Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Marijuana Could Prevent Alzheimer's, New Study

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the that's-just-like-your-opinion-man dept.

Medicine 807

Chickan writes "'A puff a day might keep Alzheimer's away, according to marijuana research by professor Gary Wenk and associate professor Yannic Marchalant of the Ohio State Department of Psychology. Wenk's studies show that a low dosage in the morning of a certain canavanoid, a component in marijuana, reversed memory loss in older rats' brains. In his study, an experimental group of old rats received a dosage, and a control group of rats did not. The old rats that received the drugs performed better on memory tests, and the drug slowed and prevented brain cell death.' My fine university's dollars at work!" Maybe it works even better in combination with brain-preserving sips of coffee.

cancel ×

807 comments

jah (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26621827)

i and i be smoking de herb and tapping dat white pussy!

Dude... like... what? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26621833)

Marijuana is memory enhancing? What?

Legalize Pot! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26622193)

Criminalize Pan!

Re:Dude... like... what? (3, Insightful)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 5 years ago | (#26622599)

Marijuana is memory enhancing? What?

No it's just that in the rat's the puff they are not able to measure any memory loss with aging because they already lost it.

There's a huge difference between "memory" and "cognative skill". To operate at a rat, requires a lot of different skills. Huge chunks of their brain are devoted to 0) fleaing predators 1) not eating poison 2) navigating and memorizing paths by smell and touch, not sight or time.

it's entirely plausible that different drugs could shift the relative effort in these areas and improve their skills in other areas. FOr example, perhaps they are less perpetually afraid and thus better able to concentrate on memorization.

Re:Dude... like... what? (-1, Troll)

snowraver1 (1052510) | more than 5 years ago | (#26622715)

Wow, you should be a biologist... Maybe you could use some of this wonder herb, then perhaps you could remember how use 'flea' in the right context (a dog's back).

Rational (5, Insightful)

Rinisari (521266) | more than 5 years ago | (#26621851)

I have yet to hear/see a rational reason why marijuana is still illegal.

Re:Rational (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#26621895)

Because America is divided between people who hate risk more than they love freedom and people who hate hippies more than they love freedom.

Re:Rational (2, Interesting)

hobbit (5915) | more than 5 years ago | (#26622361)

s/hippies/supposed mexican rapists/
s/risk/fun/

Re:Rational (2, Insightful)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 5 years ago | (#26621925)

I have yet to hear/see a rational reason why marijuana is still illegal.

It helps keep rich people rich.

Re:Rational (1, Informative)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 5 years ago | (#26622225)

Wow that's a seriously extraordinary claim, do you have any data whatsoever ?

Re:Rational (1)

Hijacked Public (999535) | more than 5 years ago | (#26622477)

Here's that data you wanted. [slashdot.org]

This is more than most conspiracys will offer, so I suggest you accept it.

Re:Rational (3, Funny)

erroneus (253617) | more than 5 years ago | (#26622711)

Woah... this is weird! I clicked your link and the found your link... clicked that link and found your link again... I am in the process of seeing how far it goes...

Re:Rational (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26621947)

I have yet to hear/see a rational reason why marijuana is still illegal.

Because god hates for people to be have fun [therubicon.org] .

Re:Rational (2, Insightful)

ruiner13 (527499) | more than 5 years ago | (#26621957)

It is hard to tax something so easily grown at home.

Re:Rational (5, Insightful)

The End Of Days (1243248) | more than 5 years ago | (#26622759)

ARGHHH

Please stop making this ridiculous argument. Beer is easy to make at home, but is legal and taxed. Food is easy to grow at home, but is legal and taxed in some (many?) states. Clothes are easy to make at home, but are legal and taxed in some (many) states.

The evidence flies in the face of this absolutely retarded claim.

Re:Rational (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 5 years ago | (#26621963)

DEA employment - high workload + low risk = many happily employed.

Re:Rational (-1, Flamebait)

clonan (64380) | more than 5 years ago | (#26621965)

Because it has not been proven to be more effective than other, signficantly safer drugs.

In addition THC IS legal for some diseases, just in tablet form.

The whole plant will NEVER be legalized because the side effects are so severe that there will never be a suitable time to use it.

Re:Rational (1)

theverylastperson (1208224) | more than 5 years ago | (#26622033)

Side effects? Like the munchies? Evil plant...I mean drug.

