Well believing something and having scientific studies based on facts and evidence are two different things. Now this study can be peer reviewed around the world, by very smart people, and perhaps smarter policies can go into effect. It bothers me that policies on drugs or other things are based on emotions and votes rather than reason & logic.

This article sums up the argument for legalizing marijuana - it's far less harmful than alcohol or cigarettes which are legal. Prohibition of pot has failed, it just makes life more difficult for the people who get caught. It's in every town, consumed regularly by a large percentage of people who function just fine in their lives. Making people go to jail and get criminal records over this is asinine.

Yep. Pot should be legal. And, while alcohol is more destructive, I hope no one jumps to the conclusion that heroin would take the top spot if it were legal. The fact is that a drug's legal status is a minor deterrent to its use. These days people are over the scare tactics that anti-freedom people have used to dissuade people from using drugs. Generally, I think people are pretty aware that MJ and shrooms do you no harm which is why MJ in particular is so widely used. Look what happened when it was legalized (essentially) in CA and several other states.... It's safe to say that some drugs are safe. I would not put alcohol in that category.

Exactly right, Bobby. I work with troubled youth, and one of their biggest problems is being high on marijuana, not alcohol, although that occurs among them too.

Rickybobby; Pot is no different than alcohol there are some people who stone out and do nothing just like there are millions more who drink themselves silly. There is no difference between a beer bash weekend and a stoned weekend except that there are far, far more big beer drinkers and it is legal. The stoners do have the advantage of no hangover.

For every drunk there are countless millions of drinkers who are light or only social drinkers.
For every stoner there are millions of puffers who are light or social smokers.
In fact this is true for just about every drug and certainly true of Ecstasy, cocaine, LSD and most other hallucinogens along with opium.

As to getting "hooked" on pot; pot isn't addictive and this is well proven. There are no with-drawls no dts. Alcohol on the other hand is addictive. Other drugs certainly be addictive if abused especially meth and crack. But casual users rarely get addicted.

When it comes to being a danger to the public drinkers kill and injure tens of thousands every year. Alcohol is a factor in more crimes than most others combined.
Pot on the other hand is dangerous primarily to snack foods.

Perhaps you are a puritan who never takes a drink or anything else but that puts you in a tiny minority.

THANKS CAPTAIN OBVIOUS!

Can we now legalize marijuana to help end the funding of ultra violent cartels based in Mexico and use the tax money to offset law enforcement costs keeping it out of schools and controlling quality so it doesn't contain pesticide poisons or acid (hallucinogenic) or cocaine (to addict kids into buying more product) and spend less on incarcerated felons involved with use, transportation, theft, and violence around the trade of a drug shown to be

SIGNIFICANTLY LESS DANGEROUS THAN A DRUG WE ALREADY WIDELY USE!

Duh, people.

(Note: I agree that this metric is one "view" of the data)

Free will determines what drugs are addictive.

I knew a guy that would do only one drug (cocaine, crack, heroin, ghb, whatever...) for 6 months straight wake up one day and say "I am never going to touch that stuff again" and never take any of that type of drug ever again.

Well stated Borisa.

I would also add that interactions with even daily "social drinkers" can be harmful to the families and anyone who has to deal with them. Habitual alcohol drinkers do not care about and cannot remember the harm that they say and do on a daily basis. Sure, they cause accidents and death, but they also offer a certain level of "insanity" which friends and family have to handle. Life with those who drink alcohol is like living on egg shells. The ones who drink and deny its effects are the very ones who need to take a long look at what they do to others...if they still have the capacity to care. Most become so selfish that their denial is the only way they can maintain themselves. Overuse of alcohol is noticed by everyone around the drinker, but not the drinker.

Our society tends to look the other way as problem drinkers commit slow suicide. An alcoholic's death is always painful, long, expensive, and needless. It is an individual's choice to be a drunk, but they blame everything and everyone around them for it. Drunks are not funny. Drunks are not honest. Drunks are not healthy. Drunks are not safe. Drunks are destructive.

