Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
sear

Obama blunder 2 fail 2 de-escalate Drug War?

51 posts in this topic

I gather if an adult citizen got caught in Colorado with a tractor-trailor full of marijuana, there'd be a problem (though I haven't read the statute; I've read anecdotally that the decriminalization is for personal use amounts, an oz. perhaps).

If someone was caught with a tractor trailor of Jaggermeister or Marlboros in Washington there'd be a problem. As a private citizen, you can't transport that much without a distributors license.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Then I guess by your definition of legalized, alcohol isn't either." MW

Right.

It was criminalized ("Prohibition"), and now they've arranged to allow most adults buy it, but not minors. Beverage ethanol is decriminalized. Simply possessing it isn't automatically illegal (unless you're a minor, have an open container in a car, etc).

"distributors license." MW

Yes. "Decriminalized". Not a crime, if you're within the law. Under federal "Schedule 1", even pharmaceutical labs and prestigious universities couldn't research it.

It's how we treat boogymen in the U.S.

"As a voter in Washington state, one who doesn't use marijuana, but DID vote for the legalization" MW

Wise move.

Congrats. to you for not succumbing to the Drug War propaganda. You are in the vanguard, leading your nation and People out of the dark ages. We are in your debt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Right.

It was criminalized ("Prohibition"), and now they've arranged to allow most adults buy it, but not minors. Beverage ethanol is decriminalized. Simply possessing it isn't automatically illegal (unless you're a minor, have an open container in a car, etc).

I don't mean to get pushy here, but you clearly don't know what the definition of decriminalized is. Or are choosing to use your own definition.

Decriminalized is when something is illegal, but the DA refuses to prosecute it should someone possess or use it. For the last 10 years, pot has been totally decriminalized in Seattle. No cop would arrest you and throw you in the clink for having pot on you (less than an ounce) although the law on the books said they could. The DA simply refused to bring those cases in front of a judge. And honestly, any Seattle cop that tried to arrest someone for pot possession would be in BIG trouble with their superiors for trying.

Legalization is when it's simply legal. The state will sell it, license growers, manage distribution... totally legal at the state level.

What you're describing is Legalization without Regulation which is just stupid and I would never have agreed to such a measure. Legalization without regulation would be chaos and I think the state should make money on it through taxation. Legalization without regulation would make that impossible.

Yes. "Decriminalized". Not a crime, if you're within the law. Under federal "Schedule 1", even pharmaceutical labs and prestigious universities couldn't research it.

Believe it or not, that's not true. The University of Washington in Seattle has had a Federal license to grow and research pot since 1974. They've been farming over there for 3 decades! They're one of 8 universities in the nation that hold one of those research licenses. (it might be more now)

Congrats. to you for not succumbing to the Drug War propaganda. You are in the vanguard, leading your nation and People out of the dark ages. We are in your debt.

Honestly, most of the users I know, and it's a lot, voted against it. Can you figure out why?

This is the original ordinance for the Seattle regarding the lowest prosecution priority for pot ,http://clerk.ci.seat...ory.htm&r=1&f=G written and approved in 2003. There were several more ordinances after this one that much broadened the definition in 2004, and 2006. This is just the original. A friend of mine, just a normal private citizen and community activist help write this ordinance and push it through the city. This is decriminalization without expressly calling it that. They didn't call it decriminalization for a few reasons, mostly because it would have invited undo attention to itself in terms of the Federal Government involvement. It became a nice quiet city ordinance that other cities quietly adopted as well. it became abundantly clear to others in the state that if we could live with these ordinances and see no spike in use or crime directly related to it, that it was just time to legalize it. Which is what we did. This state could use the tax monies, and our chief of police, govenor, and pretty much all government officials are behind the voters on this, and plan to back the voters wishes with everything they have.

So far, the silence from the federal government has been deafening. If they aren't ever going to move to stop what's happening in Washington and Colorado, that's a silent approval to move forward.