Re:Rational (1, Informative)

Jhon (241832) | more than 5 years ago | (#26622121)

Side effects. Like lung damage. Sure, you can point to studies which say there is LESS damage than tobacco. But those take in to account that pot spokers smoke less often. It's illegal and not cheap.

Make it freely available, usage will soar and the damage WILL be greater than tobacco.

Just sayin'. There ARE side effects.

Re:Rational (2, Insightful)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 5 years ago | (#26622219)

Just sayin'. There ARE side effects.

The only side effects are ones related to one specific way of taking the drug. When vaporized or ingested, none of those risks are present. Thanks for FUDding!

Re:Rational (0, Flamebait)

Jhon (241832) | more than 5 years ago | (#26622755)

Who's FUDing? "none of those risks are present"? If by "none", you mean "reduced", then you are correct. Otherwise, you are being dishonest.

Btw, reduced does not equal none.

Re:Rational (1)

hobbit (5915) | more than 5 years ago | (#26622309)

Make it freely available

It already is freely available. Much more freely available than booze to many people under 21 in the US.

Re:Rational (1)

jlarocco (851450) | more than 5 years ago | (#26622353)

It's not your job or the government's job to babysit people. I'm sure you're convinced that you know better than everybody, and that if everybody would just do exactly what you want, everything would be wonderful. Hate to disappoint you, but other people's lives are really none of your business.

Re:Rational (1)

TheP4st (1164315) | more than 5 years ago | (#26622357)

Make it freely available, usage may soar and the damage might be greater than tobacco.

There, fixed that for you. Or do you have any hard evidence to support your claims?

Re:Rational (-1, Flamebait)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 5 years ago | (#26622371)

Unfortunately there are many more side effects than just that. Tobacco really is a mild, tamed drug. Marijuana, as it's smoked today will release large burning particles into your lungs.

It's basically guaranteed to cause cancer before long, and quite a bit of mechanical and chemical damage even before that.

And yes, many medicines come from drug research. That's because obviously drugs have many active ingredients, and using some of them in isolation can have targeted beneficial effects. There are many, many such medicines.

Another type of substances many medicines originate from are poisons. Snake poison is a good example. Many components of snake poison are used in chemo treatments, because they kill just about anything.

You don't, however see anyone clamoring for the free sale of poisons. Even though they have many beneficial effects. Of course, 1 ml to much and you sleep with the fishes.

Re:Rational (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 5 years ago | (#26622551)

Are you comparing roll your own weed to roll your own tobacco? or to filtered cigarets?
Package it up like the nations favorite niccotine delivery system and then try comparing them.

How much harder would be be to get a liscence to study the beneficial uses of snake venom than to study the benefits of weed?
The problem is that this isn't treated objectively.

Re:Rational (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26622629)

Chemo is kind of a bad example since it kills everything, even non-cancerous cells... not really any better since chemo kills the patient too in this fashion..

Re:Rational (1)

sleigher (961421) | more than 5 years ago | (#26622445)

Actually some studies are debunked and more recent studies are showing that smoking marijuana can help prevent lung cancer. [cbsnews.com] I am sure there is a lot of info out there about the evils of marijuana, studies done by the government to back up their reasoning of illegality. Doesn't make it true.

Re:Rational (1)

Jhon (241832) | more than 5 years ago | (#26622623)

I would suggest that you READ the article you linked to. The "active ingredient" may help fight lung tumors.

Not the other chemicals and particles ingested when smoking it. Morphine is usefull, too... when directed by a physician.

Re:Rational (1)

DrugCheese (266151) | more than 5 years ago | (#26622465)

I cook and eat my green ... so what now?

Re:Rational (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26622177)

The whole plant will NEVER be legalized because the side effects are so severe that there will never be a suitable time to use it.

Do you have scientific proof or are you just perpetuating myth?

Re:Rational (1, Flamebait)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 5 years ago | (#26622543)

Just a few examples (source http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/evidence99/marijuana/Health_1.html [harvard.edu] ) :

1) Smoking marijuana regularly (a joint a day) can damage the cells in the bronchial passages which protect the body against inhaled microorganisms and decrease the ability of the immune cells in the lungs to fight off fungi, bacteria, and tumor cells. For patients with already weakened immune systems, this means an increase in the possibility of dangerous pulmonary infections, including pneumonia, which often proves fatal in AIDS patients.

