Safer Arizona is sponsoring an initiative to amend the state constitution to allow for legal, taxed, and regulated marijuana/cannabis/industrial hemp use and commerce. Our group filed the measure in June 2013 with the secretary of state. It now aims to get 300,000 valid voter signatures by July 3, 2014 to qualify for the November 2014 ballot.
Sunday, August 11, 2013
Friday, July 12, 2013
The War on Food -- Ben Meyer
The War on Food by Dr. Ben Meyer
Imagine tomorrow when you wake up the headline, “America Declares War on Food”. Sound silly? Kind of, right? How could it be enforced? We would die of starvation! You can’t outlaw food!! We need food to eat, etc, etc.
Take a minute and consider how much Americans spend on food and on a similar vice: drugs. In the US, the food industry accounts for $1.2 trillion dollars per year. In other words, Americans consume or spend $1.2 trillion dollars on their pallets every year. Not too outlandish, right? Other countries eat more, most eat less, but not out of line. Imagine though the amount of money America spends on drugs in America per year. Would you imagine it to be more or less? 'Well, lets see..me and the wife spent about $50 going out to eat the other day..the wife spends $250 at the grocery every week or so, give or take..I buy a round of beer at the bar at bowling on Thursdays.' I assume most Americans would venture to guess more money is spent on food than on drugs in our country. I eat two to three meals per day as I imagine do most people, a minimal percentage of people use drugs and I’m sure they typically use less than three times per day..cocaine is expensive, but how many people snort coke? No brainer, right? Wrong. The amount of money spent on eating in America is equal to that Americans spend on drugs. Equal.
Well, we can’t outlaw food, we need it to live, right? Where is the correlation? Ask yourself this, what would a war on food look like? How would we ever have the resources necessary to arrest the little old lady baking cookies in her oven and why would we care, she is not hurting anyone? Outlawing soda is ridiculous (see Mayor Bloomberg in New York), imagine the outrage kids would have when they can’t drink their sodas at school? How silly would it be to arrest the patrons at McDonalds for ordering at the drive-thru. “Ma’am, we saw you order that Big Mac, no sense in lying about it, you’ll have to come downtown with us.” Not only would it be impossible to eradicate eating, it would not make much sense to arrest someone for this, our jails would be full and the idea of arresting or outlawing something like this makes no sense to begin with, right? Even if high fructose corn syrup is bad for our health and 30% of Americans will be considered obese in 20 years, outlawing food would be a waste of time and money. Food is necessary to function and much of it healthy.
Think for a moment of the scale here. Outlawing food is silly, right? It provides sustenance and nutrition, and without it, it would cause a health concern and possibly over time, death. Plus it wouldn’t be possible to have a war on food, there would be people who made food anyway and most would resort to this I would imagine or they would starve and die and suffer much detriment.
The US spends a great deal of unnecessary money on doing something very similar. We give other countries $3 billion dollars a year to eradicate drugs in their countries, we give our Coast Guard $1 billion every year to stop drug shipments from coming into this country from Latin America and Mexico. Americans spend $100 million dollars per year on consuming alcohol, $35 million dollars a year to smoke. We lose $200 million a year on tobacco related job losses and medical issues, not to mention the addiction of nicotine and it’s effects, including a shorter life span for smokers, and the complications with drunk driving (up to and including death). $300 billion dollars is spent on Big Pharma on a yearly basis to give us our Xanax and our Oxycodone and on and on. The illegal drug trade is bigger, an estimated $400 billion dollars of American's cold hard cash is spent on marijuana and the like in the illegal drug trade every year. This in no way speaks to the loss of life and time chasing an invisible enemy that will never be defeated because it never existed in the first place. Legislating moral issues has never and will never work to fix anything. In fact, making drugs illegal, may exacerbate the issue.