I think the Feds know marijuana doesn't even meet their own criteria of what a Schedule I Narcotic is. I think they're going to quietly let states make up their own mind, not interfere and let the next president do something about it if they feel like it. Obama is just going to look the other way and pretend it's not happening. That's definitely the feeling I have at this point.

Edited by MissMelsWell
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it might have seemed just a few short years ago.

But many Congressional Republicans are over a barrel because of their Norquist pledge.

$75 $Bil isn't chump change. That's an amount of money worth saving.

Ending the Drug War may be an economic necessity. Shame on any U.S. legislator that thinks martial oppression of U.S. citizens is a higher priority than caring for our children's health and education.

I agree but again, I don't see this happening yet in Congress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"you clearly don't know what the definition of decriminalized is." MW

You're right. I'm not an expert on definitions.

But Dictionary.com is:

de·crim·i·nal·ize

[dee-krim-uh-nl-ahyz] Show IPA

verb (used with object), de·crim·i·nal·ized, de·crim·i·nal·iz·ing.

to eliminate criminal penalties for or remove legal restrictions against: to decriminalize marijuana.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/decriminalize?&path=/

Let's contrast it with "legal", or "legalize".

le·gal

[lee-guhl] Show IPA

adjective

1. permitted by law

le·gal·ize

[lee-guh-lahyz] Show IPA

verb (used with object), le·gal·ized, le·gal·iz·ing.

to make legal; authorize.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/legalize?s=t

Frankly, I'm not entirely happy with either of these descriptions.

Perhaps more accurately: partially legalized, or legalized for restricted consumption.

In any case MW, I appreciate you sharing your perspective on it.

Both my parents were professional writers. I inherited their interest in precision in language.

"Precision & clarity in the use of language leads to precision & clarity of thought." G. Gordon Liddy
"I don't mean to get pushy here, but ..." MW

I sincerely appreciate your candor.

"University of Washington" MW

Fine.

But I gather most applications were rejected. (I also agree, my wording wasn't clear, thanks again)

". If they aren't ever going to move to stop what's happening in Washington and Colorado" MW

I thought either Attorney General Eric Holder, or Obama, or both were on record as having said they wouldn't.

BUT:

I gather there has been at least one raid on California's "medical marijuana" infrasturcture, which I gather is immense. That may have been during the Bush administration.

BTW, I was reminded the other day, the 3 most recent U.S. presidents have all used marijuana recreationally.

"I think the Feds know marijuana doesn't even meet their own criteria of what a Schedule I Narcotic is" MW

IIRC the "Schedule 1" idea came along at around the time the feds were trying to douse the distinction between "hard drugs", & "soft drugs".

The declared mj Sched#1.

Doesn't mean it's the most pharmacologically hazardous.

It merely means it's the most controlled (or more precisely, most uncontrolled).

ninja

We'll see ...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a pretty solid background in pharmacology ... I'm a licensed Rx technicial A level in Washington state (although I haven't practiced in 20+ years, choosing instead to go into the more lucrative computer and technology industry in this area! haha)

There is criteria for what the feds can call a Schedule I Narcotic. To be included on that list it has to meet all the criteria and pot just doesn't. It never did and the feds knew that but added it anyway. I knew it back when I got my license in 1987 that it has been erroneously added under political pressure.

The fact that feds aren't doing anything of any significance about Colorado or Washington is very telling.

What most people don't realize about the Federal medical marijuana raids that have happend in both Washignton and California is that those raids were less about marijuana and it's distribution and sale than it was about organized crime. A lot of the clinics in both states have organized crime ties. Those were the ones they were trying to flush out in most cases. The feds don't seem particularly interested or have the resources to raid the clinics that aren't tied to organized crime. I never knew this and it is really not reported on very clearly in the news.. .I know someone very close to the prosecution side of things who dropped that nugget on me.

It's all very interesting really.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"To be included on that list it has to meet all the criteria and pot just doesn't. ... it has been erroneously added under political pressure." MW

That's the impression I got, though I've never read the criteria.

"The fact that feds aren't doing anything of any significance about Colorado or Washington is very telling." MW

The feds simply don't have the resources to over-rule individual States on this.

