The therapeutic benefits found in marijuana from a medicinal stand point

Weed advocacy groups do the samething. While therapeutics have been found, as pot has been mainstreamed more studies have been done and the CDC has released some really shocking results when it comes to usage and impacts on development.

There has to be balance, but there’s a lack of awareness when it comes to risks associated with weed use and I really blame the lobby that have been given a lot of what they wanted.

[sdskinsfan2001]

Every single thing you put in your body has an effect, whether positive or negative. Adults should be responsible for taking care of themselves and researching what they're consuming. That should not be the government's job to try to legislate what we can have. Pass hard on that.

To add, every company should have to be 100% forthcoming about what ingredients, etc., are in their products and there needs to be punishments for not doing so.

[BaltimoreSkins]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Weed advocacy groups do the samething. While therapeutics have been found, as pot has been mainstreamed more studies have been done and the CDC has released some really shocking results when it comes to usage and impacts on development.

There has to be balance, but there’s a lack of awareness when it comes to risks associated with weed use and I really blame the lobby that have been given a lot of what they wanted.

Is it shocking? I feel like the longitudinal impacts are pretty well known.

I don't know enough about the additives they put in marijuana but won't be surprised to find they are hiding things.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by BaltimoreSkins

Is it shocking? I feel like the longitudinal impacts are pretty well known.

I don't know enough about the additives they put in marijuana but won't be surprised to find they are hiding things.

Any reputable seller has lab results available on their website or included with the products you buy.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by sdskinsfan2001

Every single thing you put in your body has an effect, whether positive or negative. Adults should be responsible for taking care of themselves and researching what they're consuming. That should not be the government's job to try to legislate what we can have. Pass hard on that.

To add, every company should have to be 100% forthcoming about what ingredients, etc., are in their products and there needs to be punishments for not doing so.

Totally agree on personal responsibility, but on that note should all drugs be legal?

Without some level of Federal oversight, like the FDA, good luck with getting companies to be honest and forthcoming on their own.

[sdskinsfan2001]

Originally Posted by MTK

Totally agree on personal responsibility, but on that note should all drugs be legal?

Without some level of Federal oversight, like the FDA, good luck with getting companies to be honest and forthcoming on their own.

If there could only be 2 choices:

1. All drugs are legal
2. All drugs are illegal

I would definitely vote for legalizing all drugs. I'd much rather have my choice to choose what I consume than be told what I can or can't.

I don't know enough about the FDA to have too much of an opinion about them. But reviewing foods/drugs/etc. is different than legislating our rights to have it or not.

For example) I think cocaine should be legalized, but if it was, I wouldn't be against the FDA reviewing those products being sold to make sure the drugs were pure and not laced with other additives.

Note - I don't do coke, and have never done it before. Drugs (besides alcohol) just have no appeal to me. So unless we go back to prohibition, all other drugs being legal or illegal would have zero impact on my life in particular.

[SunnySide]

If cocaine was legal ... id be dead.

Not even joking.