What do we do? The first thing we do is understand this is currently going on. Arguments can be made that using pharmaceutical drugs is beneficial and drugs like alcohol and cigarettes are legal, so they should not be included here. Fine. The War on Food will be from 8am Monday to Thursday at 5. You get the idea. The scale here is what is important. Drugs need to be de-criminalized at the least. The loss of jobs due to a police record and the time to pay for courts is not even included in this discussion. More than half of the prison population in the United States is in jail due to having been arrested for drug use or paraphernalia. Putting a person in a 24 hour care facility for one year costs one-half as much as housing a person in a prison and the rates of recidivism are much less. One idea to understand the scope and one I would like to see if only for one year, would be if we call a moratorium on drug spending for one year. Doing so, we could afford to give every college graduate $217,000 and it would be an even deal. We would eradicate our entire student loan debt in one year and reward those who struggle and work hard to improve themselves in these tough times. Plus I am one.
I referenced the following website in writing this article, http://www.drugsense.org/mcwilliams/www.mcwilliams.com/books/books/aint/2050.htm
Much thanks to it’s author..
Take a minute and consider how much Americans spend on food and on a similar vice: drugs. In the US, the food industry accounts for $1.2 trillion dollars per year. In other words, Americans consume or spend $1.2 trillion dollars on their pallets every year. Not too outlandish, right? Other countries eat more, most eat less, but not out of line. Imagine though the amount of money America spends on drugs in America per year. Would you imagine it to be more or less? 'Well, lets see..me and the wife spent about $50 going out to eat the other day..the wife spends $250 at the grocery every week or so, give or take..I buy a round of beer at the bar at bowling on Thursdays.' I assume most Americans would venture to guess more money is spent on food than on drugs in our country. I eat two to three meals per day as I imagine do most people, a minimal percentage of people use drugs and I’m sure they typically use less than three times per day..cocaine is expensive, but how many people snort coke? No brainer, right? Wrong. The amount of money spent on eating in America is equal to that Americans spend on drugs. Equal.
Well, we can’t outlaw food, we need it to live, right? Where is the correlation? Ask yourself this, what would a war on food look like? How would we ever have the resources necessary to arrest the little old lady baking cookies in her oven and why would we care, she is not hurting anyone? Outlawing soda is ridiculous (see Mayor Bloomberg in New York), imagine the outrage kids would have when they can’t drink their sodas at school? How silly would it be to arrest the patrons at McDonalds for ordering at the drive-thru. “Ma’am, we saw you order that Big Mac, no sense in lying about it, you’ll have to come downtown with us.” Not only would it be impossible to eradicate eating, it would not make much sense to arrest someone for this, our jails would be full and the idea of arresting or outlawing something like this makes no sense to begin with, right? Even if high fructose corn syrup is bad for our health and 30% of Americans will be considered obese in 20 years, outlawing food would be a waste of time and money. Food is necessary to function and much of it healthy.
Think for a moment of the scale here. Outlawing food is silly, right? It provides sustenance and nutrition, and without it, it would cause a health concern and possibly over time, death. Plus it wouldn’t be possible to have a war on food, there would be people who made food anyway and most would resort to this I would imagine or they would starve and die and suffer much detriment.
The US spends a great deal of unnecessary money on doing something very similar. We give other countries $3 billion dollars a year to eradicate drugs in their countries, we give our Coast Guard $1 billion every year to stop drug shipments from coming into this country from Latin America and Mexico. Americans spend $100 million dollars per year on consuming alcohol, $35 million dollars a year to smoke. We lose $200 million a year on tobacco related job losses and medical issues, not to mention the addiction of nicotine and it’s effects, including a shorter life span for smokers, and the complications with drunk driving (up to and including death). $300 billion dollars is spent on Big Pharma on a yearly basis to give us our Xanax and our Oxycodone and on and on. The illegal drug trade is bigger, an estimated $400 billion dollars of American's cold hard cash is spent on marijuana and the like in the illegal drug trade every year. This in no way speaks to the loss of life and time chasing an invisible enemy that will never be defeated because it never existed in the first place. Legislating moral issues has never and will never work to fix anything. In fact, making drugs illegal, may exacerbate the issue.