"The feds don't seem particularly interested or have the resources to raid the clinics that aren't tied to organized crime. I never knew this and it is really not reported on very clearly in the news.. .I know someone very close to the prosecution side of things who dropped that nugget on me.

It's all very interesting really." MW

Indeed!

I'm quite encouraged by the organized crime filter.

I gather the government tried to do the same thing in Vegas, and as gambling proliferates, Atlantic City, Indian casinos, etc.

Good!

I don't want organized crime to have a steady feed of $countless $millions to feed their nefarious operations.

Thanks again MW. Very interesting (again).

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an interesting article that popped up in the local news today: http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Bars-test-limits-of-legal-marijuana-laws-200036411.html

It's about pubs and bars allowing pot smokers.

Currently, smoking of any kind (cigs, cigars, pot, and in some places, even electric cigs) are banned. However, the biggest change I've noticed is that prior to Dec 10th, 2012, people would sneak around to the sides of buldings or cars to partake (or they'd just smoke it on the sidewalk since no one was interested in arresting them)... now, if the bar has a private back patio that allows cigarette and cigar smoking, they have no problem with letting the pot smokers hang there and do their thing. I don't think the indoors pot smoking in private clubs is going to fly to be honest... I think they'll ban that eventually just like they did when they tried the same concept for cigarette smoking.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"I think they'll ban that eventually just like they did when they tried the same concept for cigarette smoking." MW

"What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander." I doubt 2nd hand pot smoke is any more therapeutic than 2nd hand tobacco smoke.

BUT!!

I gather those rules don't apply to "private clubs".

I'd be interested to see if the Amsterdam model emerges at all, special pubs where pot smoking is permitted.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

"What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander." I doubt 2nd hand pot smoke is any more therapeutic than 2nd hand tobacco smoke.

BUT!!

I gather those rules don't apply to "private clubs".

I'd be interested to see if the Amsterdam model emerges at all, special pubs where pot smoking is permitted.

I doubt it... private clubs for cigarette smokers have not been successful here because no pub owner is willing to lose their liquor license over it. Cigarette smoking in indoor public places and some outdoor spaces, has been banned here for about 6 years now. The county I live in (King, which is the same county as the city of Seattle) also banned using e-cigs indoors in pubs etc.. , which don't even emit smoke and the emission is water vapor. (I still use my ecig in pubs, I just do it in a way that no one notices it unless they're looking for it... no sense in me going outside to huff other people's second hand smoke if I don't have to and I"m not harming anyone indoors). I have one friend who owns a pub and he does let patrons use their ecigs in his establishment... he's a gambler and a rebel. LOL.

Someone may attempt to open a "club" for pot smokers here, but dollars to donuts, that "club" won't serve alcohol. The risk of losing your liquor license is too high. I have a feeling though that a "club" won't be successful ether... the law states that you can't smoke indoors in any business. Any business or club that caters to pot users, may run the risk of a big fine, private or not.

What you MIGHT find is bars, coffee houses and other establishments selling food items with pot in them... maybe. The laws and rules haven't been defined yet. There's no smoke particles associated with the food items, so that would be a gray area and some enterprising person might try that out since the law at this time isn't clear. I could envision a coffee house where you can get a latte while eating a pot laced brownie. But no smokin'. The current laws in Washington state prohibit any kind of smoke, even if it's water vapor, in public or private gathering places. About the only places you'll be able to smoke pot will be in private residences. Exactly like the current cigarette laws.

Edited by MissMelsWell
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"I doubt it... private clubs for cigarette smokers have not been successful here because no pub owner is willing to lose their liquor license over it."

"... the law states that you can't smoke indoors in any business."

"Someone may attempt to open a "club" for pot smokers here, but dollars to donuts, that "club" won't serve alcohol. The risk of losing your liquor license is too high." MW

They obviously need better lawyers.

I haven't read the statutes. But if the statutes don't provide an exception that would leave unjeopardized, all such licenses, then they need to have an amendment to the law passed; to solve that problem.

