Join 3,555 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


When this appears in newspapers
January 27, 2002 1:24 AM   Subscribe

When this appears in newspapers across America tomorrow morning, will dad choke on his Special K and think of his number tucked in the drawer, or will he feel outrage and disgust at the public discussion of drugs ?
posted by Bones423 (42 comments total)

 
this morning, I mean. For me it's still last night.

But when it comes right down to it, what the worst for you: beer, pot, or cigarettes? Or should we just do away with all of them? Is that possible? What chemicals are okay to intake?
posted by Bones423 at 1:33 AM on January 27, 2002


All I know is that you can pry my caffeine from my cold, dead fingers.
posted by SpecialK at 1:49 AM on January 27, 2002


Why are your fingers coated in caffeine? Just drink coffee or soda, it's easier.
posted by fleener at 2:04 AM on January 27, 2002


I don't see how you could do away with any of them. Once someone has had it, there'll always be a demand. If you wanted to purify your own body, then go for it and don't smoke, or eat foods with additives, preservatives or drink nasty liquids.

Instead drink water, eat home grown or organic veg and enjoy the rest of your life....
posted by ajbattrick at 2:26 AM on January 27, 2002


There is no such thing as too much indulgence. In fact, I just had a joint an'd a vottle of whiskehy, and I mulkjjjjjjjjjjaalk
posted by Optamystic at 2:34 AM on January 27, 2002


ciggarettes are the worst ill of those 3.
beer I could handle, I always liked having a beer here & then.
and pot, well, I consider it the same as beer. it's harmless if you use it in the right quantities.
cigarettes, on the other hand, are just plain evil.
posted by martz at 2:35 AM on January 27, 2002


Quite frankly, I have no problem with people smoking/inhaling/injecting whatever they want -- it's their bodies they're effecting, not mine. And it's not as if the effects of all of these substances aren't well-publicised.

What gets me is when drunks tumble out of the bars and cause havoc on the streets, or, worst of all, get into their shiny cars and run people over. Same goes for drug-related crime, I guess.

To sum up: I don't care how other people want to mess themselves up -- just keep it out of my face.
posted by chrismear at 2:38 AM on January 27, 2002


Gah. "effecting" = "affecting", grammar police.
posted by chrismear at 2:38 AM on January 27, 2002


What chemicals are okay to intake?

Salt.
posted by walrus at 2:40 AM on January 27, 2002


Pot does kill, well it can anyway.

Saying cigarettes kill and Pot doesn't is a bit disingenuous. Smoking a joint is about four times as bad for you as smoking a cigarette. Of course, pot being non-addictive isn't smoked nearly as often, but there are some people who smoke several joints a day. And that's probably going to cause a lot of the same problems that Tobacco would.

But you're never going to see someone dying from a pot overdose like you would with Heroin or Coke
posted by delmoi at 4:16 AM on January 27, 2002


AFAIK noone chains smokes doobies. If they tried to smoke them the same as cigarettes, I fear we would have the same long trem affects. It is smoke, you inhale it(well your suppose to), it goes into your lungs leaving behind all those nice little deposits of black yucky stuff.
posted by bjgeiger at 4:52 AM on January 27, 2002


"When this appears in newspapers across America tomorrow morning, will dad choke on his Special K"

I think it's safe to say at this point that most dad's have at some time smoked pot, so to answer your question, no.
posted by Outlawyr at 5:14 AM on January 27, 2002


it goes into your lungs leaving behind all those nice little deposits of black yucky stuff.
"mmmmm. black yucky stuff. aghaghaghagh..." - Homegrown Simpson
posted by quonsar at 5:47 AM on January 27, 2002


There is no such thing as too much indulgence. In fact, I just had a joint an'd a vottle of whiskehy, and I mulkjjjjjjjjjjaalk
hey optamystic - shove it up your ass.
posted by quonsar at 5:55 AM on January 27, 2002


I am a daddy. I have smoked pot in the past but haven't for many years. The question that started to concern me most was not a health issue at all. It's where does the money go?

Presently, pot being illegal, when you (and X millions of other weed consumers) score that dime bag you're enriching a very nice group of folks who also deal in crack, methamphetamines, teenage pussy, loansharking among the poorest, bribing and corrupting the police, and a long list of other such public-spirited activities that worsen the lives of all your neighbors and indeed everyone in the country (not to mention the effect these outfits have on civil life in the producer countries.)

On the other hand, if it were legalized, you'll be enriching Philip Morris. Liggett, R.J. Reynolds and the rest, another public-spirited bunch. This is a choice?

