Xequat: "...there might be ways to make it filtered to take out some of the tar and unhealthy stuff."
Yeah, it's called a bong.
"I've heard that a lot of what is sold in the US is grown on mercury-rich soil ..."
I've never heard of that, and it sounds like conspiracy-theory scare tactics to me. Why would someone choose to grow anything on mercury-rich soil? If they didn't choose, and it's accidental, then that means all plants/crops have the same probability of being grown on mercury-rich soil.
Actually, there would be a reason to grow certain plants in soil with high toxic metals content - it's called phytoremediation, and uses plants ability to draw substances out of soil and into its body to clean up contaminated areas.
In my environmental engineering classes, we learn that poplar trees are commonly used for this.
The only places where one would find mercury-rich soils would be near mining operations, metal smelting facilities, and coal-burning power plants.
After a little research, it turns out that this in fact has happened:
http://www.medicalmarihuana.ca/toxic.html
What I gathered from the article is that the cannabis was grown near an abandoned mine that has been contaminated with heavy metals - the cannabis was grown by the Canadian government for use by legal users for medicinal reasons.
"CSA believes that Health Canada could have saved millions of dollars and years of unnecessary work and suffering had they shown the common sense to listen to the concerns of experienced users, cultivators and distributors, who have expressed worries over possible heavy metal contamination and have stressed the importance of organic cultivation since it was first announced that this product would be grown in an abandoned Copper and Zinc mine.
"Canada's compassion clubs and societies have the experience and expertise that is so obviously missing from the Office of Cannabis Medical Access", says Lucas, "they are currently the only safe source of cannabis for Canadians suffering from critical or chronic conditions, and they are contributing more research than any other organization, including Health Canada; all at no cost to the taxpayer.
"Canadians for Safe Access advises Health Canada to cease the distribution of Prairie Plant Systems'
cannabis to legal users and researchers until the extent and results of their safety testing is revealed, and accommodations are made for an independent analysis of this product."
Now, whether or not we are to believe "...that a lot of what is sold in the US is grown on mercury-rich soil..." will depend on how many users in the U.S. are getting their supply from the Canadian government.
MACaver: "You guys are fighting awfully hard for the legalization of this DRUG."
Putting the word "drug" in all capital letters does nothing but reinforce the connotation that "drugs are bad, mmkuay."
Aspirin is a drug; dandruff shampoo is a drug; antihystimines are drugs. They are all dangerous too - I guess we have to make them all illegal.
"Alcohol is a drug (base components are ether and water) and it's dangerous."
Actually, it's ethanol, not ether, but you're right it is dangerous, yet legal.
"Marijuana is dangerous in it's own right. The stats showing a lower accident, crime, bad effects aren't going to change the nature of the beast."
No, but it does show that the beast is pretty warm and cuddly, and not so much of a demon.
"It still damages the body and affect brain cells the way that other drugs and alcohol damages and affects brain cells."
Bad lapse of logic here. It would reasonably follow that different drugs have different effects on the body and mind, and not that everything effects everyone in the same way. Unless you just meant to say that it does have an effect and not necessarily the same effect as other drugs.
"Countering it with arguments that it doesn't is just simply (IMO mind you) denial."
Yes, that would be silly. However, using the argument that it does to the same degree as other drugs is at the opposite end of the spectrum - exaggeration.
"But that's the point of the whole drug legalization arguments, legalizing one drug will eventually lead to the legalization of other more dangerous drugs (read: faster killing/damaging). "
There are two different arguments. One is for the legalization of marijuana/hemp/cannabis - either for personal recreational use, industrial use, or medical use. The other argument is for the legalization (or at least decriminalization) of all drugs. They are similar, but saying that the point of marijuana legalization is to lead to legalization of more dangerous drugs is ridiculous.
The similarities lie in that prohibition of marijuana and certain other drugs is a limit to personal freedom, is based more on politics than health concerns, and doesn't really do any good to stop the use of such things. The failure of the War on Drugs, and all the obvious hypocricy of having some drugs (alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, etc.) be legal while others are not just shows that prohibition is a waste of effort.
"Your opinion, my opinion... may they never prevent us from being friends. But allow us to have a good understanding of each other."
Well, said. Now if people could set aside their opinions, gather the facts and weigh the pros and cons, then maybe we could come to a sensible decision. Maybe that decision will be to keep it illegal. That won't stop people from using it. It will not change the fact that it is safer to use than other drugs (many of which are legal). It will help continue the failed War on Drugs. It will continue to overcrowd prisons with non-violent offenders. It will hinder research into medicinal uses. It will continue to put a limit on personal freedom. It will continue to limit industrial uses of the plant. And It won't change the fact that hemp is probably America's #1 cash crop, that unfortunately is only profitting law-breakers.