"Cigarette smoking in indoor public places and some outdoor spaces, has been banned here for about 6 years now." MW

a) thank god (& whatever else)

B) Decades overdue in my opinion.

c) The laws have now changed (regarding pot).

d) Therefore the liquor license laws should be updated as well.

I wouldn't set foot inside such establishment. I generally don't like bars. But some people like them. And if such exception is made, and proves commercially popular; why not?

BTW:

I'd like to see breathalyzer machines made available at bar exits. A bar patron retires for the night, walking out the door. In that circumstance, wouldn't you want to know your BAC?

Would you be willing to drop a quarter in the slot to find out?

"What you MIGHT find is bars, coffee houses and other establishments selling food items with pot in them... maybe" MW

Alice B. Tokeless

I didn't pick up on this. But fellow Rhodes Scholar and student associate of Bill Clinton, Chris Hitchens explained:

Governor Clinton's presidential campaign claim - I tried it [pot] a time or two, I didn't enjoy it, and I didn't inhale -

might have seemed a silly dodge.

Hitchens asserts the pot Clinton tried was baked and eaten. Thus indeed, Clinton did not inhale (pot smoke for recreational purpose).

PS:

MW,

I gather "Prohibition" ended with a bang, not a whimper. I gather kegs were on their way to bars within 15 minutes of the ratification of the 21st Amendment which repealed it.

I've long held hope that a similar crash would happen to the U.S. federal drug War.

But as it unfolds, I sadly deduce our Drug War is destined for a long, unpleasant, painful, flagrantly self-destructive slide to obscurity.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

So a pizza join and bar in Tacoma has opened the first "pot club" ... however Tacoma is in Pierce County where there are no indoor vapor laws like there are in King County (Seattle). They're not letting people smoke because by law they can't (the State Indoor Smoking Act prevents it), but they are letting people vaporize--vapor is water being exhaled, as opposed to carcinogenic smoke. People who vaporize inhale a misty solution of propolyene glycol and vegitable glycerine laced with either pot or nicotine Nothing is being ignighted, a battery is used to activate a coil which heats the liquid and creates a steam.). I use a vaporizor or ecig as a substitute for smoking and have successfully stayed off cigarettes for over a year now by using it. I can tell I'm MUCH healthier. I can actually run somewhere now! haha.

So far, the state isn't bothering this new club. But, that's to be expected, there have been no laws or ordinances passed on pot yet... I hope the state allows them to run unimpeded for a while to see how it goes. Hopefully if they're successful in Pierce Co, they'll lift the indoor vapor ban in King Co. to accomodate the pot smokers. I am interested in this because I'm an e-cig user and would like to "vaporize" inside in my own town in my favorite pubs. I hate standing on the sidewalk with the smokers, gagging on their second hand smoke and getting rained on. Although, honesty, their second hand smoke doesn't bug me as much as the cold and rain. LOL. I'm not a pot smoker, I never will be, but my own vices are in some ways affected by what happens with the pot laws here.

http://www.komonews....-200374161.html

Edited by MissMelsWell
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"propolyene glycol and vegitable glycerine" MW

Ethanol is the only alcohol I know of that isn't considered a toxin; and even it has detrimental affects with over-consumption.

I'd walk a mile to keep propolyene glycol vapor out of my lungs.

Why would anyone want to line their lungs with plastic?

MW,

Want a nice safe vice?

Buy a lottery ticket. Or,

watch commercial television, or

read from the NYT best seller's list, or Oprah's recommendations.

"There are good books, there are superior books, and there are great books.

Good books inform you. Superior books in addition to informing you, entertain you. ... A great book is a book that changes you." Oprah

Raw carrots taste pretty good, aren't as corrosive to teeth as sweeter fruits like citrus or peaches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS:

By citrus, I had in mind Clementines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rand Paul, his dad Ron. Gary Johnson.

So far as I understand the definition of the term: it is politically conservative to favor the termination of Drug War.