The US Constitution ENTITLES it's citizens to live a life of liberty and the pursuit of happiness. (one of the few entitlements that is just)

Drugs are a social issue, not criminal. People are going to have vices, be it drugs, sex, sports, TV, whatever. There is a 'hole' in most everyone's core that they need to fill. We should address this emptyness and not make them criminals & subsequently ruin there lives because they're either looking for answers, or simply enjoy a buzz.

C'mon people - wake up!

Vielmann, the reason you see more problems with pot over booze is because, for a teen ager, pot is easier to get a hold of. This is a well established fact and if you really work with troubled teens you should have long been aware of it. If this is something you didn't know you really need to step up your game to get serious about helping these kids.

it just doesn't appear pot being illegal matters anyway it don't stop anyone from buying and using it, just as prohibition in the past, alcohol and pot both are here to stay, and for those who think potheads cant be successfull,its a myth, and its no wonder, you gotta open your eyes that way you will see that on average today one in ten in the public are high on something, whether it prescriptions, meth, coke, pot, and a quarter of your polititians want it legalized, its just to bad it makes more revenue for the gov. if its illegal, giant fines easily replace a few bucks a pack, I'd prefer a pothead over a ignorant drunk anyday-anywhere, you just don't read about the pothead who crashed and killed an entire family driving home, alcohol is obviously the worst of the two it has daily deaths, ones the drunk caused

I don't know of any drug other than BOOZE that makes people mean, abusive, and violent. Ask any woman that has had the crap beaten out of her by a drunk which is more dangerous.

This explains becks paranoia.

Over 200+people die every day in the USA due to alcohol and alcohol related illnesses.

Over 90+people die every day due to guns, over half of these are due to SUICIDES.

Over 75% of the women and child ABUSE, is due to addictions in the USA.

The USA needs more GUNS and stronger drugs, this will lower the cost of SS/Medicare and save the women/children from abusive A$$holes .

Pot remains illegal for one reason and one reason only -- the alcohol lobby spends millions keeping it that way.

addiction to doughnuts and french fries (probably) causes more deleterious health effects in more people than addiction to heroin. Addiction to tobacco certainly does, costing billions upon billions per year in health care and early death. The problem is addiction, the particular substance is just the medium.

I work with troubled youth on a daily basis. I see far greater problems with youth that drink than with youth that only smoke marijuana. In addition, I have never seen anyone OD on pot but I have seen more than my fair share of alcohol poisoning. People have actually died from alcohol. I don't think youth should use either but let's have an honest discussion here. Pot was made illegal because timber companies were concerned that they would loose too much money in the paper industry because hemp was much cheaper to grow. In today's green economy, we may want to reconsider this.

Borsia-II

Pot on the other hand is dangerous primarily to snack foods.

Here's a little something for you to think about. On it's own Pot might be more dangerous to snack foods, but Pot+Car=Death.

Man admits causing fatal crash while under influence of marijuana

A 24-year-old man admitted Monday that he was under the influence of marijuana when he caused a crash that resulted in the death of a child.

Matthew Murray Kewitt appeared before District Judge G. Todd Baugh and pleaded guilty to vehicular homicide and negligent vehicular assault for the March 7, 2008, wreck near the intersection of Central Avenue and Florine Lane.

http://billingsgazette.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/article_017205c0-9650-11de-9f0d-001cc4c002e0.html

Marika, some people do find marijuana to be addictive. There are 12-Step Marijuana Anonymous groups that support people who are trying to stop using marijuana.

I'd never heard of this support group before, but I discovered that there were several different groups that meet within 30 minutes of my home (so apparently there are quite a few people who struggle with their personal overdependence on marijuana).

This article sums up the argument for legalizing marijuana - it's far less harmful than alcohol or cigarettes which are legal. Prohibition of pot has failed, it just makes life more difficult for the people who get caught. It's in every town, consumed regularly by a large percentage of people who function just fine in their lives. Making people go to jail and get criminal records over this is asinine.

Well said. For those of you who still think marijuana should be a criminal offense, why then should alcohol not be a criminal offense? Too much of anything in excess is not good, including marijuana. As for the argument that it's the drug of choice for youngsters, maybe that's because it's easier to access than alcohol; if they had access to moonshine, rather than being forced to go into a store and present an I.D., they probably would abuse that as well - and that is a killer. Young people abusing marijuana is not a justification for keeping it outlawed - they abuse alcohol as well.

