$10,000 reward to anyone in Texas who can prove alcohol is safer than marijuana

[RainDog]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/group-offers-10000-disprove-marijuana-safer-alcohol-claim/

The Safer Texas Campaign is offering $10,000 to anyone in Texas who can prove that three statements claiming marijuana is safer than alcohol are incorrect.

The three statements are:

1. Alcohol is significantly more toxic than marijuana, making death by overdose far more likely with alcohol
2. The health effects from long-term alcohol consumption cause tens of thousands of more deaths in the U.S. annually than the health effects from the long-term consumption of marijuana
3. Violent crime committed by individuals intoxicated by alcohol is far more prevalent in the U.S. than violent crime committed by individuals intoxicated by marijuana only.

"We are confident that this $10,000 will not be claimed," said Safer Texas Campaign manager Craig Johnson, when he posed the challenge.

[arcane1]

1. Reminds me of my old $1,000 challenge:

to anyone who can choose to be gay for 24 hours, then choose themselves out of it. :)

[RainDog]

3. now there you go being all rational and everything

that's just not the American way... too often, sadly.

[Dreamer Tatum]

2. So stop trying to legalize pot, and work on outlawing alcohol

Or, best yet, stop making stupid comparisons.

[RainDog]

4. yes, that's a really great idea

prohibition worked out so well before, didn't it?

all that waste of money, all the murder, all the innocent victims of criminal gangs. all because someone chose to have a drink. what an utterly stupid idea.

please explain what you think is stupid about the comparison since the reason for the comparison is to illustrate the irrational nature of our current law based upon the legality of one substance and the illegality of other.

[kayakjohnny]

8. I agree, I don't think the comparison was stupid one damn bit.

And while we're at it, let's compare pot to all the over-the-counter and prescription drugs and cause so many more of our nation's problems.

Pain-killers for starters?

We could go right down the list if we have the time.

How many people do road rage after one too fucking many Red Bulls?

[slackmaster]

41. Does a fine glass of Pinot Noir contribute more to the quality of life than a hooter of Jamaican?

Is taking one small dose of aspirin a day better for your heart than running 10 naked laps around your high school's soccer field every Thursday?

[cbc5g]

5. Doesn't seem like a comparison to me

Pot isn't really that dangerous
Alcohol can be


But prohibition is even more dangerous than both combined

[RainDog]

14. guess that was a hit and run post

but the truth is that no one will be able to collect on this challenge... and another truth is that too many people don't care that racist laws are allowed to harm more people than marijuana ever will.

[Canuckistanian]

17. What's stupid about the comparison?

They're both widely used for recreational purposes. You can't prevent the use of either. Prohibition of alcohol has already been tried - and it failed.

Now it's been shown that one does demonstrably more harm than the other.

Why can't we even TALK about the prohibition of pot? What's the sticking point here?

[Iggo]

31. Something is stupid, but it ain't that comparison. (n/t)

EDIT: I misspelled "stupid."

:rofl:

[Pab Sungenis]

6. It's really ridiculously simple.

Never mind the intoxicating effects; smoke is a known carcinogen. Smoking marijuana causes damage to the lungs and may lead to cancer.

Of course, there ARE other safer ways of consuming marijuana, and marijuana smoke is considerably less addictive and carcinogenic than tobacco smoke.

[RainDog]

12. but it may not be that simple

Dr. Donald Taskin, at UCLA, did a study with more than 2000 participants to look at lung cancer and marijuana smoking. His research was sponsored by the National Institute of Drug Abuse. His study indicated that people who smoke marijuana, even tho smoking is a known cause of cancer, are no more likely to develop cancer than non-smokers. There was one small but statistically notable variation. People who ONLY smoked marijuana were less likely to develop lung cancer than NON-SMOKERS. weird, huh?

http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/tashkinlungcancer.html

Tashkin, D.P., Pulmonary Complications of Smoked Substance Abuse. Western Journal of Medicine 1990 May; 152:525-530. pg. 525-526.

In 2003, Dr. Manual Guzman from the University of Madrid published his research in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Reviews Cancer. From his research, he concluded, "cannabinoids inhibit tumour growth in laboratory animals. They do so by modulating key cell-signalling pathways, thereby inducing direct growth arrest and death of tumour cells, as well as by inhibiting tumour angiogenesis and metastasis. Cannabinoids are selective anti-tumour compounds, as they can kill tumour cells without affecting their non-transformed counterparts."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14570037

Guzman M., <2003> Cannabinoids: potential anticancer agents. Nat Rev Cancer. 3(10): 745-55

Then, in November 2007, researchers at the California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute published a report showing that the non-psychoactive cannabinoid cannabidiol found in cannabis can inhibit the spread of breast cancer.

http://www.cbcrp.org/research/PageGrant.asp?grant_id=4903

Sean D. McAllister, Rigel T. Christian, Maxx P. Horowitz, Amaia Garcia and Pierre-Yves Desprez Cannabidiol as a novel inhibitor of Id-1 gene expression in aggressive breast cancer cells, Molecular Cancer Therapeutics, November 1, 2007 6, 2921

strange, huh?