Political conservatism means favoring smaller, less intrusive, less authoritarian government; also favoring balanced budgets / fiscal responsibility, etc.

K,

I didn't get to CPAC, but what little of it I caught on TV seemed encouraging.

I agree, but the fact is that most mainstream republicans are really not true conservatives. They want to shrink government in some ways, but expand it in other ways. Shrink social services but expand defense. Shrink taxes, but limit the freedom of people to get abortions. Etc. True conservatives want government to stop telling society what to do, and get out of the way so private industry and the people themselves can progress this society forwards. Go Rand Paul! ;)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rand Paul is what I would call a nineteenth century liberal -- laissez fair economics, isolationism, social liberalism. About the only one of those that has any relevance to today's world is the third.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"the fact is that most mainstream republicans are really not true conservatives. They want to shrink government in some ways, but expand it in other ways. Shrink social services but expand defense. Shrink taxes, but limit the freedom of people to get abortions. Etc. True conservatives want government to stop telling society what to do, and get out of the way so private industry and the people themselves can progress this society forwards." E

Can't say it enough.

Republicans are social conservatives.

Ironically, on many key issues, Democrats are rather more politically conservative than Republicans.

FM,

You've reminded me:

"It [liberal] is pretty much now a lost word, in the original sense of being an effort to restrain government; and one has to keep that in mind when using it." William F. Buckley Jr. April 2, 2000 on C-SPAN
"isolationism" FM

Might non-interference be a better term?

"American people are friends of Liberty everywhere, but custodians only of their own." John Adams

Isolationism means buring our head in the sand ostrich style.

Whether Paul is for that or not, I don't know.

But I hope we can be engaged in the world, have numerous profitable trade relations on several continents, without having to continually invade and change regimes.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Ethanol is the only alcohol I know of that isn't considered a toxin; and even it has detrimental affects with over-consumption.

I'd walk a mile to keep propolyene glycol vapor out of my lungs.

Why would anyone want to line their lungs with plastic?

MW,

Want a nice safe vice?

Buy a lottery ticket. Or,

watch commercial television, or

read from the NYT best seller's list, or Oprah's recommendations.

Raw carrots taste pretty good, aren't as corrosive to teeth as sweeter fruits like citrus or peaches.

Obviously you know NOTHING about propylene glycol or vegetable glycerine (VG) or the research that's gone into its safety. You might want to start running. Did you know that propylene glycol (PG) is what they put in ... oh... in some HVAC systems to keep dust and airborn particles down? Or that PG is what they put in asthma inhalers and nebulizers? It's typically unwise to put a lung irritant into an athsmatics inhaler. PG is what they use to turn it into a mist. Oh, and you know those fogger machines they use in stage productions? Ya, PG and VG is what's in those as well. Although they tend to use more VG than PG... VG makes the mist thicker.

You can buy PG at the drug store to put in a room humidifier! You're VERY much mistaken. It's perfectly harmless to the lungs. You've been inhaling it for years and didn't even know it.

You ingest propylene glycol every day probably. It's in TONS of food products, it's in almost all cough syrups, and medications. It's been catagorized as safe for consumption by the FDA for 50 years.

Research first, give advice second. Really.

Edited by MissMelsWell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because it's not as toxic as plutonium doesn't mean it's without health risk.

"You can buy PG at the drug store to put in a room humidifier! You're VERY much mistaken. It's perfectly harmless to the lungs. You've been inhaling it for years and didn't even know it." MW

"Oh! It's perfectly safe!"

That's what they said about:

- MtBE

- thalates

- BPA

- eurea formeldahyde

- PFOA and PFOS exposure ("non-stick" fry pans)

- etc. (the list is long, and growing longer)

Aspirin was so widely regarded as a low risk drug, there was an expression in the language: "As safe as Aspirin". It meant, it was safe.

Yet the recent stats I've seen indicate Aspirin is associated with tens of thousands of deaths each year.

Ironically, there was a time when health benefits were claimed for smoking tobacco. I've read it was believed to reduce heart rate, and thus promote longevity, etc.