Studies further suggest that marijuana is a general "immunosuppressant" whose degenerative influence extends beyond the respiratory system. Regular smoking has been shown to materially affect the overall ability of the smokerâ(TM)s body to defend itself against infection by weakening various natural immune mechanisms, including macrophages (a.k.a. "killer cells") and the all-important T-cells. Obviously, this suggests the conclusion, which is well-supported by scientific studies, that the use of marijuana...

2) The main respiratory consequences of smoking marijuana regularly (one joint a day) are pulmonary infections and respiratory cancer, whose connection to marijuana use has been strongly suggested but not conclusively proven. The effects also include chronic bronchitis, impairment in the function of the smaller air passages, inflammation of the lung, the development of potentially pre-cancerous abnormalities in the bronchial lining and lungs, and, as discussed, a reduction in the capabilities of many defensive mechanisms within the lungs ...

3) It has been suggested that marijuana is at the root of many mental disorders, including acute toxic psychosis, panic attacks (one of the very conditions it is being used experimentally to treat), flashbacks, delusions, depersonalization, hallucinations, paranoia, depression, and uncontrollable aggressiveness. Marijuana has long been known to trigger attacks of mental illness, such as bipolar (manic-depressive) psychosis and schizophrenia. This connection with mental illness should make health care providers for terminally ill patients and the patients themselves, who may already be suffering from some form of clinical depression, weigh very carefully the pros and cons of adopting a therapeutic course of marijuana.

So to summarize :
1) it partially disables the immune system of users
2) it damages (physically) the lungs, and creates infection points in them, which do not easily disappear
3) it causes, in the long term, lung cancer
4) while it doesn't cause psychological episodes, it triggers them. Giving marijuana to anyone with any type of brain malfunction whatsoever is dangerous in the extreme.
5) even in healthy people marijuana manages to cause so many different problems that the standard manual of psychological diagnostics grew about 20% to describe them all.
6) it is not good for the hearth, and increases (like any drug that exites neurons) the risk of heart attack. During smoking and up to 2 weeks after last use risk of heart attack is about 4x higher than normal. ...

(look for yourself)

Re:Rational (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26622359)

The whole plant will NEVER be legalized because the side effects are so severe that there will never be a suitable time to use it.

you must never have smoked before or something (Look globally at the countries that already have it legalized, or even to the controversial pot hotbed of california).. can it really mess you up, yes. But odds are there are other factors at work aside from the plant (Fertilizers used too much/not flushed properly, The plant is laced with other drugs, etc..). The effects of coke/heroin/pcp/meth/etc.. are way way harsher than pot ever would be on its own.

As well, who smokes the whole plant? its not the plant itself that gets you high you know, its actually the tricombs in the bud itself that produce the thc (I suppose if you gathered enough stems you could brew tea to get the surface thc off the stems, but thats really not worth it). And people aren't going to smoke the leaves, as they don't produce thc, they produce chlorophyll and cannaboids (Which is what makes a pothead lazy)...

Really, aside from the loss of jobs (Which can be averted for the most part if done properly), it actually makes sense to legalize it as a controlled substance (Commercial grow operations regulated by the government), and keep it illegal to grow in house without a permit. This keeps people employed (Enforcing the regulations), and it allows the government to tax the hell out of the commercial grow operations as well as taxing joe blow who buys a pack at the local convienience store. Seems a lot smarter to me to do that then burn billions a year on pot prevention.. at least you get something back (In the form of taxes) back on it... turns it from a pure expense to a money making venture, without giving up the war on drugs, and allows DEA to focus on the real big problem drugs (Coke, Heroin, Meth, pcp, etc...)

Now, I am definitely not saying that this would be a perfect solution, there are definitely a million and one other things to consider, but to classify a herb as a Class A drug on par with coke/heroin, that is just ridiculous.

Re:Rational (1)

hobbit (5915) | more than 5 years ago | (#26622431)

Because it has not been proven to be more effective than other, signficantly safer drugs.

In addition THC IS legal for some diseases

In that case, since the context is recreational usage, you must be talking about alcohol?

Would you care to provide some supporting evidence that alcohol is safer than weed?

Re:Rational (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#26622457)

Who said anything about medicine? I smoke pot recreationally. There is no justification whatsoever for any punishment for this act. I hurt no one.

safer drugs? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26622485)

yeah, cause we all know how good acetaminophen is for your liver, how good ibuprofen is for your digestive track not to mention how good opiods[/ates] are for your brain but thankfully they're completely non-addictive and nobody's ever died from overdose...

please tell me you're a troll...

Re:Rational (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26622521)

"Because it has not been proven to be more effective than other, signficantly safer drugs."

And the reason that is, is because people in the government with your attitude have strenuously resisted legitimate experiments since they were afraid it would prove effective, leaving them with no reason to keep it illegal.

"The whole plant will NEVER be legalized because the side effects are so severe that there will never be a suitable time to use it."

Sources? I have smoked it for 40 years and NO side effects have materialized. Stop speaking out of your ass.

Re:Rational (5, Informative)

dragonsomnolent (978815) | more than 5 years ago | (#26622549)

I will merely point out that according to the FDA rules for a schedule 1 narcotic, something has to meed all of the following requirements:

        (A) The drug or other substance has high potential for abuse.
        (B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
        (C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

    Does Pot have a medical use: Yup, check out marinol (the THC pill). Bang, struck from schedule 1 right there. It has a currently accepted medical use in treatment for HIV and cancer patients. Not to mention that it could be prescribed off label for a multitude of things (low doses for anxiety, insomnia, etc.) I have in the past smoked and it is a neuro-seditive. Side effects? Yeah, smoke too much, you get paranoid, short term memory lapses, etc. Same with alchohol though, in addition, you can die from alchohol poisoning (and yes it would be possible to OD on THC, but I don't think anyone could stay concious long enough to smoke that much, you'd have to have a high dose IV drip of it or something).
    The simple fact of the matter here though is the FDA keeps it illegal not for medical reasons, but political ones. No one wants to be the one who gets smeared for "caving to the drug cartels", despite the fact that the best way to take them out is to take away thier products and sevices. In addition, the DuPont family paid a lot of money back in the day to keep people using wood pulp for paper so they could keep selling thier chemicals. For a good read, check out "Ain't Nobody's Business if I Do" by Peter McWilliams. Available for online reading.

Re:Rational (5, Informative)

scubamage (727538) | more than 5 years ago | (#26622751)

No offense, but wtf are you talking about? Safer? The LD50 of THC is somewhere in the range of 25 POUNDS of crystalline reagent grade product. Its physically impossible to overdose on marijuana - you simple can't fit 25 pounds in your bloodstream. No other pain killer or appetite stimulant has that sort of LD50. It is about as safe as you can get - even safer than sugar.

Re:Rational (1, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | more than 5 years ago | (#26621971)

I have yet to hear/see a rational reason why marijuana is still illegal.

Please. While I have nothing against people getting as baked as hell and staring at their ceilings all night long while listening to Pink Floyd, I do realize that it is an intoxicating substance that is difficult to detect the level of intoxication.

So, you get pulled over and they decide you're baked. They can't really prove it because there is no "immediate intoxication test". They can tell if you have THC in your body but you could have ingested marijuana in some form or another weeks ago. Yeah, the cops have such great tests as green tongues and glassy eyes [lazylightning.org] but a lawyer would destroy those in court.

So, while I have no problems with it becoming legal, I do see one of the reasons why the government doesn't want it to -- aside from the trillions they've put into the pointless "Drug War".

Re:Rational (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26622217)

Well, they don't have access to ANY intoxication tests for common medicines that cause loss of focus and sleepiness, but they are still legal.

Re:Rational (5, Insightful)

Nursie (632944) | more than 5 years ago | (#26622241)

"So, you get pulled over and they decide you're baked. They can't really prove it because there is no "immediate intoxication test"

So we'll develop one, and in the mean time continue to use co-ordination and driving ability. driving without due care and attention is still an offence regardless of whether you're baked or not. Believe me, the market will fill this niche in seconds. This is just another stupid excuse.

Hey, where's the roadside test for vicodin? Prescription codeine or morphine? Dextromethorphan?

Thought not.

Re:Rational (3, Interesting)

garcia (6573) | more than 5 years ago | (#26622299)

Hey, where's the roadside test for vicodin? Prescription codeine or morphine? Dextromethorphan?

I didn't bother to get into this discussion because the answer is obvious. Those chemicals are developed by commercial entities which pay big money to politicians to ensure that they are the only painkillers marketable to the masses. When an effective substance can be procured for next to nothing, they want to keep it off the market.