Whatever your feelings on the question, please don't try to sell me the patently self-deceiving idea that "It's a purely personal choice because it only affects me." If you grow your own from the ground up that's true. If you buy it, don't kid yourself.
posted by jfuller at 6:34 AM on January 27, 2002


good one, quonsar. you showed him.
posted by jpoulos at 7:08 AM on January 27, 2002


Trudeau's attempts at humor are so preachy, strained, uninspired and heavy-handed that I wince whenever he grabs a headline on some issue -- even though I side with him on most! I sincerely wish he'd fade into well-earned obscurity. I think I understand what thoughtful conservatives (like Buckley & co.) endure when they are saddled with a jackass like Rush Limbaugh as a spokesman for their causes; trying to articulate subtle conservative notions with ham-handed and inept song parodies that fall flat with a resounding thud. I'm sure they privately cringe as well.

A pox on both their houses.
posted by RavinDave at 7:09 AM on January 27, 2002


good one, quonsar. you showed him.
[quonsar beats chest, emits gorilla noises]
posted by quonsar at 7:18 AM on January 27, 2002


according to this you should probably stick to the brownies.

but then, this and this argue that the stats on cigarette smoking are bogus.
posted by mdn at 7:19 AM on January 27, 2002


A lot of the causes of pot smoking problems are from the papers, which contain a carcinogen if inhaled. nswer... smoke from something other than papers, namely, a bong.

Now, imagine if you took something that is less harmful than cigarettes, and made it for sale. You wouldn't earn much money, because the stuff grows pretty much anywhere, under a varied of conditions. So what you do is make healthy, sanitized bongs approved by the FDA and USDA. Place a tax on said bong. The government is then making money off of the product.

Finally, the black icky stuff in your lungs from smoking is usually tar. How much tar is in mary jane?

(Final note... I am not a user personally. Just being open here.)
posted by benjh at 7:20 AM on January 27, 2002


Isn't it the case that anything smoked through a water-filtered pipe is healthier on the lungs? I couldn't find the study itself, but I found a couple of disclaimers relying on it, eg: this one (scroll to the bottom of the page).
posted by walrus at 7:47 AM on January 27, 2002


All I can say is that if it's good enough for royalty, it's good enough for me.
posted by dlewis at 8:08 AM on January 27, 2002


I thought that pot smoke contains 4x the amount of tar that is found in tobacco smoke. I smoke neither, but I have always enjoyed my coffee and my beer.

Cheers..

KPH
posted by kphaley454 at 8:22 AM on January 27, 2002


dlewis, thanks for starting my morning out with a good laugh.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:03 AM on January 27, 2002


See, the thing about smoking weed is that it's not a habitual thing like smoking cigarettes. Since joints don't deliver a highly addictive substance like nicotine, most people smoke weed the way they drink. They either binge smoke, or they enjoy the occasional toke. Knowing this, one understands why there are so many ways of ingesting the THC in marijuana already, and one can theorize that if it were legal, there would be even more ways. Even with it being illegal, some interesting studies have come out: MAPS/NORML Study Shows Vaporizers Reduce Toxins in Marijuana Smoke.

Being an asthmatic, I'm intrigued with marijuana's qualities as a bronchial dilator. It appears that it is also effective against migrane headaches. It's clear to anyone who reads the actual data that marijuana has myriad medical uses. It's just sad that the same people who crow and howl about states' rights don't think that states should be allowed to decide whether to legalize marijuana or not. I envision a day (in my lifetime) when I will have a THC inhaler that I can use instead of my Serevent inhaler.

And in response to jfuller:
While it's true that the tobacco companies could benefit from legalization, I think that the pharmaceutical companies will benefit just as much, if not more, and there is no doubt in my mind that the American people will benefit the most. The very fact that I can go buy coffee from an environmentally sound cooperative and wine from an organic vineyard, but I have to become a criminal and buy whatever my source happens to be selling, not knowing its origin or exactly who benefits from my purchase, is just wrong. But can I grow weed in my garden? No. So, your argument is less about culpability as it is for legalization.
posted by UrbanFigaro at 9:15 AM on January 27, 2002


I think that the pharmaceutical companies will benefit just as much, if not more

pharma co's are already allowed to exploit cannabis for drugs, just like they can use opium poppies to make morphine.

benjh, check out that link above - mj apparently does leave four times as much tar as cigarette smoke, and does cause some cancers. It's difficult to work out exactly what is due to what, though, as those stats on percentage of smokers vs. death rates, internationally, illustrates.
posted by mdn at 10:00 AM on January 27, 2002


Figaro - MJ is a dialator? Interesting, I can't be around cigarette smoke for very long, and I figured that MJ had the same phlegm-plant effect that cig smoke would.

