I have another question here. With so many communities becoming smoke free because of the effects of second hand smoke. Smoking pot must have the same lung damage to the smoker and to second hand smokers.{??}
There are producers of pot now are making or putting in other stuff to make the pot more potent and addictive. So maybe the evident of damage of pot will be causing warning bells to ring louder.
Here is something I do know about. The amount of particles, "tar," in pot is much greater than in a commercially made cigarrette. There is no telling what chemicals were used in the growing of the plant, or whether it came into contact with any number of things like diesel fuel, that a person wouldn't want to smoke. The lung damage from smoking pot is the most powerful argument for its danger, IMHO. It is also one of the reasons given by those who want to legalize it....legal pot would be "healthier."
I guess the point Im trying to make is that if you were to walk into a room where ten people were drunk, and ten people were high, you could pick out the drunk ones, but would have trouble finding the high ones. The impairment produced by pot is far less than that of alchohol.
The long term effects of alchohol is death, preceded by the destruction of one's family, wealth and reputation.
The long term effects of marijuana seem to be far less severe.
10 dollars worth of alchohol, which can be purchased while filling up the gas tank, is enough to kill you. It's perfectly legal, and billions of dollars are spent trying to sell more alchohol.
10 dollars worth of pot is enough to get you and a few friends mildly "buzzed," but no one will die. However, it is illegal and billions of dollars are spent prosecuting those who do so.
I think getting purposefully intoxicated is stupid, but I also think the laws regarding these two drugs are even more foolish.
Brent