Because the other shoe hasn't yet fallen on propylene glycol doesn't mean it isn't gunna.

But since you're the expert, please explain to me the process whereby propylene glycol is purged from the lungs.

Is it digested there? Converted to water and fairy dust?

Is it absorbed by the alveoli, and converted in the liver into bile?

Nope! I don't want anything in my lungs but air and water vapor; not above taking a walk on a foggy morning to make it happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS

Even if technically accurate, I suspect the following may be a bit dramatic:

www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/csem.asp?csem=12&po=0

After a characteristic latent period, signs of inebriation may be followed by serious illness and even death

However, thought propylene glycol exposure may not always be fatal, that doesn't mean its harmless.

The following may be a more level-headed assessment:

What is propylene glycol? It is is a chemical found in personal care products that acts as a penetration enhancer that keeps products from melting in heat and/or freezing when it is cold. It is found in items such as shampoo, conditioner, soap, acne treatment, moisturizer, toothpaste, deodorant, nail polish, mascara; basically anything you could possibly use on your body, propylene glycol is in it. But why should you avoid propylene glycol?

For starters it alters the structure of the skin by allowing chemicals to penetrate deep beneath it while increasing their ability to reach the blood stream. Sounds lovely, right? So even if propylene glycol was good for you, it’s main job is to help any other chemicals you come in contact with reach your bloodstream. However, there is even more to it than just that…

How Toxic is Propylene Glycol

According to the Environmental Working Group, propylene glycol can cause a whole host of problems. It is rated a 4 by them, which is categorized as a “moderate” health issue. It has been shown to be linked to cancer, developmental/reproductive issues, allergies/immunotoxicity, neurotoxicity and endocrine disruption. It has been found to provoke skin irritation and sensitization in humans as low as 2% concentration, while the industry review panel recommends cosmetics can contain up to 50% of the substance.

How to Spot Propylene Glycol

When looking at ingredient lists, you can look for names like 1,2-Dihydroxypropane; 2-Hydroxypropanol; Methylethy Glycol; 1,2-Propanediol; Propane-1,2-Diol. Some popular products (and you can see the full list of 1,041 here) that contain propylene glycol include:

http://thegoodhuman.com/2009/03/31/what-is-propylene-glycol-and-why-you-should-avoid-it/

I'm not suggesting it's death incarnate here MW.

I won't stop using shampoo, conditioner, soap, moisturizer, toothpaste, & deodorant.

But I'm not going to vaporize it, inhale it into my lungs (organs designed to infuse blood), for purely recreational purpose.

But then, I'm a cautious guy. I remove the skin from the chicken before cooking (except BCC).

"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sear. I'm not saying you should use it... there's clearly no reason for you to inhale it. However, for someone like me who was a 2 pack a day smoker for 30 years, who could NOT quit no matter how hard I tried, it's a spectacular harm reduction tool.

The FDA, USDA and my doctor, all agree that PG is by far and away thousands of times safter than anything combustible. No carcinogens, no nicosamides, nothing that's known to cause harm at this time. Since asthmatics have been using it in their lungs for decades via their nebulizers and inhalers... I'm feeling pretty ok with it. I sure as hell don't want to go back to smoking cigarettes!

Oh, and the cilia in my lungs... those little tiny hairlike receptors that smoking kills by giving you emphisema and lung cancer? Ya, mine are all clean now and on the way to repairing themselves. I have full lung capacity back and my bloodpressure, heart rate and cholesteral are perfect. And I know this because it was all carefully checked and monitored six weeks ago. That wasn't the case a year ago before I quit smoking combustible cigarettes. And, my skin is significantly better than it was a year ago as well.

You must also take into account thar there are different types of propoylene glycol. There's industrial and pharmaceutical. The little horror story you posted above about its toxic effects are for the industrial PG... the exact same misguided article the anti-smoking nazis used to scare people into believing ecigs contain antifreeze... it's not accurate. The PG in ecigs is pharmaceutical grade. The same stuff that goes into prescription athsma inhalers and nebulizers.