Plus, my original post, especially the part about the color of someone's tongue was, well, tongue-in-cheek.

Re:Rational (0, Offtopic)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#26622415)

There are hundreds of ways to be a reckless driver. Is there a test for every pill with a warning not to operate heavy machinery? Is there a test for being too sleepy? Is there a test for looking at a hot girl's boobs instead of the road?

Re:Rational (1)

faloi (738831) | more than 5 years ago | (#26622643)

Hey, where's the roadside test for vicodin? Prescription codeine or morphine? Dextromethorphan?

They may not have a roadside test, but a lot of prescription drugs are searched for with a blood test after the arrest. Marijuana lingers for so long that, even with a blood test, it's difficult to pinpoint when the drug was taken.

Re:Rational (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26622347)

While we know that people get stoned when they smoke, there has never been any real studies on marijuana to determine its short and long term effects. Before anyone can answer the question of legality, we need real science to have a hand in the discussion. Of course that will never happen because the US keeps it scheduled with LSD and PCP. No medicinal value. When is Obama gonna bring the change he speaks of? It only took 2 years for Obama to go from "The drug war is a miserable failure" to "I will not spend any political capital on decriminalization or consider the drug war at this time."

Re:Rational (2, Informative)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 5 years ago | (#26622363)

Actually, if you have THC in your blood then chances are you're stoned, most of the time you can't find THC in the bloodstream after 24 hours or so. Urine and hair tests OTOH can be used to detect use several weeks after the fact but if you smoked your first joint in six months about ten minutes ago and the police grab you there's a pretty big chance it won't show up in a urine test...

This is something used by marijuana users btw, if they get busted right after smoking they go for the urine test, if they get busted some other time they demand a blood test because it's more expensive, has to be done by a doctor/nurse and won't show anything if they haven't smoked in the last couple of days.

/Mikael

Re:Rational (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26622387)

Wouldn't the driver's actions prove his intoxication level? Oh wait, stoned drivers tend to drive slower and more carefully than when they are sober, so I guess that's out. Wait... they drive more slowly and safely? Why do we care at all if someone's driving stoned, then? The best test for whether a driver is high: nachos.

Re:Rational (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#26622395)

So, you get pulled over and they decide you're baked

If they can't detect any impairment, then what's the problem? If you're significantly impaired, it's going to be obvious. Otherwise you should just be sent on your way.

Everything I've seen on the effects of marijuana on driving indicate that yes, it's mildly impairing, but that impairment never reaches a level equivalent to that of a 0.8 bac. So if it's legal to drive under a similarly impairing amount of alcohol, it should be ok to drive stoned. Also, unlike alcohol, marijuana users know how impaired they are, and compensate. This is why marijuana is *underrepresented* in accident statistics.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that all driving while intoxicated laws are inappropriate. Either you're driving recklessly or not. If you are, go to jail. If not, go home and sleep it off.

Re:Rational (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26622641)

>Everything I've seen on the effects of marijuana on driving indicate that yes, it's mildly impairing

As someone who has driven stoned, it is not "mildly" impairing. Its incredibly impairing. Dont spread false information. I really regret driving on this stuff as it really did endanger myself and others. I even got pulled over once after blowing through a red light, luckily the cop just let me go. If you want to get high then stay home.

Re:Rational (1)

hobbit (5915) | more than 5 years ago | (#26622503)

They can tell if you have THC in your body but you could have ingested marijuana in some form or another weeks ago.

So make a better test, or make it illegal to have THC in your body and drive.

Re:Rational (1)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 5 years ago | (#26622615)

What about NyQuil? Nutmeg? Glue?

Your argument falls apart pretty easily. I don't mean to target you specifically, but there seems to be a rather retarded inclination by the general populous to justify why marijuana is illegal. And in reaching so far and hard to find one, most come up with these shallow reasons that can be picked clean with little effort.

Let's call it how it's shown. Marijuana has potentially similar mental side effects as alcohol would. It can impair your driving and your social skills. However, the number of variables at play make it difficult to say "This is bad". With alcohol, the government leaves it up to the user to be responsible, else face the wrath of the legal system. There is NO reason you can't have the same for pot.

Re:Rational (1)

Yold (473518) | more than 5 years ago | (#26622661)

Paraphernalia or marijuana in the passenger compartment, along with suspicion of intoxication is enough to lose your license for 30 days in Minnesota. Typically, an eye-tracking test can be used to determine if someone is severely intoxicated on marijuana, although if the test recipient knows what the officer is looking for (shaking eyes), I believe the test can be beaten (I have beaten it, although I was drunk).

Marijuana possession over 1 ounce should be illegal, however the government should sell weed it seizes. Make selling it illegal. People will still continue to produce it, but the government will reap the profits.

Re:Rational (4, Insightful)

scubamage (727538) | more than 5 years ago | (#26622765)

That's a circular argument. You're saying it should be illegal because they don't have a means to test for it as an illegal substance. If its legal, your argument dissapears. No offense, just sayin :)

Re:Rational (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26621979)

I have yet to hear/see a rational reason why marijuana is still illegal.

It was made illegal thanks to the efforts of lobbyists of Italian-American descent, shortly after the repeal of prohibition. If you can't make money selling your old product, it's time to find a new product line.

Re:Rational (2, Insightful)

Clever7Devil (985356) | more than 5 years ago | (#26621997)

Ask your local law enforcement and prison guard unions. They have pleanty.

Re:Rational (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 5 years ago | (#26622495)

Like? Give me one reason why prohibition on marijuana is not like prohibition on alcohol, and why alcohol should be allowed but not marijuana.

Re:Rational (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26622043)

Posting anonymously for obvious reasons... Whilst I can't think of any legal reason for banning it, there's at least some part of me that would like to keep the weed illegal.

For one thing, it being illegal makes it more fun. Not only the thrill of the forbidden, but also the associated required secrecy. Second, it's quite sociable, sharing a spliff with people; if it became legal, I guess it would end up more like cigarettes, where the sociable aspect is reduced. Not sure why, but I suspect it would. Third, it's a good way to meet interesting people who don't follow stupid rules and are prepared to try new things.

Hell, there's a decent chance I wouldn't smoke it if it was legal.

Re:Rational (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#26622173)

Originally (1930s), it was criminalized due to fears of mexican immigrants/gangs would smoke Mari[jh]uana and rape white women. That's the same rationale for criminalizing cocaine (but with blacks, not mexicans).

Re:Rational (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26622369)

I don't know about the blacks and cocaine, seeing as cocaine seems to be a white party drug.

BUT -- the part about outlawing marijuana in the 1930s because of the Mexicans is pretty much accurate.

Once the government gets power to do something, they'll never give it back willingly.

Re:Rational (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26622203)

If you knew people who smoked alot of dope you would know why it's illegal. It makes people extremely paranoid and causes them severe emotional problems as well as bad memory. I've seen people smoke so much they ended up in mental hospitals. Excessive alcohol and smoking are bad too but the government makes to much money of those things to ban them.

Re:Rational (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26622351)

If you knew people who smoked alot of dope you would know why it's illegal. It makes people extremely paranoid and causes them severe emotional problems as well as bad memory. I've seen people smoke so much they ended up in mental hospitals. Excessive alcohol and smoking are bad too but the government makes to much money of those things to ban them.

I know of many many more abusive alcoholics negatively affecting those around them than pot heads so freaked out they're in the hospital. Hell, I've never even heard of someone getting baked so often that they had to go to a mental hospital.

Re:Rational (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26622401)

I do know people who smoke lots of dope, and none of them exhibit the behavior you're talking about.

Re:Rational (4, Insightful)

Absimiliard (59853) | more than 5 years ago | (#26622433)

I've seen people smoke so much they ended up in mental hospitals.

Proof of causality please.

I've seen people breathe so much air that they ended up addicted to heroin. In fact I've never met a heroin addict who didn't breathe air first.

Such a basic logical flaw, I'm sure you can do better.

-abs

Re:Rational (1)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | more than 5 years ago | (#26622281)

Because while under the influence, it impairs coordination and judgment. But unlike alcohol (which is discouraged in a number of workplaces for similar reasons), there is no test for whether someone is *currently* high, only if they were high in the past few days. If marijuana were legalized, and someone showed up to work with heavy machinery while high, they couldn't actually prove he was high and fire him easily (because he could claim he smoked last night or over the weekend). Despite all the conspiracy theories, this is the strongest reason: Auto manufacturers, shipping concerns, etc., don't want employees showing up baked without having an easy way to fire them.