What this research tells me is that marijuana is a substance with medical value, unlike the current DEA designation that pretends it has no medical value.

That's beyond the scope of the Safer Texas challenge because they don't ask anyone to show that alcohol has similar medical value.

but wouldn't it be amazing if it turned out that the federal govt has kept a cancer treatment from the American people because of racist anti-marijuana laws and an entirely faked drug scare more than 70 years ago? - tactics that continue to this day, in fact?

[Ghost in the Machine]

25. Thank you for your very informative posts, they are a pleasure to read.

Have you seen this piece on Tashkin?

It's not that the subject is trivial. One in three Americans will be afflicted with cancer, we are told by the government (as if it's our immutable fate and somehow acceptable). Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the U.S. and lung cancer the leading killer among cancers. You'd think it would have been very big news when UCLA medical school professor Donald Tashkin revealed that components of marijuana smoke -although they damage cells in respiratory tissue- somehow prevent them from becoming malignant. In other words, something in marijuana exerts an anti-cancer effect.

Tashkin has special credibility. He was the lead investigator on studies dating back to the 1970s that identified the components in marijuana smoke that are toxic. It was Tashkin et al who published photomicrographs showing that marijuana smoke damages cells lining the upper airways. It was the Tashkin lab reporting that benzpyrene -a component of tobacco smoke that plays a role in most lung cancers- is especially prevalent in marijuana smoke. It was Tashkin's data documenting that marijuana smokers are more likely than non-smokers to cough, wheeze, and produce sputum.

Tashkin reviewed his findings April 4 at a conference organized by "Patients Out of Time," a reform group devoted to educating doctors and the public (as opposed to lobbying politicians). Some 30 MDs and nurses got continuing medical education credits for attending.

The National Institute on Drug Abuse supported Tashkin's marijuana-related research over the decades and readily gave him a grant to conduct a large, population-based, case-controlled study that would prove definitively that heavy, long-term marijuana use increases the risk of lung and upper-airways cancers. What Tashkin and his colleagues found, however, disproved their hypothesis. (Tashkin is to marijuana as a cause of lung cancer what Hans Blick is to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction -an honest investigator who set out to find something, concluded that it wasn't there, and reported his results.)

http://www.counterpunch.org/gardner05032008.html

Have you ever seen this site?

The Scientific Facts of Pot

The Studies

Marijuana Fights:

Heart Disease
Cancer
Diabetes
Osteoporosis
Alzheimer's
Liver Disease
Epilepsy
Skin Allergies
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
Anxiety and Depression

and is also Neuroprotective and Causes Neurogenesis (brain cell growth)

http://www.scientificfactsofpot.com/studies.htm

Thanks again for all your well informed advocacy for this very useful & medically beneficial plant. Keep up the good work, it is much appreciated by some of us.

Peace,

Ghost

[RainDog]

27. thank you

that's so sweet of you to say.

and thanks for the links.

I did see Dr. Tashkin via a YouTube interview that was interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJmQ16cGBHU

that one goes into some of the things you included in your links.

they should add migraines to that list of medical uses. I have a prescription for imitrex now but it makes me feel sick to my stomach - sort of like sea sickness. but I want to be legal so I use this lesser medication, tho it would not be my first choice if cannabis were legal.

when I read the scolds and sanctimonious posters on this site in relation to cannabis - I find it hard to understand how people can be so willing to demonize a plant while they would, almost to a person, I would bet, be willing to take an inferior marinol tablet if it had the imprimatur of a pharmaceutical company - because they have so given away so much of their autonomy to corporate approval.

[baldguy]

7. Alcohol is in the Bible; marijuana isn't.

[wildbilln864]

9. but yes it is! nt

[WillyT]

10. But What About The Burning Bush ???

:evilgrin:

:hi:

[TheCowsCameHome]

11. Babs, Poppy, or Dumbya?

:rofl:

[RainDog]

13. hmmmm

Genesis 1: 29 Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you

did you know that hemp oil contains the exact ratio of omega 3 and 6 that is optimal for the human body? It's almost like something, oh, I dunno, god given. :)

Then there's the work from a Polish etymologist, Sula Benet, who claimed back in the 1930s that the herb, kaneh-bosem, mentioned in Exodus 30: 22-33, Song of Songs 4:14, Isaiah 43:24, Jeremiah 6:20, and Ezekiel 27:19 refers to cannabis (a word of Scythian origin, btw.)