You can't avoid everything... a VERY small segment of the population does have a sensitivity to PG, but it's tiny. Of course a small segment of the population has a sensitively to almost anything. I'm allergic to hazelnuts and strawberrys.... I'm not running around telling people how they're satans food.

I find it odd that you think you want all drugs legalized but you're ranting about the only effective harm reduction tool for smokers? Really? LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"harm reduction tool" MW

Yes, not harmless.

"No carcinogens" MW

So you say.

"It has been shown to be linked to cancer, developmental/reproductive issues, allergies/immunotoxicity, neurotoxicity and endocrine disruption." from post #45

Which opinion would you expect me to incline toward?

MW,

Let's cut to the chase.

Please don't infer more than I imply.

I'm not asserting Propylene Glycol doesn't have use. I'm merely observing that needless inhalation of its vapor should be avoided where practical.

The last chapter on its safety for humans has not yet been written.

"You can't avoid everything" MW

The absolutist's refuge?

We can't achieve 100% perfection, therefore no sensible reason to strive at all?

Let us please not be absurd here MW. It is prudent to avoid needless risk.

If you're asserting you've minimized it here, that's fine. But let's not pretend that minimized though it may be in your case, that there is zero risk. It's merely reduced risk, compared to tobacco.

"... a VERY small segment of the population does have a sensitivity to PG, but it's tiny." MW

I suspect a misperception on your part here MW.

Perhaps what you'd mean to assert is that ... a VERY small segment of the population does have a manifest sensitivity to PG. But we're all human. I don't know any human that, with sufficient exposure, would be immune from any ill affect.

"I find it odd that you think you want all drugs legalized but you're ranting about the only effective harm reduction tool for smokers? Really? LOL." MW

Probably because you misapprehend, on multiple levels. You fail to distinguish between my legal perspective, and pragmatic perspective.

I endorse the 1st Amendment. That doesn't mean I think daughters should all cuss their mothers.

I'm opposed to the martial oppression of Drug War. That is in no way an endorsement of recreational drug abuse. I simply don't think I (the ostensible victim of the victimless crime of drug abuse) should be taxed, to punish a "crime" that is already its own punishment. I don't refuse to be a heroin junky because of law. I refuse to be a heroin junky because it's a miserable lifestyle!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I'll just give you an in-depth, long-term study on e-cig "niquids" (niquid is PG and nicotine and some food flavorings, some niquids include VG as well... mine are half PG half VG). It was a 4 year study (because e-cigs have only been on the market about that long really) ... the concern is NOT with the PG in them... the concern is with the nicotine added to them. You can get "niquids" without nicotine. I use no nicotine fairly frequently.

It's still somewhat unknown if the nicotine has adverse side effects. If you are REALLY interested, and have a high school chemistry background that's still fresh in your mind, this shouldn't be too difficult reading for you. But it is a scientific study, so it's moderately challenging. I read EVERY page--twice. I did NOT make a change from smoking a combustible material to something that's equally as bad. My own health tests in the last six weeks prove it. They've improved exponentially in 12 months.

http://www.healthnz....rt30-Oct-08.pdf

The test was conducted by Health New Zealand.

Edited by MissMelsWell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, not harmless.

I said harm reduction for a very very specific reason... Harm reduction is used because e-cig liquid contains... Nicotine in most cases. About that equal to a light cigarette... now before you FLIP your lid. You have to do some very deep research on nicotine. The research on that is in the PDF file above. The Readers Digest version is that yes, nicotine is addictive, about as addictive as caffiene. Nicotine alone does not carry carcinogens, BUT it is HIGHLY toxic in its pure form but, so is pure caffiene... Carcinogens are present in material that has been COMBUSTED. tar, ash, carbon... Carcinogens are not present in an e-cig because there's no combustion. There's more carcinogenic risk in eating charbroiled burgers. Or bacon.

MW,

Let's cut to the chase.

Please don't infer more than I imply.