And no comments about my screen name here, ungkay?
posted by SpecialK at 10:10 AM on January 27, 2002


Early last year I was diagnosed and treated for oral cancer. I'm fine now, thanks, but a couple months ago I was contacted by a local (very big name) academic research institution to take part in a casualty study. After I answered all the questions they told me that they were looking for a link between pot and oral/lung cancer which (according to them) had never been proved. So I think the jury may still be out on the pot/cancer thing.

Of course the main point is it's nobodies damn business what I do or don't do to my body. Maybe the government should arrest everyone who doesn't eat five daily servings of fruit and vegetables? It would be for our own good...
posted by puppy kuddles at 10:55 AM on January 27, 2002


What a stupid strip with absurd assumptions, i.e. smoking pot is completely safe medically. Glad I never read that garbage.
posted by HTuttle at 11:50 AM on January 27, 2002


My problem with drugs isn't the health issue, it's the crime issue. Prohibition of drugs have caused exactly the same as prohibition of liquor: Organized crime.

In Denmark, my native country, large biker gangs have a steady income from trading hashish, and regarding hard drugs it's even worse: Not only does the drug barons earn millions they also push the addicts into crime and prostitution in order to pay for the drugs they can't live without.

I'm not saying legalization of hard drugs is the way forward, but I think drug addicts should be able to go to their doctor and get the drugs there. Criminologists have made studies that show that this would probably create a drastic fall in drug related crimes like assaults, robberies, burglaries and prostitution. Plus, it'll take away the money from the pushers and the drug lords.
posted by cx at 1:14 PM on January 27, 2002


Plus, it'll take away the money from the pushers and the drug lords.

Yeah, but that would mean less money for law enforcement and less for politicians to campain about. To omuch bullshit is at stake to make the world a better place, so don't hold your breath.
posted by fuq at 1:23 PM on January 27, 2002


"teenage pussy"

At last, someone had something interesting to say. Thanks JFuller, I'm calling my pot dealer right now and putting in an order for pussy. I've clearly been wasting my health and money.
posted by Outlawyr at 1:44 PM on January 27, 2002


That's the plum in the pudding for you, eh? You'll especially dig the ones who got into hooking to pay for their crack and crystal meth. (Which will be most of them, so you're in tall corn.)
posted by jfuller at 4:10 PM on January 27, 2002


Cigarrettes, pot, booze, coffee. banana peels, whatever just legalize it and be done with it. If people still don't get that that they're bad for you, I don't think it'll ever sink in.
Besides, I have every right in the world to destroy my own health.
As the grear philosopher Redd Foxx put it :

"All you health nuts are gonna feel stupid, lying in a hospital bed dying of nothing."
posted by jonmc at 6:01 PM on January 27, 2002


So I think the jury may still be out on the pot/cancer thing.

On things like this, it's hard to say if the jury ever comes in. Some studies have concluded there's a link. It took many many many studies for the link between cigarettes & lung cancer to be considered established, and there are still people who question it, or at least, claim it is weaker than commonly stated (the popular "1 out of 3 smokers" claim)

I'm not saying legalization of hard drugs is the way forward, but I think drug addicts should be able to go to their doctor and get the drugs there.

When cocaine & heroin were first made illegal in 1916, that was the idea, but docs were soon overwhelmed with requests for prescriptions and many ended up just becoming dealers, not able/willing/whatever to check the patient, but they also didn't like being dealers...

Maybe things could be figured out to work better now, like maybe instead of doctors there could be some kind of registered drug dealers who legally supply regulated drugs or something, & are trained / licensed in some way (like a pharmacist) but it's not as simple as you imply.
posted by mdn at 6:04 PM on January 27, 2002


there are still people who question it, or at least, claim it is weaker than commonly stated (the popular "1 out of 3 smokers" claim).

Then 1 out of 3 smokers are either in deep denial or are really stupid. It's smoke for god's sake, how could it be good for you? I say this as a 2 pack-a-day man, I know it'll probably kill me one day, but if it dosen't something else will and I'm willing to accept the consequences as is any smoker who isn't either trying to quit or deny the obvious.
The same applies to booze, coffee and pot as well. Just about everyone under 40 spent most of their youth being bombarded with anti-drug propaganda at school, church and at home. Those of us who continue to indulge in whatever have simply decided that the pleasures of our Marlboros, Budweisers and sinsemilla outweigh the health risks. As long as we're willing to accept the consequences of our vices, I see no problem with making (or keeping) them freely available, to adults at least.
posted by jonmc at 6:25 PM on January 27, 2002


Warning self link. An entertaining guide to the war on drugs
posted by keithl at 6:43 PM on January 27, 2002


Then 1 out of 3 smokers are either in deep denial or are really stupid.
I meant, some people dispute the popular claim that 1 in 3 smokers will die because of their addiction.

