Opinions - Alcohol and tobacco industries responsible for war on drugs?

[Junkhead23]

Having read something on another website someone stated that the tobacco and alcohol industries make a killing by drugs not being available and continuing to be illegal. Could it be possible that these two industries are paying off our governments to continue this stupid war on drugs?

Pacman is pretty sure there must be some sort of agreement between America and Britain about what drugs are available and what are not. Maybe this is due to the very powerful tobacco and alcohol industries such as British American Tobacco, Coors which owns, carling coors and many other American brands.

It is certainly in their interest for as little other mind altering substances to be on the market as possible. Marijuana for instance could be the death knell for tobacco. Much safer to smoke it and the benefits of using this over tobacco are vast. Ecstasy he is sure would overtake alcohol if it were readily available.

So do you think that the Alcohol and Tobacco industries have our governments over a barrell somehow?

Reputation Comments on this post:

	interesting topic for discussion
	A very good question and topic.

[twoiko]

I would imagine they would support it, especially considering their drugs are specifically exempt from these laws, but I think your title is misleading because even in your post you're not asking about them being responsible in the first place.

I wouldn't go so far as to say they are the main reason it's still happening, but I'm not sure what kind of evidence to provide. I can see them giving money to help keep it going or something of that sort.

Essentially what I'm saying is I don't really know. XD

[sirmoonie]

The answer is No. At least in the U.S., most mood/mind altering substances discussed on this board all illegal because the voters, misguided and idiotic as they often are, want them that way. Its hypocritical in the extreme given that most Americans have tried illegal drugs, and many use them regularly, but people in general don't have a problem crossing themselves up when it fits some purpose of theirs.

P.S. Also, this statement - "Much safer to smoke it and the benefits of using this over tobacco are vast. Ecstasy he is sure would overtake alcohol if it were readily available." isn't even close to true. Marijuana is just as dangerous as a carcinogen, if not more, than tobacco. The addiction problems marijuana causes are also worse - for every tobacco smoker taking too many breaks at work, there is a pothead sleeping at home, know what I mean?. And suggesting that X could replace alcohol is just absurd, sorry. For better or worse, alcohol is a way of life for many. X is for kicks.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Misleading information, provide evidence, studies have been done to prove what you said is wrong...

[corvardus]

Originally Posted by sirmoonie

P.S. Also, this statement - "Much safer to smoke it and the benefits of using this over tobacco are vast. Ecstasy he is sure would overtake alcohol if it were readily available." isn't even close to true.

It is clear that SWIY are not keeping abreast of the literature.

On Marijuana the LD50 indicates having to smoke 3150mg (1500 pounds of the stuff (New Eng J Med, 1997; 337: 435-439) verses the LD50 for tobacco is 50-60mg Pharmacol Toxicol. 75 (1): 1–6

There have been two studies one in the UK from the Chairman of the ACMD (Prof Nutt) and one in Holland that have ranked these substances in respect to relative harm, addictiveness etc, and cannabis is weaker than both Alcohol and Tobacco (UTFSE!), ecstacy is similarly placed.

Marijuana is just as dangerous as a carcinogen, if not more, than tobacco.

Marijuana's carcinogen is increased, however this does not make the substance "more dangerous". There have been studies that claim that marijuana is a anti-cancer substance. Actually quite a number of them. Do a simple search and you'll find it.

Tobacco does not confir any such benefit, and where burning anything is concerned there is no carcinogenic free way to do it, other than to vaporise it.

The addiction problems marijuana causes are also worse - for every tobacco smoker taking too many breaks at work, there is a pothead sleeping at home, know what I mean?

SWIM has never, ever, heard of anyone going outside to satiate their weed addiction. SWIM was under the impression the fact that Cannabis does not present any significant addictive properties were universal on this forum. Marijuana is a simple psychological addiction. Sudden and sharp removal from the habit will simply give a hankering for it. Nicotine withdrawl has a significantly more severe withdrawl profile.

And suggesting that X could replace alcohol is just absurd, sorry. For better or worse, alcohol is a way of life for many. X is for kicks.

SWIM doesn't believe he was suggesting that X would replace alchohol, if I read it correctly if X were freely available people would voluntarily move onto X for the superior high and more sociable/empathic properties of X than alcohol. Given both alcohol and X are social drugs, SWIM would believe X would overtake alcohol given if X were legal.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Thank you for clarifying this issue, very nicely done. Great information.

[terrapinzflyer]

Originally Posted by sirmoonie

The answer is No. At least in the U.S., most mood/mind altering substances discussed on this board all illegal because the voters, misguided and idiotic as they often are, want them that way.

Bullshit! The people have never really been given a say in these laws, and when they have- on the state level, things like medical marijuana and making "recreational use" of marijuana the lowest enforcement priority tend to pass.
One only needs to look at marijuana - especially on the left coast, the ne' most states, colorado... the people generally support decriminilazation because the vast majority used/ have used with no ill affects. But they are not given a say and face legal/social penalties if they speak out.

As to the alcohol and cigarette co's- swims turtle has long heard/ read such stories- but has never seen "proof" - ie official documents showing the money trail. However- both C.A.M.P. (campaign against marijuana production) in N CA and Green Harvest in HI have long been rumored to be funded in large part by Anheuser-Busch and swims turtle has been told by officers participating in these programs that this is the case. Possibly urban legend, as stated, swims turtle as never seen irrefutable proof. but in the case of MJ at least there is some twisted logic to it.

Slightly off topic- but swims turtle has seen first hand US military personnel involved in marijuanna eradication efforts in clear violation of laws barring military forces being used for civillian law enforcement purposes.

[Dickon]

Point of information 3,150mg is quite different from 1,500 pounds! 3,150mg is 3.15 grammes, a little under an 1/8th of an ounce, which is a 1/16th of a pound.

LD50s for smoking are fatuous. They simply don't exist. One can chain-smoke either pure cannabis or cigarettes and not die --- although I'd not recommend trying this with either without the occasional breath of air in between. Nicotine has been estimated to have an LD50 of between 30-60mg/kg in adults [ Gosselin RE (1988). Clinical toxicology of Commercial Products. VI.ed Baltimore, Williams & Wilkins: 311-313.] although short of a Dr Mengele these things are never going to be worked out all that well. This is, of course, for oral use. Looking on wiki, I see the 1500 pounds of cannabis to be smoked within 15 minutes statistic, but sadly the reference is not available on-line to check. I think this is a wiki glitch most likely. LD50 statistics of tetrahydrocannabinol in animals range (all in rats) from 29mg/kg for intravenous administration, through 42mg/kg inhaled, through to 666 mg/kg for oral use [THC Material Safety Data Sheet, and Merck Index 12th Edition]. This would make 3.15g (3,150mg) a plausible estimate of an LD50 for THC in an (average size?!) man. The amount of cannabis this would equate to would of course depend on the strength of the preparation.

