Parents and Marijuana

Knowing forum readers, I expect a lot of heat for this topic, but I just wanted to post info about a children's book about marijuana that you can check out.

Yes, a kid's book about pot. The thing is, I know there are a lot of parents here who enjoy the rare toke. And how do you talk to your kids about this? Or how, in general, do you address this topic with your kids when much of the information about the plant is so politicized and unscientific?

so, if you're curious: http://www.justaplant.com

Highly recommended (no pun intended). Otherwise, I hope this spark some dialogue.. how do you talk to your kids about pot?

Interesting, but since it's not really Prospect Heights-specific, I'm moving it to Brooklyn & Beyond...

Subject: Re: Parents and Marijuana

bicicleta wrote: how do you talk to your kids about pot?

I tell them to buy their own!

j/k...I don't have kids yet, but I do have that book and also recommend it highly.

So this is a book that addresses a parent who uses illegal drugs and how they should tell their kids? If im not mistaken tobacco is also "just a plant" why dont we get our kids hooked on cigarettes too while we're at it!

I'd rather have my kid smoking weed that tobacco any time. Personally, I'd ban tobacco, or at the very least lay a heavy "cancer tax" on it. Give me a good Thai stick over a Pall Mall menthol any time.

Idlewild wrote: I'd rather have my kid smoking weed that tobacco any time. Personally, I'd ban tobacco, or at the very least lay a heavy "cancer tax" on it. Give me a good Thai stick over a Pall Mall menthol any time.

Weed has as many carcinogens as cigarettes. More actually.

The only advantage weed has is that it is less physically addictive, although that is dependent on the individual user.

Does it? I mean I'm not a fan of putting any thing in your lungs except oxygen. However, except for varieties such a Thai stick I don't see people adding junk to the leaves like they do with tobacco.

Boygabriel wrote: [quote=Idlewild]I'd rather have my kid smoking weed that tobacco any time. Personally, I'd ban tobacco, or at the very least lay a heavy "cancer tax" on it. Give me a good Thai stick over a Pall Mall menthol any time.

Weed has as many carcinogens as cigarettes. More actually.

The only advantage weed has is that it is less physically addictive, although that is dependent on the individual user.

Well, people don't smoke weed in NEARLY as much volume as they usually do cigarettes, either. Can you imagine a pack and a half a day of joints?

apollonia666 wrote: Well, people don't smoke weed in NEARLY as much volume as they usually do cigarettes, either. Can you imagine a pack and a half a day of joints?

That's like Snoop Dogg level!

3PPD = Cypress Hill

My answer to Sir Snoop

Typical bad 80s! What would Nancy Reagan do?

But was this an ad AGAINST Drugs or against bad entertainment?
I mean Whitney, Arnold, and Latoya were in it and everyone seemed to be having a great time.

With the dancing caged monkey, money and the Herb Alpert on Saxaphone, I wasn't sure, was I supposed to NOT like drugs?...and New Edition? - Christ.

Hey, Did I see Turbo from "Breakin'" in there too? Everyone knows the best way to enjoy the movie "Breakin'" is while HIGH!

that video is brilliant!!! =D>

i'm supposed to take advice from stacy keach. and whitney. about drugs? i don't think so
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10915F83E5C0C7B8CDDAB0994DC484D81

Idlewild wrote: Does it? I mean I'm not a fan of putting any thing in your lungs except oxygen. However, except for varieties such a Thai stick I don't see people adding junk to the leaves like they do with tobacco.

but more "junk" does not equal larger amount of total carcinogens. i smoke both and I too used to assume weed was healthier. but recently a study came out that said that lb-for-lb (mmm lbs of weed!), weed has a higher volume of cancer-causing agents.

I will now try to find the article. It was interesting (and disappointing).

As for the other post above about "volume", there are more factors than just number of cigs of weed or tobacco you smoke. When people smoke weed they inhale much more deeply than they do with cigarettes, so that alone can balance the comparison between the two.

either way this discussion should be about total amount of carcinogens inhaled not number of cigs or joints smoked. (ie 1 joint = way more than 1 cig)

boygabriel, is that a pesticide thing?
you'd think the organic growers would be in on this . . .

I just read somewhere that weed was the largest cash crop in america, which seems totally nuts to me. There wasn't any documentation, however.

pitu wrote: boygabriel, is that a pesticide thing?
you'd think the organic growers would be in on this . . .

no. the natural compositions in weed are simply cancer causing. just b/c it's natural doesn't mean it's not bad for you. the stuff that killed that ex-russian spy in london (polonium) is a naturally occurring material (and incidentally is present in almost all cigarettes, see fascinating NYT op-ed piece here) and that doesn't make it any less deadly. (although the quantity of polonium in cigarettes is harmless)

I just read somewhere that weed was the largest cash crop in america, which seems totally nuts to me. There wasn't any documentation, however.

I've read that too. I wonder if part of the reason it's so profitable is b/c there are no taxes paid on it.

Boygabriel wrote: I've read that too. I wonder if part of the reason it's so profitable is b/c there are no taxes paid on it.

bingo!
tax it. problem solved
as much money as you could ever want

quijibo wrote: [quote=Boygabriel]I've read that too. I wonder if part of the reason it's so profitable is b/c there are no taxes paid on it.

bingo!
tax it. problem solved
as much money as you could ever want

yeah but if that drives quality down (which some predict) then I say no!

Actually, there are studies that show a causal link between cannabis and cancer but other studies that show no link. I've read a lot of papers on the subject and it seems that eating it is less damaging than smoking it, although moderation is always advisable.

bolletje wrote: Actually, there are studies that show a causal link between cannabis and cancer but other studies that show no link.

Interesting. I'm still trying to find the study I read a few months ago. Do you have any links?

I've read a lot of papers on the subject and it seems that eating it is less damaging than smoking it, although moderation is always advisable.

This wouldn't surprise me at all. I would think the major risk of cancer would be lung cancer from the smoke.

The cancer issue is definitely interesting but it's somewhat beside the point, no? Clearly marijuana is not illegal because of its harmfulness to your lungs--it's the psychological effects that are considered far more dangerous. (Note, I'm not saying I agree that it should be illegal, but the biggest concern people have, whether it be legislators or parents, is on weed's effects on your state of mind, not your physical health.)

escap wrote: The cancer issue is definitely interesting but it's somewhat beside the point, no? Clearly marijuana is not illegal because of its harmfulness to your lungs--it's the psychological effects that are considered far more dangerous. (Note, I'm not saying I agree that it should be illegal, but the biggest concern people have, whether it be legislators or parents, is on weed's effects on your state of mind, not your physical health.)

definitely. that's part of the reason cigarettes aren't illegal. and why it's legal to drive or be in public after only two beers