Re:Rational (1)

GuldKalle (1065310) | more than 5 years ago | (#26622605)

There are a lot of legal medication that impair coordination and judgment, and aren't easily tested for. If the job contract stated that you weren't you'd be sacked if THC was found in your bloodstream, I think they'd be in the clear.
In addition, IF this proved to become a mayor problem, I bet we'd see a lot of tests developed very fast.

Re:Rational (2, Insightful)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 5 years ago | (#26622693)

If I turn up to work hung over and as a result cannot do my job I get in trouble.
If I turn up glassy eyed and obviously impaired I'm not going to be working there very long.

Obviously hung over and still under the effects of the night before- it doesn't matter if I was drinking while off the clock, if it effects me while on the clock that's good enough.
Obviously high and still under the effects of the night before-it doesn't matter if I was smoking something while off the clock, if it effects me while on the clock that's good enough.

If I'm not obviously drunk or high at work they don't give a damn.

Carcinogneic (2, Insightful)

turgid (580780) | more than 5 years ago | (#26622463)

Cannabis/Marijuana is carcinogenic, and about four times as carcinogenic as tobacco.

They say that if tobacco were "discovered" today it would be outlawed straight away.

Alcohol has serious long-term health effects too, but in the short term it also leads to intoxication and injury and death by accidents. Not just road accidents either. That would be banned as well.

Really, the banning of all drugs is absurd. In an ideal world, adults would be responsible for their own actions and deemed wise enough to decide for themselves what and what not to ingest into their own bodies, and for their actions while under the influence of those substances. However, we live in a conservative, irrational, authoritarian world. And besides, have you seen the shockingly childish and ignorant behaviour of many adults?

Re:Rational (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 5 years ago | (#26622659)

If you want it to be legal any evidence for keeping it illegal you will toss aside as irrelevant or minor. While you take any detail no matter how minor or miss interpreted as a strong case for it.

Why is it illegal. Because it is a mind altering drug, which can easily be abused (recreational use of this drug is abuse), Being in an altered state of mind isn't productive to society, as well as health concerns.

As for Tobacco, and Alcohol They are bad for you and have mind altering consequences. However both have too large of main stream cultural control to make illegal. We are slowing making Tobacco more and more illegal, as well trying to moderate Alcohol consumptions, with these already in progress why would we make an other problem of legalizing an other harmful mind altering substance.

Sure there is a lot of illegal use. But this illegal use is controlled by the fact it is illegal, American Culture has a poor grasp of balance and control. If it is legal a lot of people will take the drug to very unhealthy/unproductive levels.

Re:Rational (2, Informative)

Pictish Prince (988570) | more than 5 years ago | (#26622709)

I have yet to hear/see a rational reason why marijuana is still illegal.

There is a perfectly rational reason: Greed.

Granted, a confluence of interests [salon.com] was responsible for the prohibition of cannabis, but I submit the primary impetus came from Hearst [wikipedia.org] , who, as the article linked above mentions, had "invested heavily in the timber industry to support his newspaper chain and didn't want to see the development of hemp paper in competition."

Re:Rational (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 5 years ago | (#26622729)

For some reasons supporters just didn't follow threw.

Re:Rational (1)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 5 years ago | (#26622777)

Here's one: law enforcement officers want as many things as possible to be illegal, to protect their job security, so they lobby hard.

Sorry, you said rational. You should have said non-evil.

Well that's good news! (4, Funny)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 5 years ago | (#26621871)

Now they'll be able to remember how to get to the cheese in that maze again! Maybe they should replace the cheese with Cheetos though?

Ahh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26621877)

looking forward to share a joint with my old grandpa

What? (1)

neo (4625) | more than 5 years ago | (#26621879)

I'm having a hard time focusing after ... why is this bowl dirty?

Wow! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26621909)

Boilerplate, HILARIOUS comment about how I've been smoking weed before reading this article!

She's asking for snacks too (2, Funny)

Clever7Devil (985356) | more than 5 years ago | (#26621953)

"Mommy, I'm really worried about grandma. She couldn't remember my name this morning. Is she sick?" "It's fine honey, that's not alzheimers, grandma is straight buzzin from her medicinal doobie."

A marketing opportunity. (2, Interesting)

Remus Shepherd (32833) | more than 5 years ago | (#26621983)

I wonder which will be first to market -- marijuana spiked coffee, or coffee-flavored marijuana?