Anyway, this is by the by. We're not talking about people dropping dead from acute use of either of these drugs. How many people do you know who smoke cannabis but not tobacco? I'm not saying it's impossible. In years gone by my cat was one such person (or feline!), but he was alone in that. Cat always felt cannabis to be far worse on the lungs than tobacco (yes this is straying from the real of the peer-reviewed journal) but cat could smoke 40-60 cigarettes in a day before he quit yet would smoke a lot less cannabis. Most likely we'd be looking at smoking beagles to get some likely answers here, and let us hope that the era of forcing dogs to smoke is behind us. The cohort of cannabis smokers who have never smoked tobacco is going to be vanishingly small. I suppose statistics could be worked out along the lines of mortality among people who average 20 a day and smoke cannabis with people who just smoke 20 a day as a control group.

I tend to agree mostly with sirmoonie, Habits are slow to change, and whatever eventually might happen if cannabis and other drugs were legalised, alcohol and tobacco are entrenched in our society, although I do think smoking is on the decline in first-world countries at least (big tobacco is looking to Africa). In England, the statistics are very clear that most people don't want drugs other than cannabis legalised. The cannabis statistics I've seen, if memory serves, are variously around the 40-50% mark [A quick google gives a 37% figure from 2001, but this is I think low]. The statistics unsurprisingly are skewed with age.

Also, for the OP, if cannabis is suddenly legalised, who has the machinery to turn out large quantities of ready-made joints? Why, big tobacco of course. It seems unlikely they'd mind. I've heard (and someone please tell me if this is an urban myth) that the cigarette manufacturers already have pack designs ready should cannabis become legal. Now I'm not so sure what impact cannabis legalisation would have on alcohol consumption. Not a lot I'd guess. Cat used to enjoy both in equal quantity, and seldom stinted on the alcohol on account of cannabis. This was true of cats circle in younger days.

It's an interesting question, but I tend to think the answer is no. Now, as to whether there is an evil conspiracy in which "big pharma" is suppressing legalisation, that's another story altogether!! lol.

All the best to everyone

Dickon

[corvardus]

Originally Posted by Dickon

Point of information 3,150mg is quite different from 1,500 pounds! 3,150mg is 3.15 grammes, a little under an 1/8th of an ounce, which is a 1/16th of a pound.

SWIM should have stated the LD50 for THC, the active constituent in Cannabis was 3150mg, which is equivalent to smoking 1500 pounds, which as SWIY say is quoted by wikipedia. As far as SWIM is aware there is no set LD50 for humans, that SWIM is aware of, since there have been no recorded deaths in humans from the direct acute toxicity of the consumption of cannabis.

Nicotine isn't "safe" in comparison to cannabis and whilst one might consider this "grasping at straws" it is a technique that people sometimes give to people contemplating suicide due to the ease of obtaining said substance. Even SWIM had considered using Nicotine to commit suicide earlier in his life. SWIM would REALLY love to find anyone who tried to commit suicide using cannabis to see how they fared.

CASE REPORT:
Suicidal poisoning due to nicotine

An Autopsy Case of Fatal Nicotine Poisoning Takayasu, T. et al. Nippon Hoigaku Zasshi, 46: 327-32 (1992)

A fatal case of nicotine poisoning is reported in which a 44-year-old female committed suicide in a short time by taking orally the eluate from tobacco. External examination showed no abnormal findings except for markedly dark red-purple postmortem lividi ty, and internal examination demonstrated no pathological changes but the signs of sudden death. Through the toxicological investigation by GC and GC-MS, however, nicotine was detected in the solution which she had taken orally and in the blood, urine and the contents of the stomach and small intestine. The nicotine concentrations of the blood, urine and contents of stomach and small intestine were 6.3 micrograms/ml, 1.5 micrograms/ml, 30 micrograms/ml and 71 micrograms/g respectively, and enough to be le thal.

SWIM doesn't count the recent coroner's decision that Cannabis was the cause of death especially when the individual in question had used amphetamines and cocaine in their history, which is infinitely more likely to have lead to the conditions that brought about the death in the first place.

LD50s for smoking are fatuous. They simply don't exist. One can chain-smoke either pure cannabis or cigarettes and not die

The quotation and use of them were to support a point that cannabis was not "more dangerous" than tobacco.

In order to obtain enough THC to even kill animal models you would need to smoke an impossible amount, and even if you tried SWIM would suspect smoking that much would cause irreversible damage by the process rather than the substance.

Even the scientists who drew up the relative rankings would refer to the LD50's of these compounds with reference to their charts, whilst essentially meaningless since it would be impossible to consume such an amount it is still useful as a frame of reference to those drugs that DO have a physiologically relevent LD50 and do have recorded deaths due to their use, alcohol specifically.

To SWIM it is similar to what occurs in perceived risk vs actual risk in radiation. Often the chemical to which the radionuclide is part is more dangerous than the presence of the radionuclide itself, the danger comes from a different route than what would be expected.

In the case of smoking cannabis the actual processess of smoking and combustion of the plant material can be argued is greater than the damaged caused by the THC and associated cannabinoids, and this is ignoring growing scientific evidence that various cannabinoids have anti-cancer properties, which have the potential to be antagonistic to the carcinogenic substances.

As far as SWIM is aware tobacco doesn't have those properties to potentially mitigate any carcinogenic effects.

So the comment to which I was responding....

Originally Posted by Sirmoonie

Also, this statement - "Much safer to smoke it and the benefits of using this over tobacco are vast. Ecstasy he is sure would overtake alcohol if it were readily available." isn't even close to true.

Is in itself not close to be true, given the evidence. The comment about Ecstacy is simply an assertion. I am not aware of any evidence that supports it or denies it.

Originally Posted by Dickon

Anyway, this is by the by. We're not talking about people dropping dead from acute use of either of these drugs. How many people do you know who smoke cannabis but not tobacco?

And neither was SWIM. SWIM was simply stating that the "isn't close to be true comment" from Sirmoonie is, itself, not true. To answer SWIY's question SWIM knows people that smoke cannabis on its own without Tobacco, but most do, SWIM will admit.

In England, the statistics are very clear that most people don't want drugs other than cannabis legalised. The cannabis statistics I've seen, if memory serves, are variously around the 40-50% mark [A quick google gives a 37% figure from 2001, but this is I think low]. The statistics unsurprisingly are skewed with age.

Similar to this...



Which can be found in this document... here

Indeed, however one needs to consider the trends and those are going up. Further those that are currently in power had to endure the 60's and were not really part of the 60's. That generation is approaching retirement. It is SWIM's belief that over the next decade there will be a significant increase of public opinion in favour of legalisation. SWIM would hope the government actions ignoring the ACMD and their upcoming crusade on the current legals will be instrumental in this.

To the original OP, SWIM doubts that alcohol or tobacco would be significantly affected from legalisation of drugs. Both appear to be used conjunction with the illegals today, SWIM sees no reason for that to change should the legal status be altered.

[purplehaze147]

I have thought about this for a while. It think only the alcohol companys are, but I have never seem any solid proof.

If marijuana was suddenly legalized, I don't think it would really effect the tobacco companys too much. Acually, the marijuana bussiness would probally get taken over by the tobacco companys and they would profit from it. Swim wouldn't want the tobacco companys to take it over because they would most likely put wierd chemicals in it, like they did with cigarettes, to improve the high at the cost of our health.

I think the alcohol companys would suffer terribily if drugs were legalized. IMO there are much more enjoyable drugs then alcohol and a lot of people would think the same once they try a few different drugs. People would be buying other drugs, like MJ and XTC when they want to go party.

[sirmoonie]

Originally Posted by terrapinzflyer

Bullshit! The people have never really been given a say in these laws, and when they have- on the state level, things like medical marijuana and making "recreational use" of marijuana the lowest enforcement priority tend to pass.
One only needs to look at marijuana - especially on the left coast, the ne' most states, colorado... the people generally support decriminilazation because the vast majority used/ have used with no ill affects. But they are not given a say and face legal/social penalties if they speak out.

What do you mean "the people have never really been given a say in these laws"? Who does have the say?

Who imposes "legal/social penalties" you are referring to on the people?

Marijuana and other drugs are illegal SOLELY because the majority of people vote for politicians who run on platforms that are for prohibition/illegality. Anything else is a fantasy conspiracy theory, which leads to.....

Originally Posted by terrapinzflyer

As to the alcohol and cigarette co's- swims turtle has long heard/ read such stories- but has never seen "proof" - ie official documents showing the money trail. However- both C.A.M.P. (campaign against marijuana production) in N CA and Green Harvest in HI have long been rumored to be funded in large part by Anheuser-Busch and swims turtle has been told by officers participating in these programs that this is the case. Possibly urban legend, as stated, swims turtle as never seen irrefutable proof. but in the case of MJ at least there is some twisted logic to it.

I don't know, and could care less, if Budweiser donates to CAMP, or the fucking Mormon church for that matter. Doesn't prove jack. The original poster was suggesting a grand illegal conspiracy where some bizarre consortium of hooch brewers is backchanneling money to presumably every legislative body in the country just to keep drugs illegal. Just because the absurd is theoretically possible, doesn't mean its possible in all practicality. Think for 30 seconds on just what it would take for that to be not only true, but never even the subject of a Woodward/Bernstein type blowout.

sirmoonie added 17 Minutes and 12 Seconds later...

SWIM has never, ever, heard of anyone going outside to satiate their weed addiction. SWIM was under the impression the fact that Cannabis does not present any significant addictive properties were universal on this forum. Marijuana is a simple psychological addiction. Sudden and sharp removal from the habit will simply give a hankering for it. Nicotine withdrawl has a significantly more severe withdrawl profile.

Haha! For obvious reasons, potheads are a bit more circumspect with their smoke breaks than cigarette smokers.

The "fact" that cannabis doesn't have any addictive properties is news to SWIM. Not sure how your later qualification regarding psychological addiction supports whatever it is you are trying to say. Productivity lost to marijuana addiction dwarfs productivity lost to nicotine, and that would be true whether marijuana was legal or not. There is a reason that one stereotype of a heavy marijuana user is some guy living in his parents' basement eating Doritos - many MJ addicts live just that.

SWIM doesn't believe he was suggesting that X would replace alchohol, if I read it correctly if X were freely available people would voluntarily move onto X for the superior high and more sociable/empathic properties of X than alcohol. Given both alcohol and X are social drugs, SWIM would believe X would overtake alcohol given if X were legal.

Fair enough, you did say "overtake" and not "replace." In my opinion X would not overtake alcohol, for the reasons I mentioned above - alcohol is a way of life for many users, while X will at most never be something more than a drug young adults use in limited settings - its for kicks. .

[corvardus]

Originally Posted by sirmoonie

Haha! For obvious reasons, potheads are a bit more circumspect with their smoke breaks than cigarette smokers.

Have you seen a tobacco smoker gagging for a fag? Just because they have been working for 2 whole hours without lighting up? It is not a pretty sight.

The "fact" that cannabis doesn't have any addictive properties is news to SWIM.

I specifically wrote that comment making particular use of words to be precise.

I actually said....

SWIM was under the impression the fact that Cannabis does not present any significant addictive properties

This means that any addictive properties of cannabis are exceedingly minor compared to a number of drugs out there, including alcohol and tobacco. SWIM did not say that cannabis does not present any addictive properties and never will.

SWIM said that in comparison to tobacco specifically one does not see the pot smoker absolutely needing to pay a quick visit to the toilets to sate their addiction. With the smokers you do, hence the reason for the gums, patches, fake fags and whatnot for people to eventually quit.

The addictive profile of tobacco is significantly more severe than cannabis, like heroin is significantly more severe to tobacco.

Besides I never said that Cannabis doesn't have any addictive properties, just to make myself clear just that they are very subtle and do have an element of control (i.e. not HAVING to go for a joint every two hours)

Productivity lost to marijuana addiction dwarfs productivity lost to nicotine, and that would be true whether marijuana was legal or not.

SWIM would very much like to see any articles on this.

SWIM has provided an from a 30 second look and a brief read. (Cannabis and Work in Jamaica: A refutation of the amotivational syndrome) so I am going to have to insist on an article to support your assertion.

In the article it asserts.

The thrust of this paper, consequently, will be an attempt to alleviate unwarranted fears of social collapse by providing examples from a society in which cannabis has been in widespread use among the working class for a long time but where passivity and withdrawal from everyday work does not exist and where the amotivational syndrome does not pertain. In fact, it is a society in which cannabis use is thought by many to have motivational effects: to arouse or initiate socially productive activity, to sustain activity in progress, and to channel activity within a prescribed course. There is a reason that one stereotype of a heavy marijuana user is some guy living in his parents' basement eating Doritos - many MJ addicts live just that.

So yes, I would love to see that article asserting that marijuana use DWARFS (your words) productivity lost to nicotene. At the moment I think you're pulling that out of your arse simply because of the numbers game.

Tobacco would dwarf cannabis use simply because cannabis is illegal, ergo productivity lost due to fag breaks every two hours would be more severe for tobacco than for cannabis and this is assuming both of them were equally addicting, which they are not, and the withdrawl were the same, which they are not.

Fair enough, you did say "overtake" and not "replace." In my opinion X would not overtake alcohol, for the reasons I mentioned above - alcohol is a way of life for many users, while X will at most never be something more than a drug young adults use in limited settings - its for kicks. .

In this instance we will have to agree to disagree. SWIM was thinking more on the generation time scale rather than in a decade.

[sirmoonie]

Originally Posted by corvardus

Have you seen a tobacco smoker gagging for a fag? Just because they have been working for 2 whole hours without lighting up? It is not a pretty sight.

This means that any addictive properties of cannabis are exceedingly minor compared to a number of drugs out there, including alcohol and tobacco. SWIM did not say that cannabis does not present any addictive properties and never will.

SWIM said that in comparison to tobacco specifically one does not see the pot smoker absolutely needing to pay a quick visit to the toilets to sate their addiction. With the smokers you do, hence the reason for the gums, patches, fake fags and whatnot for people to eventually quit.

The addictive profile of tobacco is significantly more severe than cannabis, like heroin is significantly more severe to tobacco.

Besides I never said that Cannabis doesn't have any addictive properties, just to make myself clear just that they are very subtle and do have an element of control (i.e. not HAVING to go for a joint every two hours)

You're making leaps of logic based on the faulty premise that since marijuana abuse doesn't have the equivalent of a "nic fit", the damage from marijuana addiction is somehow significantly limited. That makes no sense, and you know it, or should know it.

Marijuana abuse leads to all kinds of memory, motivation, and energy loss. It is characterized not only by lost productivity at work, but by no work at all - AGAIN, for every minute lost at work from hacking a cigarette, there is someone in their parents' basement doing bong hits all day. This can't be the real subject of debate.

Originally Posted by corvardus

SWIM would very much like to see any articles on this.

SWIM has provided an from a 30 second look and a brief read. (Cannabis and Work in Jamaica: A refutation of the amotivational syndrome) so I am going to have to insist on an article to support your assertion.

So yes, I would love to see that article asserting that marijuana use DWARFS (your words) productivity lost to nicotene. At the moment I think you're pulling that out of your arse simply because of the numbers game.

Did you in all seriousness try to dismiss all the documented problems associated with marijuana abuse by citing to a 1976 article about ganja use in Jamaican field workers? Am I being punk'd?

I quit reading that facially idiotic piece halfway through, partly because I was getting pissed off at the attempted phonetic spellings of Rastafarian accents, but mostly because it was so obviously loaded. But let's not dissect that article unless we really have to. Its just too dumb.

And if you really need to find articles that marijuana abuse can lead to lack of motivation and a host of other problems for marijuana addicts, use the SAME google search that lead you to that ridiculous article and read them. I doubt you'll do that because you know as well as I do that you can just go ask any marijuana abuser, especially ones who have quit, whether marijuana addiction leads to lack of productivity, motivation, etc. Of course it does. That's the reason half the world's potheads smoke it to begin with.

Originally Posted by corvardus

Tobacco would dwarf cannabis use simply because cannabis is illegal, ergo productivity lost due to fag breaks every two hours would be more severe for tobacco than for cannabis and this is assuming both of them were equally addicting, which they are not, and the withdrawl were the same, which they are not.

Again, to base any of your assertions on the characteristics of the average smoke breaker makes no sense. At least to me it doesn't.

Hey, you know those big water pipes in head shops aren't really for tobacco right?

[cbockenhouser]

Originally Posted by sirmoonie

That makes no sense, and you know it, or should know it.
...
This can't be the real subject of debate.

As far as I can tell, all you have offered is stuff based on your personal experience and hearsay. Can you offer us any studies or any sort of anything (lets say aside from biased DEA materials) that completely shut down the debate? Your arbitrary assertions certainly do not.

The productivity I have lost due to scratching my head over this thread far exceeds what was lost due to stoner inertia for today...sigh...

Here's an anecdote from my life, since we're not quoting legitimate studies anyway:
A friend of mine was a stoner and payed WOW all day long every day in his parents house, save for a couple hours a day spent at community college. One time he got too high, freaked out, called the hospital and his parents found out he got high. He swore off the evil weed forever, hasn't smoked again to my knowledge for at least a year. As of now his full time job is...(drum roll!) BASEMENT WORLD OF WARCRAFT! His laziness was always a function of his personality not of his stoner status. Nothing has changed.

[sirmoonie]

Originally Posted by cbockenhouser

As far as I can tell, all you have offered is stuff based on your personal experience and hearsay.

Affirmative. Anecdotal evidence. Entirely appropriate in the context of a discussion of controlled substances, especially if the experiences and hearsay (you say it likes its a dirty word) are extensive. The fact that no one else had offered anything but a 4 decade old survey of stoned Rastas made it alll the more so.

Originally Posted by cbockenhouser

Here's an anecdote from my life, since we're not quoting legitimate studies anyway:
A friend of mine was a stoner and payed WOW all day long every day in his parents house, save for a couple hours a day spent at community college. One time he got too high, freaked out, called the hospital and his parents found out he got high. He swore off the evil weed forever, hasn't smoked again to my knowledge for at least a year. As of now his full time job is...(drum roll!) BASEMENT WORLD OF WARCRAFT! His laziness was always a function of his personality not of his stoner status. Nothing has changed.

You make a lousy diagnostician - basement boy is now obviously on 'luuuuuudes, man!

I shall return, gentlemen. I only have access to the prison library computers for an hour a day.

[corvardus]

Originally Posted by sirmoonie

You're making leaps of logic based on the faulty premise that since marijuana abuse doesn't have the equivalent of a "nic fit", the damage from marijuana addiction is somehow significantly limited. That makes no sense, and you know it, or should know it.

SWIY specifically mention on this very thread.

Productivity lost to marijuana addiction dwarfs productivity lost to nicotine

Please show me where my logic is incorrect, oh sagacious one. Show me where marijuana addiction and withdrawl is more severe than tobacco. Show me where the drains to the health services both in treatment of tobacco related diseases and the actual money spent on public health initiatives to stop smoking is dwarved by that posed by that of cannabis.

Please show me the articles stating that workers who are on cannabis are costing the companies millions of pounds of lost revenue due to taking regular breaks every two hours to sate their addiction.

In fact show me any peer reviewed articles to back up your claims. How the hell MJ can dwarf the damage in any way, shape or form cause "more" damage both physically or economically greater than that of tobacco, but please show me.

Marijuana abuse leads to all kinds of memory, motivation, and energy loss. It is characterized not only by lost productivity at work, but by no work at all - AGAIN, for every minute lost at work from hacking a cigarette, there is someone in their parents' basement doing bong hits all day. This can't be the real subject of debate.