Sure, they could probably do a study that reveals left-handed dog owners are more likely to get struck by ligthning on a Thursday than ambidextrous cat owners, too.

Cal_Chi, there is a difference between addiction and dependency. With an addiction, there is both a psychological and a physical need for the drug. When you stop taking it, you both feel the need to take it and also have physical illness, like DT from alcohol. With a dependency, you have only the psychological or physical need for the drug, not both.

MJ can cause a strong dependency, but because there is no physical effect from withdrawing the drug, it is technically not an addiction.

Alcohol, being legal and thus socially accepted by society is consequently more widely used across society and thus can be statistically shown to cause more harm than other harmful but illegal substances... OK...stating the obvious.

Do we need to legalize other harmful substances to prove these statistics can change according to what is legalized, or will we more wisely learn that maybe legalizing other harmful, mind altering substances is not in the best interest of society?

Sundiver

Read the article again, he was not high at the time of the accident. He was tired from staying up late. The reason is irrelevant except to the lawyers who are advising on what to say in court and it sounds like they are giving him bad advise or maybe he just feels really quilty, who wouldn't? Point is, he smoked the night before, went to sleep for a couple of hours, got up and was headed to work. He was tired, not stoned.

Lack of sleep is a common element in accidents. As is lack of visibility, he said he did not scrape the frost off his windshield. The article also said he swerved across the center line when he hit the other car, but it didn't say why. Using his cell phone? Trying to clear his window? Drinking coffee? Who knows. He was tired and made several bad calls that led to the trajic death of a fetus. My condolences to everyone involved.

The study seems a little weak because its based on what HAS happened and not on what COULD happen. Meaning, the fact that Alcohol is legal and the others are not strongly influences the results. the same arguement could be made that driving is more dangerous than heroin because there are so many car accidents every year. AND to the person saying this "proof" is reasonable or logical, the swaying factor in alchol being so dangerous is the affect that alcohol has on an individuals surrounding i.e. family and friends. That's highly subjective and based on the emotions of those affected. While heavier drugs affect families emotionally and many times financially as well. This study seems a little empty to me. I would say that they're all equally bad at their highest level of use. some drugs just have a high threshold than others. but obviously, if its legal, its use and abuse will increase, #duh

Do people really enjoy being hooked on pot

you can't be "hooked" on pot, it's non-addictive. Do people really enjoy being "hooked" on cigarettes and booze, both of which ARE addictive (and more dangerous to your health)?

Stoners never accomplish anything other than getting stoned more often. It is a waste of life.

I would bet you any amount of money that there are far more productive daily pot smokers out there than bar-stool riding booze hounds. And for the record, I no longer smoke but did when I was younger, and I have a PhD in Chemical Engineering from Berkeley. So I guess that shoots your theory out of the water...

ricky, I will have let my successful friends know that...the ones that work in corporations, and other professional fields. The ones with good family and friends too. I should also let them know if you have a drink you are an alcoholic, a smoke you will die of cancer, eat you will be obese...get the picture, it is called diversity...else we would all be like you (yick !)

Get some experience in life...the comment makes you look like a waste of life.

Lol, they Forgot the Most Controlled Addictive Substances On the Planet in this STUDY.

PHARMEDCUDICALS. This worldwide Company makes upwards of 30 billion a month.

While Being the Formost in Combat Against Overpopulation.

P.S. Cigarettes Kill about 400,000 people a year.

Canabis has NO KNOWN Deaths in its 5,000 years of USE.

Pot remains illegal for one reason and one reason only -- the alcohol lobby spends millions keeping it that way.

ding ding ding, we have a winner!

In addition, being that it's so easy to grow (it is a weed afterall), it would be very difficult for pharmaceutical companies and/or the government to grow it and control it. This is why Rhodes makes millions off of Marinol yet people can't grow the weed from which Marinol is synthesized in their back yard...