What do we do? The first thing we do is understand this is currently going on. Arguments can be made that using pharmaceutical drugs is beneficial and drugs like alcohol and cigarettes are legal, so they should not be included here. Fine. The War on Food will be from 8am Monday to Thursday at 5. You get the idea. The scale here is what is important. Drugs need to be de-criminalized at the least. The loss of jobs due to a police record and the time to pay for courts is not even included in this discussion. More than half of the prison population in the United States is in jail due to having been arrested for drug use or paraphernalia. Putting a person in a 24 hour care facility for one year costs one-half as much as housing a person in a prison and the rates of recidivism are much less. One idea to understand the scope and one I would like to see if only for one year, would be if we call a moratorium on drug spending for one year. Doing so, we could afford to give every college graduate $217,000 and it would be an even deal. We would eradicate our entire student loan debt in one year and reward those who struggle and work hard to improve themselves in these tough times. Plus I am one.
I referenced the following website in writing this article, http://www.drugsense.org/mcwilliams/www.mcwilliams.com/books/books/aint/2050.htm
Much thanks to it’s author..
Then This...from a highly respected source..
Harvard Study says Marijuana Cures Cancer http://www.endalldisease.com/harvard-study-says-marijuana-cures-cancer/
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
Carcinogenic Research by Saturnus Daae- Safer Arizona Co Founder
Carcinogenic Research
҉
A
carcinogen is often perceived as a substance or radiation toxin that directly
causes cancer by inducing mutations with continuous exposure; however, not all
carcinogens are as actively harmful. The International Agency for Research on
Cancer1 has grouped carcinogenic levels into the following:
2
|
[group]
|
[carcinogenicity]
|
|
1
|
sufficient evidence
|
|
2A
|
almost sufficient evidence
|
|
2B
|
inadequate evidence
|
|
3
|
not classifiable evidence
|
|
4
|
evidence suggesting lack
of
|
Interestingly
enough, alcoholic beverages along with tobacco are associated with Group 1 (in
which have both proven to be harmful). Carcinogens found on grilled and
barbequed meats are not as detrimental in low moderations, however the higher
the frequency of consumption, the higher one risks health deterioration.
Carcinogens have both natural and artificial properties and not all are as
harmful as others; many natural carcinogens (such as bacteria, fungi, or
viruses) have been proven to be beneficial.
Although
cannabis and tobacco smoke both contain carcinogens, their carcinogenicity
varies and is possibly linked to nicotine and delta-9-tetrahydrocannabino (THC)
binding to separate receptors to activate related pathways (such as nicotine
receptors in the cells of the lungs).3 There is a significant
correlation between tobacco smoking and cancer as nicotine increases the
carcinogenic effects of tobacco smoke4. In studies conducted with
both cannabis and tobacco smokers, it has been determined that the tetrahydrocannabinol
(THC) in the lungs creates a protective effect against the tobacco tar,
reducing carcinogenic activity.5 Cannabis has continuously proven to
have more inverse effects on cancer rather than adverse ones. Cannabinoids are
capable of attacking and eliminating cancers associated with: breast/prostate,
lung, glioma, skin, leukemia/lymphoma, and pheochromocytoma.
Cannabis smoke (due to genotoxic effects of
partially oxidized hydrocarbons) can potentially cause respiratory
dysfunctions, however is not linked to cancers.4 Hydrocarbons are
organic compounds; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons specifically are those
associated with smoke inhalation, containing: benzene, toluene, and
naphthalene. PAHs are organic pollutants, and although they are considered carcinogenic,
they can be as carcinogenic as consuming grilled or barbequed meat. The
International Agency for Research on Cancer has categorized benzene with Group
1, naphthalene with Group 2B, and toluene with Group 3.
Paraphernalia designed to
be used with water helps reduce to amount of carcinogens, however, this is due
to some of the smoke being contained in the water chamber, so one may be
smoking more to achieve the same high. The most effective and efficient
way is a vaporizer. Marijuana itself does not contain the carcinogens;
vaporizers at 200°C (392°F) heat the marijuana to release active THC vapors
rather than burning it, eliminating roughly 95% of carcinogenic smoke,
eliminating benzene, toluene, and naphthalene while preserving nearly 50% more
THC.6 Since carbon monoxide and smoke tar levels are significantly
reduced, vaporizers are more tolerable on the lungs and throat, producing a
cleaner and more potent high as the marijuana is better conserved.