It is time to put up or shut up. You are making these assertions based on what, exactly? Personal experience? A friend of a friend who just happens to be a slack jawed unemployed yokel!?

Did you in all seriousness try to dismiss all the documented problems associated with marijuana abuse by citing to a 1976 article about ganja use in Jamaican field workers? Am I being punk'd?

Documented? Documented? Which documents? Where? Which peer reviewed journal? Which author? You have provided no evidence in which I can even look at, do you have any, or do you have your own vaunted "experience" to look at? The ones I have seen are from the Whitehouse and other Governmental departments. I have seen no peer reviewed articles to support your assumptions and the ones that come close essentially say the link is "not clear".

I don't know though, if Cannabis was such a huge problem, as you claim it is then I'm wondering why Google isn't giving me pages after pages of that support instead all I seem to find, dotted around with governmental propaganda is "Lost revenue" due to "not taxing". LOL

And if you really need to find articles that marijuana abuse can lead to lack of motivation and a host of other problems for marijuana addicts, use the SAME google search that lead you to that ridiculous article and read them.

Oh no, no, no the onus is on YOU to cite which articles you are pulling from, not for me to go to google. I already did that, I found no credible articles that took your stance. I also went to the ISI Web of Knowledge and other scientific databases to pull from. That title just jumped out at me in 30 seconds.

So no, Sirmoonie, if you make the statement YOU take the time to support it. Don't expect your opponent to do it for you.

corvardus added 165 Minutes and 29 Seconds later...

##################################################

A number of comments have been made in this thread which I will respond.

Originally Posted by Sirmoonie

Productivity lost to marijuana addiction dwarfs productivity lost to nicotine, and that would be true whether marijuana was legal or not

My contention that Productivity is NOT lost to marijuana addiction dwarfs that of nicotine addition is supported by the following article, which is a review of all salient articles over a number of decades:

Mostly debunking your...

Originally Posted by Sirmoonie

Marijuana abuse leads to all kinds of memory, motivation, and energy loss.

Marijuana and job performance: comparing the major streams of research;
Journal of Drug Issues; Fall 1998; 28, 4;

Memory

This one is a problem with cannabis, but keep in mind that these studies were performed whilst the individual was stoned. For this to occur they would need to get stoned at work. If you are foolish to smoke an illegal substance at work then you deserve to get fired, however the point is that most cannabis users toke up at home, away from work, ergo they tend to be sober when they go into work with the obvious few exceptions

Because marijuana intoxication is commonly believed to make people inattentive, slow, and forgetful, a number of experiments have addressed this question (Abel 1970, 1971; Casswell and Marks 1973a and b; Chait 1990; Chait, Fishman, and Schuster 1985; Dittrich, Battig, and von Zepplin 1973; Dornbush, Clare, Zaks, Crown, Volavka, and Fink 1972; Evans, Martz, Brown, Rodda, Kiplinger, Lemberger, and Forney 1973; Jones and Benowitz 1976; Melges, Tinklenberg, Hollister, and Gillespie 1970a and b; Meyer, Pillard, Shapiro, and Mirin 1971; Miller, Drew, and Kiplinger 1972).
...
Most experiments have shown that marijuana intoxication reduces subjects' attention or concentration on tasks, their speed at learning new material and their short-term memory.
...
Experiments on the effects of marijuana on the ability to recall material already in long-term memory have shown no overall differences attributable to marijuana intoxication (Darley, Tinklenberg, Roth, Vernon, and Koppel 1977; Parker, Birnbaum, Weingartner, Hartley, Stillman, and Wyatt 1980). One study which explored both short-term and long-term memory showed that intoxicated subjects required more trials to learn word lists but that they recalled more of the material they had learned when tested three days later than subjects who were not intoxicated while learning the lists (Rickles, Cohen, Whitaker, and McIntyre 1973).

Psychomotor Skills

This would be relevent for people who were doing driving or manual work again this is if the individual is actually stoned on the job.

Since psychomotor skills are important in a large number of jobs, and since driving performance is central to the performance at a variety of jobs, research results on the effects of marijuana on driving performance are relevant to the discussion of its effects on job performance. Some of the experiments previously cited in connection with the effects of marijuana on attention, learning, and memory also included tests of psychomotor and driving performance. A few additional studies have also been identified (Brief, Silverton, Saccuzzo, and Janowsky 1981; Bech, Rafaelsen, and Rafaelsen 1973; Clark, Hughes, and Nakashima 1970; Hansteen, Miller, Lonero, Reid, and Jones 1976; Jones and Stone 1970; Kaplan 1973; Klonoff 1974; Kvalseth 1977; Manno, Kiplinger, Haine, Bennett, and Forney 1970; Manno, Kiplinger, Scholz, Forney, and Haine 1971; MacAvoy and Marks 1975; Mathew, Wilson, Humphreys, Lowe, and Weithe 1993; Melges 1976; Moskowitz, Shea, and Burns 1974; Moskowitz, Zeidman, and Sharma 1976; Rafaelsen, Beech, Christiansen, Christrup, Nyobe, and Rafaelsen 1973; Robbe, and O'Hanlon 1993; Roth, Tinklenberg, Whitaker, Darley, Kopell, and Hollister 1973; Vachon, Sulkowski, and Rich 1974; Wilson, Ellinwood, Mathew, and Johnson 1994).

In general, these experiments suggest that acute marijuana intoxication impairs performance, particularly at more complex tasks.

The effects of marijuana intoxication on performance in driving simulators and controlled driving tests are somewhat more ambiguous, suggesting that in situations more similar to actual driving situations (or to actual work situations) users may be able to "suppress the marijuana high" (Murray 1986:34). Crancer, Dille, Deloy, Wallace, and Haykin (1969) found that marijuana intoxication reduced the accuracy of speedometer readings but did not affect use of the brakes, accelerator, or steering. Though Hansteen et al. (1976) showed decrements in driving skills for high doses of marijuana, Robbe and Hanlon (1993) found that in a controlled driving protocol, including driving in high-density urban traffic, higher doses impaired performance slightly but that the only significant effect of lower doses was that they caused drivers to drive more slowly, a trait which would not necessarily produce less safe driving.

Only complicated tasks were affected deliteriously. This would exclude most of the population whose jobs are monotonous and boring. Those whose jobs are complicated and required hand eye coordination mission critical personnel, emergency services, managers, executives and the like would work better without them.

Those whom you are whining lose "productivity" would experience less of an impact were they to be stoned in the job.

Job Performance

And here we get to the crux of the argument...