I'm sure for england everything is more harmful and that's why they put padded guards around lamp posts. Just like anything else it's the individual not the product that's at fault and the proof is pelozi, if it's alcohol she would have to float around in a vat to be as lame and dangerous as she's become. They hit cigarettes now alcohol and caffeine, what's next masturbation?

Weak people will always be harmed by something but should the strong and responsible have to pay penalties for them.

@drowninggrover

...yea from Berkeley tho :-\

lol j/p j/p

but i would say pot is not highly addictive, but i would argue there is a moderate level addiction there. probably more psychological than chemical tho.

You placed "intelligent" in quotation marks, as though to imply that it was anything but, yet you're simply showing that you don't consider it intelligent because it doesn't conform to your ideas of common sense (now there's a term that should be offset in quotes, as it's anything but common). Common sense and intelligence are two completely different propositions, but I'd expect that an "intelligent" person would know that, just as I'd expect that someone who professes to be intelligent might refrain from reflexively mocking the unfamiliar simply because it is such.

@drowninggrover

...yea from Berkeley tho :-\

/wave

@drowninggrover what does that mean?

@drowninggrover what does that mean?

just waving hi from the Bay Area. I figured you were a Stanford grad or something to be making fun of Berkeley (joking of course).

@drowninggrover oh, lol. no neither. went to a small school on the east cost, Hampton. in southeast, VA. I just enjoy any opportunity to make fun of other peoples school. its kinda my thing. plus i'm electrical engineering so that even more of a reason to send you up lol.

So go ahead and snort that crack with a meth chaser!!! Just stay away from that deadly Cabernet Sauvignon!! I think the British Parliament missed a big one during their recent austerity cuts!

SUNDOWNER / there was a study over in Europe comparing people high on pot to people drunk on booze and there relationship to driving. The pot smokers would actually drive slower and were much more alert and able to drive than the drunks. The drunks constantly exceeded the speed limit, were much more reckless, and MUCH more dangerous on the road than people stoned. Your premise is TOTALLY flawed, and lacks any credibility. Pot use does not equate to "reckless driving", nothing could be further from the truth.

Wow, to the people who say pot is addictive and worse than alcohol. Have you ever lived with an alcoholic?

I'm not one who normally smokes pot, but have nothing against it and partake in taking a hit (one hit) a few times a year (4-5 times). I know people who smoke much more often and are very successful people who contribute to society. These same people are more kind, non judgemental, understanding and just plain old more fun to be around than the uptight people sitting in their living rooms judging the rest of the world trying to tell the others how they should live.

In my opinion, when I do partake those few times, I have been very creative in designing things around the house, painting, drawing, whatever. I have yet to see a creative alcoholic, have you?

Until one lives both worlds, don't judge.

@Mark ...Jackson Pollock

ps i don't have a side in this arguement. just playing Karl Rove's advocate

It seems like a lot of people seem to be, perhaps purposefully and perhaps through ignorance, confusing physical addiction and psychological dependence. These are two very, very different things. Physical addiction causes a slowly increasing physical craving for a substance and requires more and more of the substance to achieve the same results. Physical addiction ALWAYS causes withdrawal symptoms (which can go up to and include death) when the drug is discontinued. Psychological dependence is an entirely psychological issue and does not require, not is it related to, physical addiction.

Addiction is always tolerated to some degree in society --- usually because of money. Cigarettes and caffeine and alcohol are all physically addicting and are widely tolerated as a "personal freedom" even though all have mild to serious withdrawal symptoms for their addicts. Other things like SSRI's (anti-depressants) are extremely addicting and are tolerated because drug companies and the for-profit medical establishment say their good outweighs the bad. This currently has a serious SSRI addiction problem as a result that is yet to be acknowledged.

Other things like marijuana are only slightly, if at all, physically addictive, but for some people can be psychologically addictive. People who are psychologically prone to dependence generally have diagnosable personality issues than can be helped, but seldom cured. There are simply too many ways of being dependent in our society. Most people prone to psychological dependence are also addicted to multiple substances including alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, sugar, chocolate, and a myriad of other things. Singling out Marijuana is almost never supported in the medical literature because of this.