I'm not asserting Propylene Glycol doesn't have use. I'm merely observing that needless inhalation of its vapor should be avoided where practical.

The last chapter on its safety for humans has not yet been written.

Show me an in-depth study about how inhaling vaporized PG with an ecig or pot vaporizor is going to kill me, or kill you from my "second hand" vapor. You won't find one... it doesn't exist. But educate yourself... go look!

The absolutist's refuge?

We can't achieve 100% perfection, therefore no sensible reason to strive at all?

Right, I don't drink and drive, and when I do drink, I can count the number of times on 10 fingers I do it in a year, and likely have fingers left over. I don't smoke anymore, I live a relatively stress free life. Unfortunately, I'll be around to harass you for decades more, and I ain't necessarily young either!

Let us please not be absurd here MW. It is prudent to avoid needless risk.

If you're asserting you've minimized it here, that's fine. But let's not pretend that minimized though it may be in your case, that there is zero risk. It's merely reduced risk, compared to tobacco.

At this time, the known risk is virtually ZERO. I've been seeing an internationally known and respected Oncologist for 6 months now... when he found I was an e-cig user, hahaha, he knocked over $500 off my bill on my 1 year smoke free anniversary! I don't have cancer, never have had it, and I have no precursors for it (in fact, no blood relation of mine has ever even had cancer) I'm only seeing an Oncologist because I had to have a very very complicated surgery that required the most skilled surgeon in the city and he was it.

Probably because you misapprehend, on multiple levels. You fail to distinguish between my legal perspective, and pragmatic perspective.

I endorse the 1st Amendment. That doesn't mean I think daughters should all cuss their mothers.

I believe that I did say I voted for legalization in Washington State but I have never been nor will ever be a pot smoker, eater, or otherwise. I also have an Rx background and believe the research on cannibus is sound. It's not a drug with a lot of really really dangerous side effects. It has social, medical, and industrial uses. I want my state to utilize it's benefits.

I, unlike you would NEVER NEVER in a million years advocate nor vote for legalizing ... oh... meth, crack, heroin, opiates, or other powerful and deadly drugs. Absolutely never. And I'd fight tooth and nail against it.

I'm opposed to the martial oppression of Drug War. That is in no way an endorsement of recreational drug abuse. I simply don't think I (the ostensible victim of the victimless crime of drug abuse) should be taxed, to punish a "crime" that is already its own punishment. I don't refuse to be a heroin junky because of law. I refuse to be a heroin junky because it's a miserable lifestyle!

Drug abuse despite your utopian rose colored glasses is NOT a victimless crime. My cousin just mowed over and killed a pair of grandparents and critically injured a mother with her 1 week old son 2 days ago because he was drug influenced. He'll be doing 20 years in prison. Don't you tell me there were no victims of drug abuse there. There were... they were perfectly innocent victims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Show me an in-depth study about how inhaling vaporized PG with an ecig or pot vaporizor is going to kill me, or kill you from my "second hand" vapor. You won't find one... it doesn't exist. But educate yourself... go look!" MW

It's difficult for me to imagine how you could possibly have misread me more extremely (absurdly).

My original assertion.

"I'd walk a mile to keep propolyene glycol vapor out of my lungs." sear

I stand by that statement.

"Drug abuse despite your utopian rose colored glasses is NOT a victimless crime." MW

I'm not the originator of the assertion. I was merely passing it along. Your issue is with those that established the premise.

But since you seem in such a pedagogical mood, please enlighten me.

If Peter robs Paul, Peter is the perp., and Paul is the victim. Right?

If Bruce finds some cannabis sativa growing in his yard, and he trims some leaves from it and smokes it as he watches the hockey game; please name the victim? Why is that inherently different in social impact, from sipping chardonnay, or cognac; or huffing a stogie?

ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A drunken step-father that gets blind / falling down drunk and takes a belt to his step-child; such drunkenness is NOT victimless.

But recreational medication is not INTRINSICALLY non-victimless (victimizing). Child abuse is, whether drug induced / enhanced or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.