Imagine how sensitive and psychotic an uncircumcised man on pot would be?
Scary to even imagine.
Anyway, the CBC report about the marijuana isn’t very impressive, considering in the report they admit that their headline is speculative.
Zammit said the research couldn’t prove that marijuana use itself increases the risk of psychosis, as there could be something else about marijuana users, “like their tendency to use other drugs or certain personality traits, that could be causing the psychoses.”
So there’s a relation, but not really one where they can prove that smoking pot CAUSES the smoker to be more likely to develop craziness. They may just be more prone to becoming crazy, and smoke pot because of that reason. I know I’d have to be crazy to take up inhaling a recreational drug. Many people don’t see it that way, but I do.
@hotmail.com
![[EFC Blue Ribbon - Free Speech Online]](http://www.efc.ca/images/efcfreet.gif)
Ethan Erkiletian | 28-Jul-07 at 8:59 am | Permalink
The way that the British media took hold of this story was exceptionally disingenuous. I mean it’s not surprising seeing as British “news” papers are often publicly traded companies looking to make a buck for the shareholder but it should still be noted.
The Guardian rightly pointed out that the Lancet in its coverage misrepresented the way that the survey of studies was done. It was pretty frustrating to read that. It would be nice to be given a straight up story about pot and potential negative effects rather than a headline that strongly implies to the public that smoking pot puts you at a 41% increased risk of developing the crazies.
There have been a number of studies (and studies that study those studies together) published especially during the past year or two that purport to find or somehow demonstrate a causal link between cannabis and whack jobs. What none of the study authors can do though is show this to be true in the general population. It’s nice to say that smoking just a single joint will put you at a greatly increased risk of developing schizophrenia but it would sure be a lot more convincing if Canada had 750,000 schizophrenics walking around.
Cheers
JimBobby | 28-Jul-07 at 9:00 am | Permalink
Whooee! I wonder who bribed who to get this piece o’ crap study in the Lancet? I seen a good critique just now over here.
JB
boreal | 28-Jul-07 at 10:32 am | Permalink
This latest re-edit of ‘Reefer Madness’ has many things in common with the coincident ‘Study’ putting Canucks #1 in the hotly contested international Toker’s Trophy race; but validity, science and truth, sadly, arn’t among them.
Both employ data mining of other,deeply flawed ‘Studies’, inept analysis and more undistributed middles than a Richard Simmons rally, to falsely conclude:
A/ Cannaboids cause schizoids
B/ 16.8% of the “Peace, order and good governance” crowd continue to walk on the wild side.
Au contraire, mes amis, there is an increasing body of real scientific evidence suggestive of cannaboid/dopamine interactions that may increase its proven palliative efficacy in psychopharma.
As to the risible notion that a so paltry a portion of “Canukistan’ enjoys a bit of herb, from time to time, socialy and in moderation let’s have an ‘Up or down’ vote…..soon.
Rosie | 28-Jul-07 at 11:27 am | Permalink
you can prove anything with the right statistics. until they show a direct causal relationship, i won’t even read the blasted study. I am exposed to a lot of crappy research on a daily basis but this takes the cake.
I wonder how much our current lifestyles of overworking, overeating, overstressing, not exercising, underdecompressing, caring for dependents etc would contribute to psychosis? I wonder if there are any studies on that. Somehow I think the risk of psychosis would be significantly higher from these factors than from pot smoking.
Saskboy | 28-Jul-07 at 12:03 pm | Permalink
Interesting link JB.
I don’t think smoking pot is a very good idea, unless you’re terminally ill. But it bugs me that there’s obviously a movement set out to deceive people into thinking its more deadly than cigarettes and more addictive than morphine.
koby | 28-Jul-07 at 2:47 pm | Permalink
The implication of the kind of reasoning seen in the Lancet study is that as marijuana use increases so should the number of cases of schizophrenia. However, there are no epidemiological studies suggesting this is true. Maia Szalavitz summarizes in Salon.
“Perhaps the strongest piece of evidence to cast doubt on a causal connection between marijuana and schizophrenia is a long flat-line trend in the disease. While marijuana use rose from virtually nil in the 1940s and ’50s to a peak period of use in 1979 — when some 60 percent of high school seniors had tried it — schizophrenia rates remained virtually constant over those decades. The same remains true today: One percent or fewer people have schizophrenia, a rate consistent among populations around the world. This is in stark contrast to studies linking tobacco smoking with lung cancer, where rises in tobacco use were accompanied by rising rates of lung cancer.