“Significant amounts of THC (around 5%-6%) begin to be released at 180°C, with
slightly more (7% or 8%) at 200°C.”7 The two most common types of
vaporizers are either convectional or conductional. The difference between them
is that the element used to heat a convection vaporizer never directly comes
into contact with the herb; it indirectly heats through the flow of hot air.
Conduction vaporizers that directly heat the herb produce satisfactory results,
but are inferior to the conductional method.
Here is an excerpt from The National Institute on
Drug Abuse:
“THC acts upon specific molecular targets on brain
cells, called cannabinoid receptors. These receptors are ordinarily activated
by chemicals similar to THC called endocannabinoids, such as anandamide. These
are naturally occurring in the body and are part of a neural communication
network (the endocannabinoid system) that plays an important role in normal
brain development and function. The highest density of cannabinoid receptors is
found in parts of the brain that influence pleasure, memory, thinking,
concentration, sensory and time perception, and coordinated movement. Marijuana
overactivates the endocannabinoid system, causing the high and other effects
that users experience. These include distorted perceptions, impaired
coordination, difficulty with thinking and problem solving, and disrupted
learning and memory.”8
In all respect, they are correct. However, they fail to
mention that some of the negative effects associated with marijuana, such as
“distorted perceptions, impaired coordination, difficulty with thinking and
problem solving, and disrupted learning and memory” are dependant on
consumption amount, as too much of anything can be a bad thing, and the added
effects of the carcinogens.
Independent Experimentation
҉
My preferred
method of smoking has typically been with a piece that involves water, as it is
much smoother on the lungs and throat. As somebody who is highly interested in
living a healthy and conserving lifestyle, I considered investing in a
vaporizer. I felt that after a week of using it myself along with having others
use it gave me some insight into carcinogenic research.
My personal
experience with the vaporizer has been nothing but positive. I do consume less
marijuana while achieving better highs that are functional, and what I
mean to say by functional is that I feel that I can ingest more of the
THC benefits without feeling overwhelmingly stoned. I have purposely
consumed more than I needed to observe if I could still maintain composure, in
which I have succeeded. Thus far, I have been able to take helpful subjective
evidence from six other sources:
|
[subjects]
|
[functionality]
|
[comments]
|
|
m.d.
|
yes
|
much
more functional and alert with less product
pros: enhances taste, smooth on lungs/throat, eliminated occasional ‘anxiety’
from cannabis use
cons: uses more product to achieve more intense high
|
|
e.w.
|
yes
|
concerns: inability to aid in
chronic pain
pros: enhances taste, smooth on lungs/throat
cons: prefers carcinogenic smoke for a more intense high
|
|
m.s.
|
yes
|
much more functional and alert with less product
pros: enhances taste, smooth on lungs/throat
cons: prefers carcinogenic smoke for a more intense high
|
|
m.s.d.
|
yes
|
concerns: inability to aid in
sleeping
‘trials’ show that this was not an issue
pros: enhances taste, smooth on lungs/throat, efficient/conserving,
effective
|
|
s.l.
|
yes
|
pros: enhances taste/clean, efficient/conserving, smooth on lungs
|
|
j.g.
|
yes
|
pros: pleasant taste, better body high,
|
*In
response to e.w., I ‘assume’ that an advanced vaporizer that produces a large
quantity of vapor at once would be a probable solution to a vaporizer that
produces less intense vapors.
*In
response to m.d. and m.s., I ‘assume’ that an advanced vaporizer that produces
large amounts of vapors at once would be a probable solution to a vaporizer
that produces less intense vapors; if this did not achieve a satisfactory high,
then I would attribute non-functional highs to carcinogens.