And as an interesting sidenote, about 15% of people seem to be immune to addiction. These people are generally also not helped by most pain killers and SSRI's. They seem to have a pseudo-allergy to most addictive substances and find them mostly boring and itchy --- apparently for these people opiates and other psychotropic chemicals do not properly bind to the correct receptors.

I really have no opinion about the legalization of marijuana. The Dutch and other countries seem to have done well with decriminalization. But a characteristic element of the Dutch is their very severe penalties for DUI and other offenses committed while drunk. Harsh punishment is drinking-related offenses seems to be fairly effective there.

Unfortunately, the title "sucked" me in & naturally it wasn't what the headline purported to be. Of course booze is going to affect more of society since it's legal. No rocket science there. However it is interesting that no one as far as I know has overdosed on M.J. and its' deleterious affects on the body are no where as devastating as alcohol.

Personally, I'd like to see M.J. legalized for many reasons. I know BOTH the medical side ( nurse) & the "social" side-hubby has been sober for 27 yrs.-of booze. Luckily he quit before it did the huge damage to his body it CAN do & it's a LOT more than the usual sclerosis of the liver.

Marijuana MIGHT help some of my medical probs. & frankly I'd like to try it now to see if it does. Ironic since I have Essential Tremor in my L. hand & I've had 2 doctors tell me that drinking ( a fair amt.) actually reduces the tremors. (No, both didn't advise getting/staying drunk-lol)

What I'm trying to say is that substances do have medicinal proprieties & chilling-out with a doobie just might be one of them. Is it any worse then say, Ambien? Valium? Society is more up-tight-outta-sight today than it EVER was way back in the 60s-70s. But beyond M.J., the effects of other illegal drugs can be catastrophic.

Another bogus story by bogus "scientists". What most of you missed is the fact that alcohol causes so much damage because it is so widely available. So how do you make the conclusion that marijuana and other drugs should be legalized? We will just compound the problem we have with alcohol if we legalize pot and other drugs.

And no the "420" in my user name has nothing to do with pot, it is my birthday.

Ricky Bobby...your statement is so false...I know very productive prominent people who indulge in MJ...including law enforcement officers, lawyers, doctors, accountants, business owers, home owners, some of the greatest parents around, ....etc! Obviously you have NO CLUE!

You're right, Overgrow. Let's all remember that pot could never influence anyone in a negative way and anything negative that is said or found in a scientific study is just more lies from "da man"! It's a proven fact well known by all pot heads that people drive better while stoned and there is no way smoking pot could ever give you cancer because pot comes from...wait for it...Nature? Duh...

And yes I'm being sarcastic as hell.

I look forward to the legalization of pot. Here are just a few:

1. I will always have a a job, and get promoted. I have some stoner friends, and oh boy can you ever tell that they are stoners(zero lasting effect, please).

2. The drug war will end. Stop kidding yourselves folks. You would just be adding one more cartel into the mix (U.S. Government).

3. We will have the same argument over stronger drugs years down the road, and I get to laugh at all the pot heads, stoners, tweakers, etc. with their flimsy arguments of leagalization. Thus further strengthening my point #1.

There is nothing good that can come from legalizing any additional drug...NOTHING! Is alcohol good for society? Maybe yes, maybe no. I have friends that have been killed by drunk drivers. Does that mean let our guard down further, and accept more inhibiters as part of our culture? Which would only further degrade something that has been in decline for that last couple decades, our society. People in this post say more and more have been using drugs. I would say that is an obvious indicator that drug usage has played a part in dragging down our society.

"Everyone is doing it", that is a personal qualifier for people to believe that what they are doing is accepted. Poor deluded drug users... good luck to you, and sorry, but my company isn't going to hire you. Go flip burgers somewhere.

It's safe to say that some drugs are safe. I would not put alcohol in that category.