Raphael Mechoulam (the researcher who isolated the THC molecule) suggested an alternative etymology for cannabis: Greek cannabis < Arabic kunnab < Syriac qunnappa < Hebrew pannag (= bhanga in Sanskrit and bang in Persian). They explain that in Hebrew, only the consonants form the basis of a word and the letters p and b are frequently interchangeable. The authors think it probable that pannag, mentioned in the Bible by the prophet Ezekiel (27:17), is in fact Cannabis.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[the redcoat]

15. "Far more likely" Well, yeah, it's literally impossible to overdose on THC nt

[RainDog]

32. exactly

texas kick this morning...

[applegrove]

16. Mixing the two is deadly I've heard. If you drink too much alcohol your body will make you throw up

and grass will stop you from doing that so you'll die of alcohol poisoning. I heard it on a talk show but it seems to make sense to me.

[RainDog]

18. yeah. I believe everything I hear on talk radio too.

and I pray every night that I will not be subject to an anal probe by an alien who placed an obelisk on the dark side of the moon.

so far so good.

[applegrove]

19. It was a talk show on the tv. But I get your point.

[RainDog]

20. I thought you were joking

Who was making this claim? Someone with actual credentials or someone who gets paid to spout b.s.? I mean, Glenn Beck claims all sorts of things too.

I would really like to read or see this person making such a claim - do you have any link or information about the person making this claim? Honestly, it sounds like someone who took a little bit of information from here and there and invented a claim.

Cannabis doesn't make it impossible for someone to vomit. It does help to overcome nausea.

[applegrove]

21. It was some celebrity on the tonight show or something. It was at least a decade ago.

I can't really remember. Made sense to me. I don't have much experience with pot though so I defer to you.

[RainDog]

24. a celebrity on the tonight show

iow, a joke.

I don't claim to be the voice of experience for cannabis but I have spent quite a bit of time reading a lot of the literature on the subject. I lived overseas for a bit and attitudes are very different in nations that don't rely upon religious b.s. and puritanical self-righteousness as a way of being.

I don't know of any rational reason to support continued prohibition.

I rarely if ever drink alcohol yet I also oppose prohibition of that substance. I'm not the voice of experience for alcohol either but I lived overseas for a bit and attitudes are very different in nations that don't rely upon religious b.s. and puritanical self-righteousness as a way of being.

It seems to me that a lot of Americans' attitudes are based on fear. In fact, America is probably the most fearful western nation I can think of. But, again, this fear is really useful for some people - a real money-maker and a way to control others.

Prohibition is one of the strongest examples of this issue in action.

[Rebubula]

33. Wow...

...really??? You bought that?

Awesome...simply awesome.


Sometimes, I am at a loss for words for the gullibility I see in humans.

[SammyWinstonJack]

44. +1

:evilgrin:

[_ed_]

28. I also heard

that if you eat pop rocks and drink Coke that your stomach will blow up.

[snooper2]

34. That's just fucking stupid...now what will happen

Is if you drink say, a couple beers and a shot or 3 of rumplemintz...

Then go outside the bar to take a couple hits of some kind bud..

And you hold it in maybe a little too long and when you exhale realize some smokey went down both pipes..

And then you get the coughing..

That rumplemintz might come right back up...



Not from experience or anything, just what I've heard :rofl:

[Maine-ah]

36. guess it would depend on the person.

I can't mix the two, because it always makes me throw up.

[Rex]

22. A weak poison against an herb, no contest.

[laughingliberal]

23. K & R nt

[old mark]

26. Impossible. Alcohol is a terrible drug, and if it were something new, it would never

have been legalized.

Therea re only 2 things wrong with pot - you mostly smoke it, which is bad for your body and it is illegal, which is ridiculous.

mark

I worked for several years in various drug/alcohol treatment programs and in a mental hospital.
I strongly support legalizing pot.

[fascisthunter]

29. excellent

[Major Hogwash]

30. Stoopid. Really stoopid.

Totally stoopid.

[slackmaster]

35. That's lame. Apples to oranges.

:nuke:

[Maine-ah]

37. exactly how is it apples to oranges?

back up your statement.

[slackmaster]

40. Two completely different drugs with different sets of effects, but please see reply #39.

Comparing one drug for which abundant research data exists, with a drug for which very little hard data exists.

Or it could be described as comparing the relative safety of a substance that is known to produce acute toxicity, even fatal toxicity with one that is not known to produce such effects.

Thanks.

[Ghost in the Machine]

42. Bullshit... they are both CNS Depressants

It's more like comparing valium to xanax. You're not very well informed, you shouldn't be spreading disinformation.

"Comparing one drug for which abundant research data exists, with a drug for which very little hard data exists."

There's proof that you're not very well informed. Tens of millions of people use cannabis every day. NO ONE has ever overdosed on it. NO ONE has ever died from it. I'd say that's quite a bit of hard data. If you have evidence to the contrary, please post it. Thanks!