Memoirs
҉
After I noted
the functionality high associated with the vaporizer, I theorized that
perhaps the intensity of a high is partially the responsibility of the
carcinogens. From personal experience, smoking a cigarette will also induce
similar euphoric effects that are short lasting (and become shorter as smoking
prolongs). Benzene, toluene, and naphthalene all have several risk factors
associated with consumption, however for this purpose, it is only vital that I
mention the ones that appear linked to non-functional highs. All
three are typically ingested through air/smoke, but can also be consumed in
contaminated food or water and household fumigants, as well as contracted
through contact with skin. However, the body changes PAHs into other substances
known as metabolites that are urinated out of the body over the duration of a
few days (however, more than 75% of toluene only takes twelve hours to leave
the body).9
Low to moderate levels of: benzene can potentially
induce drowsiness, dizziness, and/or confusion. Derived of benzene,
benzodiazepines (BZO) act upon the neurotransmitter gamma-aminobutyric acid
(GABA); this promotes a sedative/hypnotic result. Benzodiazepines are
prescribed to treat anxiety, insomnia, mood disorders, seizures, and muscle
spasms; categorized as short, intermediate, or long acting, one works better
than another depending on the disorder. Short and intermediate acting
benzodiazepines are associated with insomnia while longer acting
benzodiazepines are associated with anxiety.10 Toluene is a
mono-substituted benzene derivative and can potentially induce tiredness,
weakness, drunken-type actions, memory loss, and confusion. Naphthalene can
potentially induce confusion, and interestingly enough, its structure consists
of a fused pair of benzene rings.
My advice merely suggests
this: if one is going to use marijuana on a consecutive basis, the wisest and
most logical decision when it comes to consuming it, would be either through a
vaporizer (or edibles). Vaporizers are cost efficient as more THC is ingested
while less marijuana is consumed; they are also more effective for the reason
that more THC is extracted. The lack of carcinogens also promotes a healthier
respiratory tract. Users can also obtain functional highs, removing
negative stigmas associated with marijuana use, again, such as “distorted
perceptions, impaired coordination, difficulty with thinking and problem
solving, and disrupted learning and memory”.
From a personal
standpoint on inhaling marijuana, to avoid those effects are to either avoid
carcinogens altogether, inhaling mostly vapors, or simply smoking carcinogens,
yet limiting the intake (keeping in mind that the more that is consumed, the
more product it will take to achieve the same high, also burning over
half of the THC content). Responsibility comes with every natural substance
known to humanity, even something so simple yet so complex as water; all have
their benefits, all have their risks, it does not mean that it should be
criminalized.
Saturnus C. Daae
June 6, 2013
References
҉
1: (2013). IARC –
International Agency for Research on Cancer. Research Sections. Retrieved May
2013, from http://www.iarc.fr/en/research-groups/index.php.
2: (1999). IPCS
INCHEM. Evaluation. Retrieved May 2013, from http://www.inchem.org/documents/iarc/monoeval/eval.html.
3: (2005). WebMD
- Better information. Better health.. Pot Smoke: Less Carcinogenic Than
Tobacco?. Retrieved May 2013, from http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20051017/pot-smoke-less-carcinogenic-than-tobacco
4: (2005).
National Center for Biotechnology Information. Cannabis and tobacco smoke
are not equally carcinogenic. Retrieved May 2013, from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1277837/
5: (2009).
Marijuana Strains, News, Products & More | Marijuana.com. On the
carcinogenicity of marijuana smoke. | Marijuana.com. Retrieved May 2013,
from http://www.marijuana.com/threads/on-the-carcinogenicity-of-marijuana-smoke.245844/
6: (2003). MAPS:
Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies. Study Shows Vaporizer
Can Drastically Reduce Toxins in Marijuana Smoke. Retrieved May 2013, from http://www.maps.org/mmj/pr5.02.03.html
7: (2001). MAPS:
Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies. MAPS/NORML Study
Shows Vaporizers Reduce Toxins in Marijuana Smoke. Retrieved May 2013, from
http://www.maps.org/news-letters/v11n1/11120gie.html
8: (2012).
National Institute on Drug Abuse. Marijuana | National Institute on Drug
Abuse. Retrieved May 2013, from http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana
9: (1999).
Eco-USA. Eco-USA Search Page. Retrieved May 2013, from http://www.eco-usa.net/search/index.shtml
10: Dikeos DG, Theleritis CG, Soldatos CR (2008).
Benzodiazepines: effects on sleep. In Pandi-Perumal SR, Verster JC, Monti JM,
Lader M, Langer SZ (eds.). Sleep Disorders: Diagnosis and Therapeutics.
Informa Healthcare. pp. 220–2. ISBN 0-415-43818-7.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)