‘If anything, the studies seem to show a possible decline in schizophrenia from the ’40s and the ’50s,’ says Dr. Alan Brown, a professor of psychiatry and epidemiology at Columbia University.”
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/09/19/reefer_madness/index.html?pn=1
Rosie | 28-Jul-07 at 3:28 pm | Permalink
Saskboy. i have a “to each his own” attitude towards marijuana. Don’t judge for smoking or for not smoking it. I feel that the reason why hemp isn’t more popular than it is is because of the misconceptions out there about marijuana. Until they can find something about marijuana that makes it more harmful than alcohol or tobacco, I believe it should be legalised-or at least decriminalized. I think that people should be able to grow it for themselves if they want to as well. Thats just my two cents. Wish the government would quit bowing to threats from the US about OUR legal system.
Saskboy | 28-Jul-07 at 4:22 pm | Permalink
Oh, I think it should be legalized too, and farming hemp (with the very low THC) be much less restricted.
Des Emery | 28-Jul-07 at 9:28 pm | Permalink
Inhaling smoke (from combustion) is not - repeat ‘not’ - a good thing, under any circumstances. The sky is blue, the grass is green, and it should be as obvious that any smoke held in the lungs cannot contribute to the well-being of any animal including mankind. Any number of anti-nausea relaxants are medically available right now in pill or injectable form. The plants are intentionally bred to become more and more THC enhanced, much as tobacco products now contain more addictive nicotine. Beer and wine, etc., are advertised with regulated alcohol percentages, which has not increased automatically through the years. THC is a proven gateway drug and is most often found in conjunction with many other drugs and unnecessary paraphernalia which are used to enhance effects. Protesting the illegality of the drug is definitely one of the signs of impending schizophrenia which is characterized by denial and a warped sense of reality.
Ethan Erkiletian | 28-Jul-07 at 9:59 pm | Permalink
There are a number of anti-nausea medications available yes and none of them are nearly as effective or quick acting as cannabis. Med-pot grown by patients or a designated grower is also incredibly less expensive than even over the counter medications.
Inhaling cannabis smoke while not necessarily “good” is not really all that harmful either. Chronic cannabis use can certainly contribute and even out and out cause chronic bronchitis but that’s about the worst of the worst. Cannabis smoking can not nor will it ever cause cancer. The comparison to tobacco smoke is misleading and incredibly inappropriate.
You’re correct that cannabis is bred today to maximize THC content. This has been true for eons and the only thing that makes cannabis “stronger” is simply botany. I know when you hear words like “hydroponics” and “cloning” it’s pretty scary…police even like to say “lab equipment” sometimes when referring to the tools of a marijuana grower. Believe it or not, people have been genetically manipulating plants for centuries and hydroponics is nothing new either. It’s all simple botany. No one in a white lab coat hunched over bubbling brews in this case.
You raise a good point in saying that beer and wine products (hard liquor too) are regulated with set alcohol content. This could be achieved with cannabis too if only we had the guts to regulate it.
THC is not a proven gateway drug. Actually that’s looking at the stats backwards. It makes a lot more sense to call cannabis a terminus because statistically, a drastically higher number of people who use cannabis either become less dependant on harder drugs or end with using cannabis all together. In fact, studies have shown in the past that tobacco could more readily be called a gateway drug but this is also sheer nonsense. The only credible portion of the gateway theory could be that because cannabis is force into the black market, potential buyers are exposed to harder drugs when they normally would not be. Call temptation for what it is…temptation. Believe it or not, the gateway theory has been debunked and tossed aside but I guess it’s easier to think of drugs as being so black and white. A leads to B and then to C and then to ally cats fighting. I dunno. Anyhoo, THC or cannabis is not a proven gateway drug. The Canadian Senate and the World Health Organization would disagree with you. Of course the police may agree but that’s probably because their jobs and inflated budgets depend on it.
I certainly hope protesting the illegality of the drug is not a sign of schizophrenia. Actually…I know that idea makes about as much sense as the rest of your post there Des Emery.
Cheers
Saskboy | 28-Jul-07 at 11:03 pm | Permalink
I can only guess Des was trying to be funny, because the last sentences were surely only to rile you up Ethan, since they don’t make sense like the first half of the post.
“Cannabis smoking can not nor will it ever cause cancer. The comparison to tobacco smoke is misleading and incredibly inappropriate.”