The experiments which deal most directly with work performance involve administration of marijuana to subjects and the measurement of performance in controlled settings over periods as long as 94 days (Cohen 1976) and 98 days (Kagel et al. 1976). Mendelson, Babour, Kuehnle, Rossi, Bernstein, Mello, and Greenberg (1976a) and Cohen (1976) found no differences between the performance of subjects given marijuana and those who were not.
The Kagel et al. (1980) piece deserves special mention because it represents the contribution of experimental economics and specifically the "microeconomy" to the study of this topic. In this experiment, subjects spent 98 days in a controlled environment in which they could do work in exchange for symbolic currency which could be exchanged for items of value. Subjects used marijuana within this controlled environment and this allowed researchers to assess the relationship between use and productivity measured in terms of output per hour worked. They found no significant relationship between hours worked and marijuana use. However, marijuana use was associated with a statistically significant increase in subjects' output per hour (1980:386-387). Overall, this experiment does not support the claim that marijuana reduces work productivity. Further, it raises the interesting possibility that marijuana use may, in some circumstances, be associated with higher productivity.

In summary, the controlled experimental research supports the conclusion that marijuana intoxication does have negative effects on attention, short-term memory, learning, and some psychomotor skills in controlled settings and that the effects appear to be dose-related. The evidence from controlled experiments does not support the conclusion that marijuana use reduces motivation. However, the results of these experiments do not tell us about the magnitude of marijuana's effects in the field because the artificial conditions of the laboratory will influence the magnitude of the effects observed in the experiments. It is difficult to be sure how these results relate to actual job settings in which those who use marijuana are probably not continuously in a state of acute intoxication.

Finally in a literature review of evidence of marijuana and its affects on work and productivity supports my assertion that you are mistaken in your belief that productivity due to marijuana DWARFS that of tobacco.

The evidence that supports your view is sparse. If you actually took the time to back up your comments with some articles then I might give your counter argument a bit of credence.

Further...

Cannabis, motivation, and life satisfaction in an internet sample

A review of the laboratory performance research, education
data and employment statistics demonstrate little support for symptoms associated with amotivational syndrome.

Investigations of other indices, including employment
and education, also offer little support for amotivation.
Cannabis use appears orthogonal to wages or job turnover.
An examination of over 8000 people suggests that some frequent cannabis users earn higher wages than
abstainers

Reilly, Didcott, Swift and Hall [18] found that perceived cannabis effects outweighed perceived effects of alcohol, a drug commonly associated with numerous negative consequences [

Moreover, many people demonstrate low motivation regardless of drug use.

Which supports the assertion of cbockenhouser.

If Sirmoonie is not willing or capable to bring any articles or materials to the debate then I will consider it over and further discourse will be seen as trolling rather than the pursuit of truth and information. Your stance is not supported by the literature. I have asked repeatedly for this "well documented" evidence and can only find government departmental websites that support it. I, as a scientist, only take into consideration peer reviewed academic literature as credible.

Reputation Comments on this post:

	Less of the baiting, sarky and aggressive remarks, this very good thread will degenerate if you dont keep your head
	Well supported argument. Dismissive author without any support deserves to be dismissed.

[cbockenhouser]

If smoking MJ always caused people to be unproductive then it would be impossible to explain how Snoop Dogg did all of this (according to wikipedia):

Discography
Main article: Snoop Dogg discography
Album Year
Doggystyle 1993
Tha Doggfather 1996
Da Game Is to Be Sold, Not to Be Told 1998
No Limit Top Dogg 1999
Tha Last Meal 2000
Paid tha Cost to Be da Boss 2002
R&G (Rhythm & Gangsta): The Masterpiece 2004
Tha Blue Carpet Treatment 2006
Ego Trippin' 2008
Malice In Wonderland 2009[72]
With 213 Year
The Hard Way 2004
With Tha Dogg Pound Year
Dogg Food 1995
Cali Iz Active 2006
With Tha Eastsidaz Year
Snoop Dogg Presents Tha Eastsidaz 2000
Duces 'n Trayz: The Old Fashioned Way 2001

Filmography
Main article: Snoop Dogg filmography

* 1994: Murder Was the Case (Platinum)
* 1998: Caught Up
* 1998: Half Baked (cameo appearance)
* 1998: Da Game Of Life (No Limit Films)
* 1998: Hot Boyz
* 1998: Ride
* 1999: Whiteboyz
* 1999: Urban Menace
* 2000: Up in Smoke Tour
* 2001: Baby Boy (Gold)[73]
* 2001: Training Day
* 2001: King of the Hill (voice)
* 2001: Bones
* 2001: The Wash
* 2003: Malibu's Most Wanted
* 2003: Old School
* 2004: Starsky & Hutch
* 2004: Soul Plane
* 2004: Volcano High
* 2005: Boss'n Up
* 2005: Racing Stripes (voice)
* 2006: The Tenants
* 2006: Weeds: Himself
* 2006: Hood of Horror
* 2007: Arthur and the Minimoys (voice)
* 2007: Monk
o During the opening credits, he covered the title song by Randy Newman It's a Jungle out There.
* 2007: The Boondocks
* 2008: Singh Is Kinng (as Himself)
* 2008: Snoop Dogg's Father Hood (as Himself)
* 2009: Futurama: Into the Wild Green Yonder (voice)
* 2009: Snoop And Jay Are Do Paloma Valley High
* 2009: Dogg After Dark: Himself
* 2009: Xavier: Renegade Angel (voice)
* 2009: Brüno (cameo appearance)


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

Reputation Comments on this post:

	Haha, good point and great comeback.
	Counter example isn't neccesarrily helpful in debates such as this. There will always be exepctions to people's argument...

[Junkhead23]

Originally Posted by cbockenhouser

If smoking MJ always caused people to be unproductive then it would be impossible to explain how Snoop Dogg did all of this (according to wikipedia):

Discography
Main article: Snoop Dogg discography
Album Year
Doggystyle 1993
Tha Doggfather 1996
Da Game Is to Be Sold, Not to Be Told 1998
No Limit Top Dogg 1999
Tha Last Meal 2000
Paid tha Cost to Be da Boss 2002
R&G (Rhythm & Gangsta): The Masterpiece 2004
Tha Blue Carpet Treatment 2006
Ego Trippin' 2008
Malice In Wonderland 2009[72]
With 213 Year
The Hard Way 2004
With Tha Dogg Pound Year
Dogg Food 1995
Cali Iz Active 2006
With Tha Eastsidaz Year
Snoop Dogg Presents Tha Eastsidaz 2000
Duces 'n Trayz: The Old Fashioned Way 2001