Re:A marketing opportunity. (1)

vil3nr0b (930195) | more than 5 years ago | (#26622161)

Marijuana spiked coffee for sure. You get the high and the low all at once. And coffee isn't illegal like cocaine. coffee-flavored marijuana is the same as when someone tries to sell me a bag of blueberry flavored weed...pointless.

circular (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26622041)

But then the mary jane makes you forget everything anyway, so it kind of cancels itself out ;)

Full Text of the Research Paper (5, Informative)

Ohio Calvinist (895750) | more than 5 years ago | (#26622085)

The full text of the research paper is available at-- http://faculty.psy.ohio-state.edu/marchalant/pdf/marchalantetalneurobiolaging2008.pdf [ohio-state.edu] on the co-author's Departmental website. Might be helpful since TFA is an article out of the University's student newspaper which tends to be a little light on details (speaking as an alumni).

Re:Full Text of the Research Paper (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26622315)

TFA is an article out of the University's student newspaper which tends to be a little light on details (speaking as an alumni).

Unless you have dissociative identity disorder [wikipedia.org] and more than one of your personalities completed degree requirements, that should be alumnus.

Re:Full Text of the Research Paper (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26622779)

You mean alumnus, apparently they didn't teach you Latin -- unless you are posting as more than one person :p

hell yeah (0, Redundant)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 5 years ago | (#26622127)

O H !!!!

Re:hell yeah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26622303)

I O!!!!

Re:hell yeah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26622737)

I O!

Im actually (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26622191)

taking my meds right now to prevent...

what were we talking about?

I think the term is "preempts" (1)

hitnrunrambler (1401521) | more than 5 years ago | (#26622199)

MJ can preempt alzheimers the same way Norton can prevent viruses. If you've got the one you'll never notices a difference when you get the other

dude... (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#26622215)

wait, what?

hippie crack! (1)

3.5 stripes (578410) | more than 5 years ago | (#26622243)

Coffee + mary jane is a wonderful way to start your day.

squat (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 5 years ago | (#26622283)

And how exactly is this going to work unless the feds get off their butts and de-schedule marijuana?

Oh wait...

Funny thing, since pot is banned, wouldn't that make any scientific studies of it illegal as well?

Ok, someone start a double-blind study of it outside the states or somewhere where it's legal, then publish the results here and use that to pound the feds.

I don't like experiments here, all that does is give the DEA something to pound.

Re:squat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26622671)

Don't be surprised if studies come out refuting the study in the article and if you traced the funding for those studies that the lumber/paper and cotton industries funded them. After all they funded and promoted the original banning of marijuana in this country to take down related cannabis species that Thomas Jefferson thought every farmer should plant some of. Marijuana and THC were common ingredients in medicines prior to this ban as well, so possibly many more uses for it in that regard. Prohibition of it has just increased its recreational use and created a troublesome black market and blocked better usage of it and its more useful relative hemp.

Re:squat (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 5 years ago | (#26622771)

Having the government do your dirty anticompetitive work for you is a good thing...for you.

The Dude (4, Funny)

rirugrat (255768) | more than 5 years ago | (#26622381)

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

Re:The Dude (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 5 years ago | (#26622707)

"this aggression will not stand, man!"

(classic movie - see it if you haven't yet)

On the down side (1)

howman (170527) | more than 5 years ago | (#26622441)

The rats given MJ ate more and died of obesity or boredom at watching late night TV. What was nice was the authorities found them safely bundled in their Snuggies with lots of ShamWow's around to wipe up the gooey mess.

Not before bed (2, Informative)

imp7 (714746) | more than 5 years ago | (#26622545)

Just don't smoke before bed so you get all of your REM sleep. Best time is to smoke is after the dishes are done.

Free you mind... (1)

DrugCheese (266151) | more than 5 years ago | (#26622603)

..Your ass will follow.

hence it will stay illegal :( Until we're all free people that is

Suppressed Research (1)

olddotter (638430) | more than 5 years ago | (#26622703)

I have heard from people in the research community that many papers on effects of marijuana have been suppressed for political reasons over at least the last 15 years. If I had to guess I'd bet that they have been suppressed for several decades regardless of who is in the Whitehouse.

I am hoping that will change with Obama, but won't be shocked if it doesn't. I hate to see real science and medical benefits take second place to "tough on drugs" politics.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...