Truth Seeker
New Member
Good cannabis is like good chocolate. It tastes and feels so pleasurable that it can easily lead to excess. Too much marijuana makes Jack a lazy boy, and too much chocolate makes Jill fat. Beyond the relatively mild consequences of enjoying chocolate or cannabis to excess, however, the medical effects of these two plants are extraordinary indeed.
Chocolate acts upon the same chemical receptor in the human brain that marijuana does, and induces a general good feeling like marijuana, although it is clearly not as potent. When it comes to good feeling, chocolate can induce a "body high" significantly more powerful than even the intimate ecstasy of a passionate kiss.
The cacao plant from which chocolate is made uses a cancer-causing toxin called theobromine to ward off invading insects. It is this chemical that poisons a dog if it eats any chocolate. Caffeine in chocolate also has carcinogenic potential. Coffee, tea, cola, ginger, potatoes, garlic and black pepper all contain chemicals in doses that are more likely to cause cancer than chocolate. Some foods containing chemicals that also cause cancer, though less so than chocolate, include corn, beer, lettuce and apples. Common wisdom holds true: everything causes cancer.
Although both substances have been shown to contain chemical compounds that cause cancer in the cells of mice, both chocolate and cannabis contain chemical compounds that have been shown to have anti-cancer properties as well. Neither tobacco nor alcohol exhibit this chemical paradox: both of these unequivocally lead to various tumors of the mouth, liver or lungs. For this reason chocolate serves as a better chemical comparison to cannabis with regard to lawful status.
Government can regulate every single chemical that enters the sphere of human existence, or it can sit back and let nature work the magic that has kept life on earth alive and growing for millions of years. Neither chocolate nor cannabis poses enough of a threat to human health to justify special regulation.
If someone can be killed by a neurotoxin that nature designed to kill bugs nibbling on a cacao leaf, that person's immune system is terrible. No regulation is needed for dietary supplements that would only harm humans if nature has already selected them for elimination. Bug pesticides kill bugs, not humans. If they do, nature has selected that human to die. If apples are a threat to health, then there is probably nothing government rules can do to help.
Imagine Nevada spending $43 million every year to fight the "destructive effects" of chocolate. Imagine the federal government spending $15 billion in 2010 to wage a "War on Chocolate" to protect children from the dangers of obesity. Would you support the War on Chocolate? Or are there better ways to employ government resources?
Source: Chocolate & marijuana: chemical cousins - Reno Drug Policy | Examiner.com
Chocolate acts upon the same chemical receptor in the human brain that marijuana does, and induces a general good feeling like marijuana, although it is clearly not as potent. When it comes to good feeling, chocolate can induce a "body high" significantly more powerful than even the intimate ecstasy of a passionate kiss.
The cacao plant from which chocolate is made uses a cancer-causing toxin called theobromine to ward off invading insects. It is this chemical that poisons a dog if it eats any chocolate. Caffeine in chocolate also has carcinogenic potential. Coffee, tea, cola, ginger, potatoes, garlic and black pepper all contain chemicals in doses that are more likely to cause cancer than chocolate. Some foods containing chemicals that also cause cancer, though less so than chocolate, include corn, beer, lettuce and apples. Common wisdom holds true: everything causes cancer.
Although both substances have been shown to contain chemical compounds that cause cancer in the cells of mice, both chocolate and cannabis contain chemical compounds that have been shown to have anti-cancer properties as well. Neither tobacco nor alcohol exhibit this chemical paradox: both of these unequivocally lead to various tumors of the mouth, liver or lungs. For this reason chocolate serves as a better chemical comparison to cannabis with regard to lawful status.
Government can regulate every single chemical that enters the sphere of human existence, or it can sit back and let nature work the magic that has kept life on earth alive and growing for millions of years. Neither chocolate nor cannabis poses enough of a threat to human health to justify special regulation.
If someone can be killed by a neurotoxin that nature designed to kill bugs nibbling on a cacao leaf, that person's immune system is terrible. No regulation is needed for dietary supplements that would only harm humans if nature has already selected them for elimination. Bug pesticides kill bugs, not humans. If they do, nature has selected that human to die. If apples are a threat to health, then there is probably nothing government rules can do to help.
Imagine Nevada spending $43 million every year to fight the "destructive effects" of chocolate. Imagine the federal government spending $15 billion in 2010 to wage a "War on Chocolate" to protect children from the dangers of obesity. Would you support the War on Chocolate? Or are there better ways to employ government resources?
Source: Chocolate & marijuana: chemical cousins - Reno Drug Policy | Examiner.com