This is where you lose credibility Ethan. Let’s do a quick comparison:
Cigs: leaf dried and burned in paper so that the drug infused smoke can be inhaled deep into the lungs of the user.
Pot: leaf dried and burned in paper so that the drug infused smoke can be inhaled deep into the lungs of the user.
Wow, they aren’t AT ALL alike?
The differences:
Cigs: tar and other known carcinogenic additives regulated by the government are included
Pot: additives regulated by no one, and added at the whim of a street dealer may be included
So it seems the only way that pot can’t cause cancer is if cigarette’s nicotine, or specific additives do the bad stuff when it comes to delivering those tasty carcinogens to the user. I have a STRONG hunch that there were tobacco cancer deaths long before “additives” came along, and the same holds true for chronic marijuana smokers today. But like I said, that’s just my hunch. I’ve concluded that paying to burn money on drugs just isn’t worth the health, social, or economic risk.
Ethan Erkiletian | 28-Jul-07 at 11:09 pm | Permalink
So here’s my challenge to you Sask Boy in an effort to retain some credibility in your eyes. I would challenge you to find two things and I would be wiling to bet money on you finding neither.
Two cases of a marijuana only smoker developing a cancer of the airways. I say two because I know of one. Researchers conclude though that at the age of 16 when the patient was noted to have had cancer, it was concluded that obviously something else had caused his cancer.
I would also challenge you to find just one or two cases of a smoker of organic tobacco getting a cancer of the airways. It’s not the nicotine that causes cancer.
You say I lose credibility and I can understand why. It’s just common sense that if smoking tobacco causes cancer, then inhaling any kind of smoke like that will cause cancer. Unfortunately common sense doesn’t hold up too well against scientific method and a more analytical approach.
Cheers
Saskboy | 28-Jul-07 at 11:24 pm | Permalink
How long have cigarette and cigar companies been adding things? For instance, Freud is known to have died from mouth cancer (or something along those lines) and was a notorious cigar smoker. Did his tobacco cigars have an additive that lead to it? Or could it be where the plant is grown, and some soil, or some plants (tobacco and not marijuana) grow/burn as a carcinogen?
I want to see and trust in the scientific method when it comes to smoking studies, but there is just so much in the way of political manipulation involved in it all, I’d rather rely on my own experience and common sense. Just look at the study we’re talking about in this post where the scientific method was perhaps observed, but a statistician came along and wasted any work done by the researchers.
SO WHAT if organic leaves burned don’t cause cancer? They undeniably cause inflammation/irritation of the airways. So unless I had a crippling illness where Nicotine (which is easily absorbed through the skin) or THC might make my life bearable, I just wouldn’t consider smoking as an option for me.
Louis S. | 29-Jul-07 at 7:33 am | Permalink
You don’t really need to smoke pot, it just is cool and easy to do. If you make a basic butter cookie mix using lots of butter and sugar, you can add pot (stir fried in butter too) and make the cookies; twenty minutes later, golden cookies I like to call Gretzkies are ready to eat. No cancer, just good taste. I challenge you to do that with tobacco (if you are psychotic you just might do that, but don’t as tobacco is a poison) Saskatchewan grows great marijuana seeds for the food market; if the hulls are taken off it is great food and tastes like cashews and is high in other elements found in good anti-oxident type foods. My t-shirt is made of hemp and bamboo. But really, how are you going to convince 2.5 million Canadians that smoking pot is bad. There must be some reason that Candians like smokiing pot more than they like obeying the nonsense antipot laws. These laws are causing a lot more mental problems than any amount of marijuana smoking. There must be money behind the anti-pot lobby because there certainly isn’t logic. You don’t need papers for pot smoking as pipes are very common. Pot smokers generally smoke a lot less pot than cigarette smokers smoke tobacco. We have had objective studies for over a hundred years, but pot smoking is basically a subjective matter. Feed your head.
Aiyana | 29-Jul-07 at 12:31 pm | Permalink
“Reefer Madness” was part of our school curriculm back in the day. Scared the crap out of me, so when the ’60’s rolled around, I was petrified that even being at a concert would cause me to go nuts and do terrible things. I grew up.
muddyboy | 29-Jul-07 at 8:13 pm | Permalink
Good thing this little discussion is happening in the great white north not south of us in the excited states of id 10 t’s.
There would surely be a lot more politico/religious rhetoric, name calling and tons of other stupid crap.
Granted I did not see the report but the link between pot and psychosis is sketchy at best. These kinds of studies usually have some backer with an agenda and stats can be skewed to prove whatever point you want. Personally I think the pot=pyschosis angle is a big steaming pile.
The thing is that pot smokers tend to be a lot more laid back and relaxed than drinkers. Yeah, pot smokers might have short attention spans and drift off in the middle of a sentence but I’ve never seen one start a fight because someone looked at their girlfriend/boyfriend, or woken up after a party with a makeup job that would make a drag queen vomit or drive as fast as their vehicle would go and kill themselves and everyone in the car. Alcohol=psychosis is far more true.
You can brew beer in you own home for consumption there, why not grow your own as long as it never leaves the premises. Maybe it should be legalised and taxed. I think the revenue stream would be considerable.
The laws on growing hemp should be relaxed as well. The crop is much more enviro friendly than nearly any other crop as it requires no herbicide or pesticide, the leaves can be used as forage for livestock, the stems turned into fibre that is much more durable than cotton and the seeds can be used as food in the form of flour, made into oil for cooking, or bio-fuel and also used as a motor oil that does not suffer breakdown due to heat. The oil and cotton cartels are to blame for the onerous regulations or outright ban on this versatile crop.
Oh yeah, eating pot circumvents the cancer issue and gives you a better longer lasting buzz.
I could ramble on for a good while longer but this was too long a post already
Rosie | 29-Jul-07 at 9:06 pm | Permalink
gateway drug? thats some reefer madness going on right there. This is purely anecdotal, but many of my pot-smoking friends, and former pot smoking friends are very educated, society-contributing professionals that do not have substance abuse problems. Their pot-smoking does not interfere with any facet of their life. Only a very small percentage of people I knew (even messed up ones) went on to develop full-fledged addictions. Many of these addictions were alcohol related, and not hard opiate-type drug related (maybe one of about 10 alcoholics). So I would like to argue that pot is not a gateway drug, indeed, alcohol is (since they were drinking alcohol before they ever touched the drug).
I agree with Louis S. I’d like to see documented cases of toxicity/cancer/whatever with marijuana consumption.
muddyboy | 29-Jul-07 at 9:16 pm | Permalink
Oh yeah, the notion that there are any viable “relaxation/anti-nausea” solutions coming from big pharma are completely absurd. The only thing those ass-hats are interested in is lining their pockets and those of their investors. When the list of possible side effects is scarier than the malady being “cured” the only factor of importance is the bottom line.
I’d rather take my chances with a possibly toxin laden natural cure from an online chinese homeopath than give those greedy lying pricks one red cent.
Louis S. | 30-Jul-07 at 7:19 am | Permalink
Toxicity of tobacco is well known. I believe that the LD50 of Nicotine used as a pesticide in greenhouses is about 50, which is quite low and therefor toxic. I have never heard of THC being used as a pesticide or insecticide. With the possibility that global warming is contributing to the mountain pine bark beetle pandemic, perhaps some of the devestated forests could be planted with marijuana. Prairies may be a very good source for fibre and edible seeds.
There are some very large problems with the treatment of depression as the medicines vary and the success rate is questionable. The suicide related deaths among the younger people treated for depression with these labeled and approved drugs is a tragedy. While pot is not a panacea, it is a food and has been often used as a recreational drug. Long after the debates over the use of marijuana have been forgotten, people will still be smoking it. It has a longer history than tobacco and it isn’t taxed. Perhaps we need more studies about the use of marijuana, but when we label pesticides, we use straighforward analysis and it is in comparison with other pesticides that toxicity can be understood. Try putting a pan of pot leaves outside overnight along with a pan of beer. If you have slug problems, the beer will kill the slugs, but they will only get fat on the pot. This debate is great; we need reasonable comments and rational debate, but the debate will always be lopsided because of the threat of fines or of jail. Without the threat of fines and jail, perhaps we would even get some research and studies that the politicians would actually pay attention to and without laws against marijuana, there would be a lot more lawyers freed up so they can have another royal commission and continue to live in the style to which they have become accustomed. I certainly don’t want anyone smoking pot against his or her will; stick to your principles Saskboy, and leave the pot to people who want to smoke it. It is probably a better choice, but not mine. Just legalize it.
Ethan Erkiletian | 30-Jul-07 at 8:30 am | Permalink
I’m not sure we “need” more studies. I think we can always benefit from further studies but I honestly believe we are beyond a point which would necessitate that we find out enough to be comfortable with legalizing pot. Study away I say but let’s not fool ourselves. We already know plenty about pot. We already know that the theoretical lethal dosage exceeds body weight, we know that it does not cause cancer and we know that pot is a fairly innocuous substance overall. I wouldn’t say it’s harmless but it’s certainly not as scary as some of the drugs readily available to our children in the form of soft drinks.
Cheers
Des Emery | 30-Jul-07 at 10:29 pm | Permalink
Well, well, well. I didn’t think my comments would arouse the bloggers so much. But here’s a few more morsels to chew over. I know from personal experience that pot is a gateway drug. Oh, of course it doesn’t have to be in all cases. But it was for my son, who graduated from pot, to pills, to needles, always looking for ‘himself,” for another good time, for company’s sake, and who eventually came home, dried out, looked for work, found it, and started again on ‘just pot, this time,honest, just to ease the pain in my back from lifting 50-pound loads.’ He died with a needle in his arm. Just to ease the pain in his life.
My dad smoked a pipe all his life. Coughed a lot. Died in hospital. Couldn’t eat. Couldn’t breathe. Tobacco.
While I am writing this email, the midnight news on the radio reports that scientists and medics in New Zealand have stats to prove that one pot joint provides the same effect on the smoker as five regular cigarettes smoked consecutively.
Legalizing the stuff will not work, since it would become subject to regulators who would not allow the current levels of THC and everybody would object to the govt receiving tax money from it and the illicit growers would advertise their product at even higher levels than now.
And again, any product of combustion, including barbeques, and exhaust pipes from vehicles, and coal-fired electricity generators, and matches, lighters, charcoal burners, fireplaces, I could go on and on, does not, repeat not, belong in any animal lung. Contribute to the elimination of Global Warming in every small way you can, throw your joint in the cookie dough.
Ethan Erkiletian | 30-Jul-07 at 11:44 pm | Permalink
It’s unfortunate that you perceive your close relative succumbing to temptation as proof of thee gateway theory. Once again, I would suggest that you call temptation for what it is. Bandying about with such nonsense as the “gateway theory” does no one any good and serves only to make a very serious topic that much less understandable. While it’s incredibly unfortunate that you have a story of sadness that is connected to drug use, I could present you with a number of success stories. The stories have nothing to do with drugs but if these people had died off or become social wrecks, I would bet good money that you and others like you would blame their failures or rotten luck on their choice to use drugs.
Lots of people die of tobacco use it’s true…no one dies as a result of cannabis use. My condolences for your losses.
This most recent study making mention of the idea that smoking just one joint is like smoking five cigarettes. It was funny that the study conclusion included the mention that cannabis smokers did not develop emphysema as tobacco smokers did…but cannabis is so much more harmful for some reason? Sounds like total rubbish to me. As stated earlier, smoked cannabis certainly does contribute to minor damage of the airways and the worst of the worst is chronic bronchitis. This “one joint is equal to a bazillion ciggies” garbage is confusing to the public and incredibly misleading. no wonder people still think joints can cause cancer.
I don’t know where you get the idea that legalizing cannabis won’t work because regulators would not allow current levels of THC. Current levels of THC are incredibly varied. As well, you might want to fire off an e-mail to Jack Daniels and tell them that the product they are producing is far too strong for alcohol regulators so they should tone it down a tad. I would do it but well…i don’t want to sound silly.
If I were a regulator and I was looking at cannabis, I would fine very little issue with allowing high content THC products to be sold to our adult population. I would look at one hand on the shelves of a liquor store and find that some beverages contain very small alcohol content and some contain very high alcohol content. The higher the content, the more direct the risk of having something horrible happen to you like alcohol poisoning. Further, these products with higher alcohol content will most certainly bring about a quicker onset of horrible illness such as cirrhosis of the liver. Of course these high potency products are in demand and it is better to tax and regulate these substances rather than hand their regulation over to the black market where we will not be able to collect money which will help us support those who get themselves involved with this substance.
As the ever vigilant cannabis regulator. I would then look to cannabis products. I would find myself concluding that cannabis will not kill anyone via overdose. I would find that a greater concentration of THC does not seem to effect this fact. I would also find that a higher concentration of THC will not contribute to any long term illnesses. I may find some theory about potential mental illness but I would not be successful in finding anything concrete as I would with alcohol. My end conclusion would be that it would probably even be just fine and dandy to allow the sale of what is commonly referred to as “honey oil” which is of course simply exceptionally highly concentrated THC based liquid. If I were smart enough, I would even look into history books and find that THC tinctures were sold in pharmacies in and around 1910.
All in all, as the tireless regulator, I would probably ask myself why we were even taxing it if these consumers aren’t going to end up being battered by the substance unlike alcoholics.
Finally I would like to address combustion Des Emery. If anyone were to ask me how they should consume marijuana, I would tell them that they should vapourize it, brew it or eat it. I would never recommend smoking anything but truth be told, I wouldn’t worry about the smoking thing. It’s kind of like picking plumbs over nectarines. Why would you eat a plumb when you could have a nectarine? If you eat the plumb though…is there really any reason to worry?
Cheers
Saskboy | 31-Jul-07 at 12:01 am | Permalink
Ethan, you can’t disregard the dangers that smoking brings. No only is inhaled smoke of any type a bad thing for the lungs (or mouth in the case of cigars), it also carries the risk of accidental fires. Many children and homes are burnt every year due to the presence of a smoker’s paraphernalia in the home. Countless more forest fires that destroy property and lives are caused by careless smokers too.
Ethan Erkiletian | 31-Jul-07 at 9:43 am | Permalink
I have stated twice (possibly three times) that inhaled smoke is harmful to the airways. I have simply balanced that statement by saying that I don’t believe it to be overtly harmful. Harmful? Not really but not benign either.
I have no doubt that fires are caused by smokers, hair curlers, bad electrical wiring and so on. This type of mention is nearly needless in my opinion because we could mitigate the risk of death in our lives if only we decided to live in white sterilized boxes. Yes Saskboy, smokers of cannabis, tobacco or whatnot can cause fires but I must admit that I don’t see how that’s relevant. It is an odd tangent to jump from direct health effects of smoked marijuana to the possibility of a careless smoker causing fires. I believe this to be a separate issue of responsibility.
Cheers
Des Emery | 31-Jul-07 at 6:57 pm | Permalink
Ethan — I certainly appreciate the “Cheers” you send as a pot enthusiast. As you say, temptation touches everyone at one time or another. My son knew that his pot-smoking as an elementary school student would eventually lead him into using stronger substances as his body became accustomed to plain pot. By his own admission, the decrease in sensation took him to stronger and stronger THC sources, then to other drugs, then to various mixtures, then to hard drugs and on to anything that would give him some sort of high. He consorted of course with other similar kids who became similar adults, and some of them have died too. Naturally not everyone who tokes will automatically become an addict. But some will, and personally I think that anything that promotes addiction, including the pop children drink, or the oxycontin that pill poppers like, should be negatively advertised and willful misuse should be discouraged in every way. By the way, though I suggested throwing your joint into the cookie dough, I believe eating THC is just as dumb as eating tobacco and from personal experience I know the drug of choice for ex-psych patients is primarily pot but they take nicotine because they get a tobacco allowance.
Louis S. | 31-Jul-07 at 8:26 pm | Permalink
“I believe eating THC is just as dumb as eating tobacco ” is the kind of statement that mixed in with facts taken out of context from studies set out to prove hypthesis through slim statistical analysis is not only misleading but dishonest. Don’t try to eat tobacco. Relatively low amounts of tobacco can kill you. Another study shows that the gene for lefthandedness causes or indicates a slightly greater chance for schizophrenia. Many of the studies that rely on statistical analysis now come with warnings; that being said, there is much to be gained from personal experience stories. Many people who have trouble with alcohol abuse use marijuana to help quit drinking. Many asthmatics use marijuana to alleviate the symptoms of acute asthma attacks; this is a choice which makes sense as it decreases the risk of heart attacks caused by the steroid drugs and epinepherine type drugs which are the choices of the current medical system practitioners. I know this from personal experience. Many tobacco smokers are dying every year while they are linked up to machines to help them breath easier. Many young people are dying in car accidents due to excessive drinking. Many people are dying because of overdoses of prescription and non prescription drugs. Many diabetics are dying because of too much sugar. These are facts that we don’t need to argue about. But keeping marijuana illegal makes as much sense as making apple pie and coca cola illegal. Taking or doing anything to excess can be dangerous for some people, but as long as the state seeks to impose questionable and illogical laws on citizens, citizens have not only a right but also an obligation to resist these laws. We don’t need more state control, we need less state control and more self control. Growing marijuana is good for the economy, good for the ecology, good for morality and good for Canada. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.