[slackmaster]

43. LMAO@"You're not very well informed, you shouldn't be spreading disinformation."

:rofl:

Yes, GitM, let's make it a PERSONAL ISSUE.

:rofl:

they are both CNS Depressants

:rofl: one more time because CNS depression is only one among several effects that cannabis produces.

BTW, GitM, it seems to have escaped your attention that I am strongly in favor of LEGALIZING cannabis. Maybe not for the same reasons you are, but we are on the same side of that question.

[Ghost in the Machine]

45. Laugh all you want, it doesn't change facts...

"...CNS depression is only one among several effects that cannabis produces"

Yes, and it's only one of the effects alcohol produces. Let's see what else they do:

Both can cause paranoia in some users

Both can cause euphoria in some users

Both can cause hallucinations/delusions in some users

Both can loosen inhibitions in some users

Both can increase libido in some users

Both can decrease libido in some users

Only ONE of these, however, can kill you by using too much


Are we still comparing apples to oranges? I think not.

"BTW, GitM, it seems to have escaped your attention that I am strongly in favor of LEGALIZING cannabis. Maybe not for the same reasons you are, but we are on the same side of that question."

That's all well and good, but doesn't really mean anything... though I will thank you for your advocacy. I'm strongly in favor of ending/reversing global warming, but that doesn't mean I'm well informed or fully understand global warming.

What are your reasons for wanting cannabis legalized? My reasons are quite simple: it's the number one cash crop in the nation, yet it goes untaxed and unregulated, costing us tens of millions of dollars in lost revenues every year. We waste far too much money prosecuting and incarerating people for the victimless crime of possessing/using a relatively harmless plant that has many beneficial uses. Keeping it illegal keeps the money, and power, with the drug gangs which increases violence, and crime in general. Drug use is a social issue, not a criminal issue, and all they are doing is legislating morality. I have spent the last 30 years advocating the legalization, regulation and taxation of cannabis.


Peace

Ghost

[slackmaster]

47. My reasons for wanting it legalized are that there is no rational basis for banning it,

And my consistent support for maximizing personal freedom.

There's insufficient research that shows it as a dangerous drug to justify banning it.

I have spent the last 30 years advocating the legalization, regulation and taxation of cannabis.

Here is where our views diverge. I am against regulation other than for use by people under 21 and for driving and similar activities (just like alcohol), and I think taxing it is a fool's errand. The plant is too easy to grow (far easier than making beer or wine, for example), and too easy to trade on a gray or black market. I believe that if Prop. 19 passes here in California, governments will end up putting at least as much effort into tax code enforcement as they are on the criminal statutes now. Because 19 allows localities and not the state to tax and regulate, it will create a mess.

I believe humans have a natural right to cultivate and use any plant that occurs naturally.

[Ghost in the Machine]

50. " I am against regulation other than for use by people under 21 and for driving..."

That's the kind of regulation I'm advocating. I disagree that it would be hard to tax though. I'm thinking of a Federal Tax Stamp with fees based on a sliding scale basis depending on the amount someone wants to possess, grow or sell. Get caught with untaxed cannabis, or more than your tax stamp allows, and suffer the same consequences as untaxed alcohol or tobacco. The driving under the influence situation is going to be sticky too, until they can come up with an accurate test to test for recent or current use. Right now, you could get a DUI for THC in your system from one joint you smoked 3 weeks ago.

I also think that Prop 19 is going to be rife with unintended consequences taxation issues and it will negatively impact the already legal medical marijuana policies that are in place.

These differences of ideas/opinions are why we all need to come together and come up with a coherent and sound strategy that works for everyone...


Peace,

Ghost

[RainDog]

38. 3 criteria: toxicity, long-term health effects, violence

what's lame about comparing the two regarding these 3 issues?

One is non-toxic, has fewer long-term health effects and does not promote aggressive behavior.

oh, and it's the one that's illegal.

[slackmaster]

39. The chosen criteria are cherry-picked so that cannabis cannot possibly lose

The way "toxicity" is generally expressed is the LD-50 measure, the dose at which 50% of subjects die compared as a ratio to a typical "theraputic" dose. The ratio is known as the "theraputic index", which is considered to be a useful measure of the relative safety of a drug. No fatal dose for cannabis has ever been defined as far as I know, therefore there is no LD-50 and no theraputic index. The "safety" of cannabis is formally undefined.

Very little verifiable data exists on the long-term health effects of cannabis, so there is nothing to which one could objectively compare alcohol's long-term effects. The same is true of the aggressive behavior criterion, however you might want to measure it.

I'm strongly in favor of legalization of cannabis, BTW.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sally cat]

49. Not having to pay the claim plus $10 will get Craig a cup o' joe at Starbucks. Not much else.