Filmography
Main article: Snoop Dogg filmography

* 1994: Murder Was the Case (Platinum)
* 1998: Caught Up
* 1998: Half Baked (cameo appearance)
* 1998: Da Game Of Life (No Limit Films)
* 1998: Hot Boyz
* 1998: Ride
* 1999: Whiteboyz
* 1999: Urban Menace
* 2000: Up in Smoke Tour
* 2001: Baby Boy (Gold)[73]
* 2001: Training Day
* 2001: King of the Hill (voice)
* 2001: Bones
* 2001: The Wash
* 2003: Malibu's Most Wanted
* 2003: Old School
* 2004: Starsky & Hutch
* 2004: Soul Plane
* 2004: Volcano High
* 2005: Boss'n Up
* 2005: Racing Stripes (voice)
* 2006: The Tenants
* 2006: Weeds: Himself
* 2006: Hood of Horror
* 2007: Arthur and the Minimoys (voice)
* 2007: Monk
o During the opening credits, he covered the title song by Randy Newman It's a Jungle out There.
* 2007: The Boondocks
* 2008: Singh Is Kinng (as Himself)
* 2008: Snoop Dogg's Father Hood (as Himself)
* 2009: Futurama: Into the Wild Green Yonder (voice)
* 2009: Snoop And Jay Are Do Paloma Valley High
* 2009: Dogg After Dark: Himself
* 2009: Xavier: Renegade Angel (voice)
* 2009: Brüno (cameo appearance)


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

To be fair making music uses a lot less memory than say working in an office. PLus they go through long periods of inactivity when not touring or making music. Plus he hasn't smoked weed for years

[Nature Boy]

I don't think alcohol and tobacco companies started prohibition as such but they've almost certainly dealt a hand in keeping the competition illegal. But what competition is there in reality? You don't often reject a beer when you've just smoked a joint and cigarettes are awesome when you're on ecstasy! If anything, legalising those two drugs might boost alcohol and cigarette markets considerably. That said, in the long run, tobacco companies probably know that marijuana would finish them off over a number of decades. Even if people still smoked dried plant matter in order to break up the day, they would probably resort to low cannabinoid-level marijuana cigarettes as opposed to those nasty, lung-wrenching tobacco products.

So to answer the original question in a few short words: yes, no and sort of.

[cbockenhouser]

With all do respect to your totally unprofessional drive-by assessment of my friend's current drug use status, he was never really comfortable with drug use and is most certainly not on 'ludes or anything else.

Hearsay is not a dirty word. Its how english speakers describe statements made in a vacuum of factual support.

Interesting that you feel the need to mention you are in prison as if it has something to do with the argument...so apparently prison made you so smart that you know everything without the need to support it and the rest of us are all just wrong?


cbockenhouser added 38 Minutes and 49 Seconds later...

Sorry if my last message was baiting, but I strongly resent the implication that somehow sirmoonie's personal life experience is more important than anyone else's.

[RedBaron]

Tobacco is a much more destructive drug than pot physically on the body, but mentally that is far from true. Like Sirmoonie mentioned, "for every
smoker taking too many breaks at work theres going to be potheads just sleeping at home." Thats the difference right there is that weed definitely has the tendency to un-motivate you and to chill while not being to productive in your day to day tasks. And ecstasy replacing alcohol is ridiculous. Sure doing e the occasional time could have very positive effects on ones outlook on life and could help break down emotional barriers. However popping those pills on a regular basis is destructive on the mind and body and can lead to serious addiction and a dysfunctional lifestyle. Swim is not saying that alcohol cannot cause this either but it is already such a mainstream, accepted part of society and the amount of help offered to people for their drinking is enormous. Plus the tolerance you would develop doing e all the time would be costing a lot more money and the comedowns that would entail would leave an alcohol hangover feeling like a walk in the park.

[twoiko]

Originally Posted by redbaron816

"for every smoker taking too many breaks at work theres[sic] going to be potheads just sleeping at home."

I really doubt it's that much of a problem, do you guys seriously think for every single person who takes extra breaks at work for tobacco there's another who's sitting at home doing absolutely nothing but smoking pot? I seriously doubt there are that many people who can support their cannabis addiction without some kind of job. Personally at least 50% of the people I worked with (call centers, I know this may be on the higher end of the spectrum) went out for smoke breaks all the time and got away with it. That's something close to about 500+ people per call center... Assuming they employ 1000 people, which is average around here.

The only other thing would be if Cannabis caused amotivational syndrome, which it does not (as you would know if you read all the posts here), then maybe, but as far as I can tell the only people who would be on their asses not working would be doing so even without pot.

[RedBaron]

Swim wasn't trying to knock pot as it is a big part of his lifestyle; but he was just making a generalization of the effects which hes noticed of him and his friends.....In which bottomline is, weed has a lot more of a sedative effect than tobacco and in most cases leads to much less getting done on the day.

[sirmoonie]

Regarding above:

1. The ramblings about nicotine addiction, the "smoke breaks" at work it results in, and the seeming absence of a similar physical temporal urgency to smoke marijuana, are a complete distraction from what SWIM understands the debate to be: in essence, who fucks up more at work, a pothead (i.e., relatively heavy marjiuna smoker) or cigarette smoker? See the articles below for the clear and obvious answer.

2. Its almost irrelevant to this, but SWIM knows potheads take "smoke breaks" at work. SWIM couldn't find a study proving they do that, as Corvarbiff will demand, but neither could I find a study suggesting they didn't. Its not exactly something worth studying, assuming it could be accurately studied. Hence, it is the perfect place for anecdotal experiential evidence - mine is that potheads DO take smoke break during work to get high. No idea whether its as often as tobacco users, never really thought about it either.

3. Corvar likes his own anecdotal evidence when it fits his marijuana mission. For instance, when attempting (and failing) to discount his own cited studies that show memory problems associated with marijuana, he states: "This one is a problem with cannabis, but keep in mind that these studies were performed whilst the individual was stoned. For this to occur they would need to get stoned at work. If you are foolish to smoke an illegal substance at work then you deserve to get fired, however the point is that most cannabis users toke up at home, away from work, ergo they tend to be sober when they go into work with the obvious few exceptions."

Initially, that is just flat out wrong in my experience - heavy and even moderate marijuana users get high on the way out the door (assuming they have a job to begin with), and also get high at work. Its also COMPLETELY irrelevant, as the studies below show, the damaging affects of marijuana abuse remain LONG after the user quits smoking (indeed some are permanent).

Anyway, here is what I came up with in about 1 hour (all the warden allows). Please note all studies are from this decade, and none were conducted in a Jamaican pomegranite field. I can't believe this stuff is subject to debate, but here it is:

The Effects of Cannabis Use on Wages of Prime-Age Males
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=1017142
(Sorry, Abstract only) "The analysis shows that recent cannabis use has a negative effect on wages. The size of the wage effect depends on the age of onset. The earlier the start of cannabis use the larger the negative wage impact." WOW, I just can't imagine why that would be? Think its related to workplace productivity? Any studies suggesting that early onset cigarette smokers make less money?