The same applies to booze, coffee and pot as well. Just about everyone under 40 spent most of their youth being bombarded with anti-drug propaganda at school, church and at home.
you yourself call it "propaganda" - I'm not saying it isn't true, but establishing causal links is difficult. Most pot smokers believe that pot has no negative effects, and there are plenty of books that state that pot has never killed anyone. It's true that no death has ever been recorded as due to pot, but the same is true of cigarettes. Unlike cocaine and heroin, which can cause death by immediate overdose, the cause is indirect - over years, continuous exposure makes something more likely.
posted by mdn at 6:53 PM on January 27, 2002


miranda, I'm not disagreeing with you as far as causality being hard to prove and that the effects of all the substances I mentioned are cumulative- i.e. nobody ever OD'ed on reefer. I just believe that grown-ups can be trusted with their vices by and large, be it marijuana, booze, gambling or pornography.
Most people who indulge in any of the above vices, in my experience, realize that at best they're a passing pleasure and realize that if abused they can be harmful, if for no other reason than the fact that they suck money out of your wallet.
I remember as early as 4th grade, we had classes where they told us in fine detail all the ill effects of every drug out there. Not to mention my parents(both of whom smoked at the time and were moderate drinkers) giving me the usual parental warnings.However, by seventh grade, me and most of my freinds had tried cigarettes, beer, coffee and porn.
So all the education in the world got us nowhere and where does that leave us? The same place we'll always be. I think the vast majority of us are genetically programmed to want to get high on something. Quite simply, Mother Nature wants us fucked-up at least some of the time. So. I say leave everybody alone with their fun as long as they realize that any damage done is their own doing.
So, as I sit here sipping on my beer and puffing on my smoke, Mr. Schlitz and Mr.Marlboro need not fear any lawsuits from me.
posted by jonmc at 7:18 PM on January 27, 2002


Point A: Doonesbury hasn't been relevent for several years now. Flame on!

Point B: I think people pretty much waive their right to sue tobacco companies at the first incidence of the hot-shower-induced "lung cookie." If you keep on smoking after hawking up a nice juicy wad of tarmac-grey loogie, what happens after that is your own fault.

Point C: Human mortality long term is 100%. Something is gonna getcha. What we're really talking about is premature mortality, primarily from disease - a subject that is incredibly hard to quantify. What we know is that some things tend to create conditions in which cellular damage is passed through the choromosomes, resulting in cancer OR a buildup of stressors on one or more organ systems results in a failure in that system(s). HOWEVER, those things react differently in different people; the people react differently to them, and so far the science has yet to prove direct causation for nearly anything. Some people smoke Camel straights for 60 years and die in a car accident; some people smoke Vantage Ultra Lights for a couple years, get throat cancer right out the box and die miserably. Some people get cancers for no apparent reason at all.

What your doing is betting. I bet that my genetics is such that a two pack a day habit will not kill me quickly. I bet that my guts are strong enough to handle a liter of Absolut every night. It can be an educated bet - my family history, for example, has no incidence of cancer, so I bet for 15 years that my own two packs a day wouldn't send me to my grave - but it's still a bet. So long as you are willing to bet, then good on ya. But there may come a time when that bet stops being a good one. I stopped betting my cardio-pulmonary system could handle a steady diet of salami-topped pizza and bacon sandwiches. The odds - in the form of high triglyceride numbers, mitral valve prolapse, and a high number of now-gone family that succumbed to heart attacks - were not in my favor. So I eat more fish, take my expensive little pills, run a couple-three miles a night, and avoid all the jazzy shit that used to stress me out and make my ticker turn little somersaults in my chest (like, say, black beauties).

Point being, is it really fair to lose a bet and blame the casino? That said, pot should have been legalized long ago. Health has nothing to do with it. See Point A.
posted by UncleFes at 9:44 PM on January 27, 2002


Reading MeFi through this is very interesting.
posted by d8uv at 11:20 PM on January 27, 2002


Instead drink water, eat home grown or organic veg and enjoy the rest of your life....

i have seen the light now.

yippee dippee.
posted by Frasermoo at 12:56 AM on January 28, 2002


« Older Great article about the decline of obituary writin...  |  The End of equations?... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments