Medical Marijuana

[BiggErn]

> @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> Take too much of a lot of things and they can be addictive. Sugar? Yup! Fatty food? Carbohydrates? Yup! Yup! Caffeine? Yup! Oh and how about opiates? Hugely addictive and legal. No one dies from an OD of weed yet over 70K died from opiate ODs in 2017 alone. Those criminals in big pharma turned a blind eye to it as they pumped more and more into communities without asking a word so long as the money kept coming.

>

> As for weed I have yet to meet anyone that's ever been addicted to it. Most weed users, just like alcohol, can be used responsibly by adults. My circle 50somethings doesn't use regularly but will on golf trips, ski trips, weekend with the guys etc. Many of these guys are self-made 1% economically. Even us poorer guys are still doing well in life and our careers. There are so many successful people, your neighbors even that partake periodically and yet live normal lives. Not because it's hard but because weed is a fairly mild intoxicant and clearly has some good medicinal qualities and isn't addictive unless you're an idiot destined to smoke 24x7.

>

> I resent the fact that we have a government where some still want to outlaw a natural product (put here by God if you believe) that can be grown with sunlight and water. A product that can be used responsibly by adults.

 

Who cares? If they do it in a competition and fail a drug test they’re DQ’d. End of story. There’s plenty of people that have taken pain killers after surgery or whatever ailment and stopped as soon as their prescription ran out. Imagine that. Does that mean they’re not addictive? I’ve also never known of someone that smoked weed that just smoked weed so all the deflection to this or that is worse is moot. If you smoke weed on a regular basis and say you’re not addicted then what do you call it? ? And lol on the natural plant bs too. Poppy is a natural plant as well.

[Philomathesq]

> @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> Take too much of a lot of things and they can be addictive. Sugar? Yup! Fatty food? Carbohydrates? Yup! Yup! Caffeine? Yup! Oh and how about opiates? Hugely addictive and legal. No one dies from an OD of weed yet over 70K died from opiate ODs in 2017 alone. Those criminals in big pharma turned a blind eye to it as they pumped more and more into communities without asking a word so long as the money kept coming.

>

> As for weed I have yet to meet anyone that's ever been addicted to it. Most weed users, just like alcohol, can be used responsibly by adults. My circle 50somethings doesn't use regularly but will on golf trips, ski trips, weekend with the guys etc. Many of these guys are self-made 1% economically. Even us poorer guys are still doing well in life and our careers. There are so many successful people, your neighbors even that partake periodically and yet live normal lives. Not because it's hard but because weed is a fairly mild intoxicant and clearly has some good medicinal qualities and isn't addictive unless you're an idiot destined to smoke 24x7.

>

> I resent the fact that we have a government where some still want to outlaw a natural product (put here by God if you believe) that can be grown with sunlight and water. A product that can be used responsibly by adults.

 

I'm not saying I agree with any of the laws that we have, but the fact is that people _can_ become addicted to many things, including marijuana. I also wouldn't go so far as to classify opiates as "legal;" they are highly regulated and not something that you can _legally_ purchase without proper documentation.

[jut111]

I’d love to see iq tests of both sides of this argument.

[LeoLeo99]

> @jut111 said:

> I’d love to see iq tests of both sides of this argument.

 

I don't think there'd be much of a difference but interesting to see.

[LeoLeo99]

> @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> Have to really laugh at some of you in this thread. > @LeoLeo99 said:

> > > @Krt22 said:

> > > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > > @Krt22 said:

> > > > > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > > > > @jut111 said:

> > > > > > > > @"Big Ben" said:

> > > > > > > > And if the Federal Govt asked you to jump off the bridge because it was required would you?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Exactly. People are too willing to be led around like sheep. Educate yourself, use those critical thinking skills and form your own opinions.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nobody cares what you do just like I don’t care that MJ is banned in any type of organized competition. If you wanna compete don’t do it. If you wanna do it don’t expect to compete by comparing it to a million other things that aren’t banned. I’d venture to say someone addicted to a drug is the one being led around and controlled like sheep.

> > > > >

> > > > > Marijuana is not addictive, oddly enough, both tobacco and alcohol are.

> > > >

> > > > Sure it isn’t ?

> > >

> > > It isn't physically addictive in any way. Saying/thinking it is won't change that fact. The fact that it's classified as a more dangerous drug than oxy/meth/fentanyl is an absolute travesty.

> >

> > I was in the hospital a couple days ago and they gave me fentanyl via IV and Vicodin to take home. I'd rather take some edibles.

>

> Edibles would certainly be less hazardous. You'd have zero chance of addiction going the edibles route. Of course big pharma wouldn't get a piece of the action.

 

I work in Pharma. My Rx for hydrocodone/acetaminophen was less than $1 per tablet. It's generic. Cheaper than edibles.

[davep043]

> @LeoLeo99 said:

> > @jut111 said:

> > I’d love to see iq tests of both sides of this argument.

>

> I don't think there'd be much of a difference but interesting to see.

He seems to imply that intelligent people would predominantly choose one side or the other. I didn't look back to see his position, but I bet he thinks he'd be on the "intelligent" side.

[Vindog]

> @BiggErn said:

> > @Krt22 said:

> > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > @Krt22 said:

> > > > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > > > @jut111 said:

> > > > > > > @"Big Ben" said:

> > > > > > > And if the Federal Govt asked you to jump off the bridge because it was required would you?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Exactly. People are too willing to be led around like sheep. Educate yourself, use those critical thinking skills and form your own opinions.

> > > > >

> > > > > Nobody cares what you do just like I don’t care that MJ is banned in any type of organized competition. If you wanna compete don’t do it. If you wanna do it don’t expect to compete by comparing it to a million other things that aren’t banned. I’d venture to say someone addicted to a drug is the one being led around and controlled like sheep.

> > > >

> > > > Marijuana is not addictive, oddly enough, both tobacco and alcohol are.

> > >

> > > Sure it isn’t ?

> >

> > It isn't physically addictive in any way. Saying/thinking it is won't change that fact. The fact that it's classified as a more dangerous drug than oxy/meth/fentanyl is an absolute travesty.

>

> I hear ya. The best way to undermine the dangers and effects of one drug is to always claim something else is worse.

 

But...what if that something else actually is worse? I'd like to hear what these dangers are from MJ that are in some way unique to it, or somehow differentiates it from other drugs, or maybe even what are the dangers that are similar to other drugs in the same legal category Don't just send me some link, I want to hear what you actually feel, in your own words.

 

As far as the growing legalization on the state level? I think it's here to stay. We can see that we have 3 generations or more of widespread use since the late 60s. What that means is we have kids of people who smoke or smoked. We might even have kids of parents whose parents smoke or smoked. We have non smokers who have been around it and are desensitized to it. All of these people are realizing the same thing, in my opinion, and that is the fact that the "alcohol only" experiment was a failed one.

 

[Krt22]

 

 

> @davep043 said:

> > @LeoLeo99 said:

> > > @jut111 said:

> > > I’d love to see iq tests of both sides of this argument.

> >

> > I don't think there'd be much of a difference but interesting to see.

> He seems to imply that intelligent people would predominantly choose one side or the other. I didn't look back to see his position, but I bet he thinks he'd be on the "intelligent" side.

 

Yeah I bet there would be a similar distribution of IQs on both sides, stronger correlation might be to political and/or religious beliefs

[Big Ben]

This has been a productive debate with both sides making insightful points. And it stays open because it is a golf debate as well as a new social reality.

[Mikey5e]

It's always been said by many that M is a stepping stone unto harder drugs.

[Mikey5e]

https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/marijuana-addictive

[Krt22]

> @Mikey5e said:

> It's always been said by many that M is a stepping stone unto harder drugs.

 

Yes, it's been portrayed by the government as the boogie man for decades. Very much one of those correlation vs causation misconceptions

[LeoLeo99]

> @Mikey5e said:

> It's always been said by many that M is a stepping stone unto harder drugs.

 

http://healthland.time.com/2010/10/29/marijuna-as-a-gateway-drug-the-myth-that-will-not-die/

 

[Vindog]

> @Mikey5e said:

> It's always been said by many that M is a stepping stone unto harder drugs.

 

It was said by even more that the Earth was flat.

[bigred90gt]

> @Philomathesq said:

> > @Krt22 said:

>

> > It isn't physically addictive in any way. Saying/thinking it is won't change that fact. The fact that it's classified as a more dangerous drug than oxy/meth/fentanyl is an absolute travesty.

>

>

>

> > @Krt22 said:

>

> > Except in this case it isn't really a claim, it's a fact. Which is why the notion of "the law is the law" simply doesn't make sense sometimes since laws spawn from imperfect policy makers. . The reality is the current policy/law isn't backed at all by any sort of medical/scientific evidence.

>

> Two quick points: First, for every study you can point to that says marijuana is not addictive, I can point to one that says it is.** I don't know for sure, but I'd venture to guess all the studies you might cite to are funded, or undertaken, by those in favor of the use and/or decriminalization of marijuana.** Second, much to your chagrin, I'm sure, it is an irrefutable fact that Cannabis Withdrawal Syndrome and Cannabis Use Disorder (also known as marijuana addiction) have been medically recognized conditions since at least 2013. Many studies undertaken by facially unbiased researchers state, explicitly, that marijuana is physically addictive, which makes sense because "[c]annabis is a psychotropic substance," "[r]egular cannabis use is associated with neuroanatomic [brain] abnormalities . . . particularly the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex," and "[a]bstinence-induced craving is associated with reduced amygdala [neurons in the brain] volumes . . . which is also found in adult alcohol and cocaine users." Bonnet, U. and Preuss, U., "The Cannabis Withdrawal Syndrome: Current Insights." _Substance Abuse and Rehabilitation_ Volume 8 (2017): 9-37.

>

> That's a lot of big words, I know. In lay-speak: Marijuana is physically (and likely mentally) addictive, its use causes physical changes in the brain, and when marijuana is no longer used, those physical changes can manifest themselves through physical withdrawal symptoms.

>

> Huh... seems like marijuana is addictive, and such assertion is backed up factually by medical doctors and researchers. Who'd have imagined that a substance that causes changes in brain chemistry and anatomy could be addictive? :|

 

On the other side of the argument, it seems that most of the articles (including the one you linked) deeming it addictive are funded by those with interests in keeping it illegal federally (fed in this case, who takes a ton of money from big pharma to keep it that way).

[Philomathesq]

> @bigred90gt said:

> > @Philomathesq said:

> > > @Krt22 said:

> >

> > > It isn't physically addictive in any way. Saying/thinking it is won't change that fact. The fact that it's classified as a more dangerous drug than oxy/meth/fentanyl is an absolute travesty.

> >

> >

> >

> > > @Krt22 said:

> >

> > > Except in this case it isn't really a claim, it's a fact. Which is why the notion of "the law is the law" simply doesn't make sense sometimes since laws spawn from imperfect policy makers. . The reality is the current policy/law isn't backed at all by any sort of medical/scientific evidence.

> >

> > Two quick points: First, for every study you can point to that says marijuana is not addictive, I can point to one that says it is.** I don't know for sure, but I'd venture to guess all the studies you might cite to are funded, or undertaken, by those in favor of the use and/or decriminalization of marijuana.** Second, much to your chagrin, I'm sure, it is an irrefutable fact that Cannabis Withdrawal Syndrome and Cannabis Use Disorder (also known as marijuana addiction) have been medically recognized conditions since at least 2013. Many studies undertaken by facially unbiased researchers state, explicitly, that marijuana is physically addictive, which makes sense because "[c]annabis is a psychotropic substance," "[r]egular cannabis use is associated with neuroanatomic [brain] abnormalities . . . particularly the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex," and "[a]bstinence-induced craving is associated with reduced amygdala [neurons in the brain] volumes . . . which is also found in adult alcohol and cocaine users." Bonnet, U. and Preuss, U., "The Cannabis Withdrawal Syndrome: Current Insights." _Substance Abuse and Rehabilitation_ Volume 8 (2017): 9-37.

> >

> > That's a lot of big words, I know. In lay-speak: Marijuana is physically (and likely mentally) addictive, its use causes physical changes in the brain, and when marijuana is no longer used, those physical changes can manifest themselves through physical withdrawal symptoms.

> >

> > Huh... seems like marijuana is addictive, and such assertion is backed up factually by medical doctors and researchers. Who'd have imagined that a substance that causes changes in brain chemistry and anatomy could be addictive? :|

>

> On the other side of the argument, it seems that most of the articles (including the one you linked) deeming it addictive are funded by those with interests in keeping it illegal federally (fed in this case, who takes a ton of money from big pharma to keep it that way).

 

Umm... Are you **** high? The journal study I linked to was investigated and written by German doctors, all of whom practice and research in Germany. Germany, at the federal level, allows for the personal use of marijuana. Every state within Germany also allows the personal use of marijuana.

 

Their research, which has been peer-reviewed and accepted within the medical community, was then published in an international medical journal.

 

So, I'm not really finding the correlation you are attempting to draw, which makes sense, because you have no **** idea what you are talking about. Unless, of course, you can provide some source that draws a link between Germany's pervasive marijuana laws and America's fight to keep it illegal. Good luck, champ.

[cxx]

Seems that the PGA Tour has rules against alcohol use but it's not covered under WADA. I expect that weed would be prohibited as well even if it were not covered by WADA, but it is.

 

Funny, just found that my eyedrops are prohibited.

[Hawkeye77]

> @"Big Ben" said:

> This has been a productive debate with both sides making insightful points. And it stays open because it is a golf debate as well as a new social reality.

 

Very little of what has been discussed really has much to do with golf at all.

[fore_life]

So, medicinal mj is legal in Germany, not recreational or general possession.

 

And crazy how there could be no unifying ban amongst nations, like, if these nations united, maybe called themselves the United Nations.

 

“The Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices created a cannabis agency pursuant to the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961, which states that “a member state must establish or appoint such a public agency as soon as cannabis is intended to be cultivated in the state in question for non-industrial uses” Werner Knöss, Ph.D., is the appointed head of Germany’s Cannabis Agency within the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices. “

 

[Mikey5e]

I appreciate all the conversations that have gone on so far. Disagreements, sure, but that's ok.

[Philomathesq]

> @fore_life said:

> **So, medicinal mj is legal in Germany, not recreational or general possession.**

>

 

That's interesting... are you sure? Because the _Bundesverfassungsgericht_ (literally "Federal Constitutional Court," or Germany's equivalent of our Supreme Court for constitutional matters) entered a decision on March 9, 1994, in which it states that the enforcement of criminal penalties for the personal use of marijuana is unconstitutional. _BVerfGE_ 90, 145, 185. That decision is still followed to this day. And, the decision did not overrule lower courts who had decided that 7.5 grams was the limit for personal use (there are many reasons for this, the main of which is irrelevant to this conversation). Moreover, because of the interplay between Germany's political and judicial regimes, Germany's states are allowed to set their own limits on "personal use." To that end, see the image below which shows the amount of marijuana a person may possess before they may be charged with a crime.

 

Simply put, Germany's equivalent of our Supreme Court ruled, 25 years ago, that it is unconstitutional to enforce a law that punished the personal use of marijuana. That case is still followed (i.e. personal use of marijuana is not prohibited at the federal level), and each individual state within Germany allows the personal use of marijuana (i.e. personal use of marijuana is not prohibited at the state level).

 

Edited to add: the ruling issued by the BVerfGE was a 7-1 decision. That is, it wasn't even a close call for the Court to rule that it is unconstitutional to punish the personal use of marijuana.

 

None of this is meant as a personal attack on you, but it gets very frustrating when people make assertions that are not factually or legally accurate, as has happened quite a bit in this thread.

 

[fore_life]

Just because they don’t prosecute doesn’t mean it isn’t illegal on the federal level there

 

“Recreational marijuana is illegal in Germany. However, less than 11 grams is considered a "small amount" in Berlin, and criminal charges may be dropped by the authorities. Many people say that most small amount charges in Berlin are not prosecuted, but that's not guaranteed. However, possession charges above 11 grams must be prosecuted by law.”

[Mikey5e]

"Welcome to "The Zone," gentlemen"

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.golfdigest.com/story/how-does-marijuana-affect-your-golf-game-an-investigation/amp

[fore_life]

Lol that’s a horrible test!

Vape pens are usually pure thc, which doesn’t offer the entourage effect of terpenoids found in flower/other concentrates.

 

And they smoked a doobie. Which strain? Indica/sativa/hybrid?

[Roadking2003]

> @Mikey5e said:

> It's always been said by many that M is a stepping stone unto harder drugs.

 

Just like milk. Everyone I know that went to hard drugs started with milk.

[Mikey5e]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @Mikey5e said:

> > It's always been said by many that M is a stepping stone unto harder drugs.

>

> Just like milk. Everyone I know that went to hard drugs started with milk.

 

Thanks for the 'definitive' post that answered all questions in this thread!

[BlackDiamondPar5]

> @Mikey5e said:

> > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > @Mikey5e said:

> > > It's always been said by many that M is a stepping stone unto harder drugs.

> >

> > Just like milk. Everyone I know that went to hard drugs started with milk.

>

> Thanks for the 'definitive' post that answered all questions in this thread!

Well the "Gateway" claim is about as enlightening.

 

[Vindog]

And there are STILL people who believe that the Earth is flat!

[NonCompetitive1]

> @Mikey5e said:

> What are the USGA rules on medical marijuana while competing in a tournament? I know of an individual who does this on a regular basis while playing to relieve stress, and wonder if he is breaking the rules?


 

 

[J13]

> @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> > @Mikey5e said:

> > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > @Mikey5e said:

> > > > It's always been said by many that M is a stepping stone unto harder drugs.

> > >

> > > Just like milk. Everyone I know that went to hard drugs started with milk.

> >

> > Thanks for the 'definitive' post that answered all questions in this thread!

> Well the "Gateway" claim is about as enlightening.

>

 

I was at a vineyard listening to some guy talk about how bad cannabis is and how it's a gateway drug and leads to heroin. He really got duped by the propaganda like "reefer madness" LMAO which was financed by a church as a morality play. Meanwhile, he was on his 3rd glass of Merlot while smoking a cigar. I mentioned to him that the biggest offender on the planet when it comes to being a gateway drug or making deadly decisions (Drunk driving) was in his hand. He scoffed and kept spouting off at the mouth sounding like a complete moron.

 

Meanwhile, cannabis actually has health benefits (many) especially when it's not consumed through combustion. Alcohol has zero. The PGA Tour and other professional sports teams will be able to ban the substance as long as it's federally illegal but when cannabis is made legal the Tour and other sports teams will not have a leg to stand on unless they are willing to make alcohol and tobacco illegal. I also highly doubt leagues will even want to keep it on the ban list because it's a lose/lose for them.