The Chronic Effects of Cannabis on Memory in Humans
http://www.bentham.org/cdar/samples/...-1/Solowij.pdf
No good news here in this survey: "Most recent studies have examined working memory and verbal episodic memory and cumulatively, the evidence suggests impaired encoding, storage, manipulation and retrieval mechanisms in long-term or heavy cannabis users. These impairments are not dissimilar to those associated with acute intoxication . . ." I'll let you guys figure out whether that leads to lost workplace productivity. Then you can compare it to similar studies of memory loss in cigarette smokers - oh wait, there are none.

Performance of heavy marijuana-smoking adolescents on a laboratory measure of motivation
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...015bfca22ed24e (Sorry, Abstract only - University of Texas) "Significant differences were found between the groups: the marijuana-smoking participants switched earlier to the non-work option, and derived a greater percentage of their earnings from the non-work option." What??? I am astounded to hear of this!

Dutch/Aussie study on education and marijuana.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...7e6faf80c4aac8 (Sorry, Abstract only). According to them: "we find that those initiating into cannabis use are much more likely to dropout of school, and that the reduction in years of education depends on the age at which initiation into cannabis occurs." Goodness gracious, I just can't imagine why that would be.

The Relationship Between High School Marijuana Use and Annual Earnings Among Young Adult Males
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...ract_id=904943
(Sorry, abstract only). "Moreover, the authors find evidence that the remaining association between early marijuana use and earnings, after controlling for differences in human capital, reflects the cumulative effect of marijuana use on cognitive ability and motivation." Sure doesn't sound good for the marijuana warriors.

Regional Brain Abnormalities Associated With Long-term Heavy Cannabis Use
http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/con...tract/65/6/694
Shows that long term heavy marijuana use damages the hippocampus (fyi, long term memory) and the amygdala (fyi, memory and emotional learning center). Its concludes that "These findings indicate that heavydaily cannabis use across protracted periods exerts harmfuleffects on brain tissue and mental health." I'll let you guys figure out if that conclusion leads to lost workplace productivity for potheads.

Long-term heavy marijuana users make costly decisions on a gambling task
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...e7a67af106112b (Sorry Abstract only.) FYI - the "gambling task" being referred to is a clinical test that measures decision making. Its widely accepted as a diagnostic device. The data in this study suggest "that long-term heavy marijuana users may have specific deficits in the ability to balance rewards and punishments." Again, I'll let you guys figure out if that leads to lower productivity when compared to cigarette smokers.

Impact of Cannabis and Cigarette Use on Health
http://www.economics.unimelb.edu.au/SITE/research/workingpapers/wp06/969.pdf
Interesting conclusion on negative productivity. Also, strongly concludes that:"Our results provide robust evidence that cannabis use has a detrimental effect on health." I'll let you guys figure out the workplace costs of that.

The Cannabis Withdrawal Syndrome
http://journals.lww.com/co-psychiatr...&type=abstract
Its DSM-IV, I believe. Marijuana is addictive, beyond doubt. Ask any pothead. The withdrawal sounds unproductive. Think?

Negative consequences associated with dependence in daily cannabis users
http://substanceabusepolicy.com/content/2/1/3
Absolutely nothing good in here regarding marijuana use. Nothing.

Great article on long term impairment in memory after use stops
http://www.bentham.org/cdar/samples/cdar%201-1/Solowij.pdf

Here it is you Neo-Cannabaloids - the only exculpatory evidence I was able to find. This article suggest that its mostly idiots who end up being potheads in the first place. I frankly disagree, I know brilliant potheads, and I think marijuana use is across the IQ spectrum. But in the interests of full disclosure, you can always plead this!
http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/eser...ssociation.pdf

This could go forever. I found all that in about 1 hour and I think the search was limited to 2006 onward. I used maybe 3 or 4 keywords at most. A pointless exercise (although I found it interesting anyway), since no reasonable person can truly debate that marijuana abuse results in a loss of productivity and dozens of other negative characteristics that affect work. Put it this way - two people walk into your office and want a skilled intellectual job. One is a daily tobacco smoker and the other a daily marijuana smoker. Who you going to hire and why?

[corvardus]

Thank you for actually backing your stance up with some articles, albeit some of them abstracts, SWIM will try and get the full texts and read over them at some point next week.

Context is everything and if SWIM is convinced SWIM will change his stance accordingly.

In essence, who fucks up more at work, a pothead (i.e., relatively heavy marjiuna smoker) or cigarette smoker? See the articles below for the clear and obvious answer.

SWIY appears to have some significant hostility towards potheads, SWIM is curious why this is the case? Most of the potheads SWIM knows all have degrees (2 have PhD's) and all have and are holding 9/5 jobs. He does know some pot heads outside his social sphere and could not vouch for their daily use, but they are unemployed.

SWIM is open to the possibility that might be suffering from an element of naivity, as it is difficult to admit at least SWIM is man enough to consider it. SWIM is not a Creationist, SWIM will actually read and modify my stance if the evidence is compelling.

3. Corvar likes his own anecdotal evidence when it fits his marijuana mission. For instance, when attempting (and failing) to discount his own cited studies that show memory problems associated with marijuana

SWIY didn't even realise that SWIM conceded the memory issue already. SWIM was not discounting these studies at all, SWIM was agreeing with it. If that was misinterpreted SWIM apologises.

As for the other comments which seemed to be rather absolute SWIM will have to pore over those texts you have supplied. Pity you didn't full-text the abstracts, though.

As for being on a "marijuana" mission, SWIM would have to disagree. SWIM is looking for the plain truth about the matter. SWIY has probably observed that SWIM is rather hostile to the anti-marijuana brigade as they tend to make sweeping statements without backing them up one iota and SWIY was following the old predictable pattern.

For that SWIM would wish to apologise for his tone.

SWIM suspects those articles you have supplied indicate subtle deliterious effects over a prolonged period of time. Until SWIM reads them SWIM will not know whether your offerings follow the same pattern.

[sirmoonie]

SWIM has nothing against potheads whatsoever. Of the close friends SWIM has made in adult life, SWIM would say half are or were heavy marijuana smokers, as was SWIM's closest sibling. Of the ones who have quit, all have told SWIM at some point that long term regular marijuana use (5-15 years) had a negative effect on energy, focus, and career path/plans. SWIM's response was "No kidding, getting stoned every day does that? Who in the world would have thunked?"

For the record, SWIM believes marijuana use estimates in the U.S. are wrong. SWIM would guess that as much as 25% of adults aged 18-50, across many industries, use marijuana on a regular basis. That's just SWIM's experience. It's a very stoned nation.