"Drugs" are pharmaceuticals, needed by the medical community because they have medicinal values. Drugs are closely monitored, tested and approved by a competent authority. Cigarettes and alcohol are not pharmaceuticals and cannot be classed as such. Neither can marijuana. It has been found to have (allegedly, and there is some scientific proof) to have some pain relieving effects in cancer patients and some others. Therefore, marijuana should be classed as a pharmaceutical, a "drug" and as such should NOT be legalized for recreational use. A substance cannot be classed in each category - pharmaceutical AND recreational. To do so would be flat plain stupid. To call for such a classification is flat plain stupid. Such a dual classification is not be based on good sound science but on toke-em up Joe Science as an excuse to try to prevent you from getting a police record if you get caught. Remember, the squeaky wheel usually gets the oil, but the squeaky wheel is usually the lowest quality wheel.

True pot is perhaps the safest drug out there. And true, many other illegal drugs are far less destructive than tobacco or alcohol. But don't think it'll lead to legalization or rational thought. The truth has been out there for quite some time not just about drugs but just about everything (you just have to use rational thought, a little intelligence and look to resources besides the pathetically bad major media outlets). However the truth being known has not stopped the vast majority from believing the most cock-eyed nonsense, nor will it ever.

The vast majority are ruled by irrational fears and hysteria, without them people are terrified of having to take honest looks at their own bad behaviors, massive stupidity and hence, largely wasted lives. Who wants to admit they've based their whole lives on greed and envy? And those are the well off, "successful" ones. Who wants to admit they've jailed people they know, perhaps even family members strictly as a vague scapegoat but really to make the Prisons for Profit system flourish? Who wants to admit they went and fought or sent their children to be wounded and killed and to be haunted by the killing they've done in a war based on fool's lies but is clearly for the greed of the powerful, yet still have the amazing ability to BS themselves into thinking it's been for "freedom" or, more idiotically, "god's will"? (You ever notice how all sides always think they're fighting for god's will? Guess who's wrong? All of them!) If people get really honest that would require effort and intelligence (people are fatter, stupider and lazier than anytime in history, perhaps organically so) but most frightening they would have to eventually stop their own BS to themselves and admit their own awful shortcomings and not so kind or pleasant natures. No, people will always be prosecuted and persecuted to benefit the wealthy who delight in exploiting the dim masses as well as for the average person who needs scapegoats so they can maintain a cartoon image of good and bad people and lie about what good people they are.

I need a drink.

I believe that dependency in any form is harmful. I like to have a glass of wine no and again, but when I was young, I did tend to over indulge in drinking and smoking. From my own experiences, what I noticed is that the smokers smoked to get as high as possible, any time they could. Some drinkers always drank to get wasted, but many others would only have one or two just to relax. I think the real issue becomes how these substances are used, or abused I should say. I have seen MJ mess up peoples lives as much as drinking. I don't find either substance to be particularly addictive, but I recognize that bot can create dependency issues.

Someone mentioned that drugs in general are a social issue and not a criminal issue. I cannot agree with that, because all mind altering chemicals will cause people to act "unreasonably". People will steal to buy more alcohol or pot. People will drink or smoke ad drive, endangering others, and despite the stoner mentality, no you're not a better driver when you're stoned.

With respect to legalizing MJand other drugs, I think you have to be careful. It can be a slippery slope. As with alcohol, the problem is not with those that use these chemicals responsibly, its those that are irresponsible. I think many people realize that a little chemical escapism is probably OK. A couple of drinks or a smoke on a Saturday night will probably not harm you or society. The acceptance of using these drugs tends to, in some ways justify its misuse at any time. whether its a couple martinis before flying that airliner or a couple tokes before surgery. Legalizing MJ will be very costly in terms of developing a model to monitor its use and minimize its misuse.

[knock my head] I should have had a V8.

Sometimes the brilliance of our scientific community just amazes me.

I could have told you that alcohol is one of the worst drugs on the planet but no one wants to hear it.

They would rather lock up pot smokers instead of looking in the mirror.

Poor deluded drug users... good luck to you, and sorry, but my company isn't going to hire you. Go flip burgers somewhere.

Darn it!! I really had my heart set on working for an ignorant, self-satisfied d0uchebag. Oh well, I guess I'll just have to keep my well-paying management position in software for now . . . or go flip burgers somewhere.

Judy Ostrom: Correct, Most people would be surprised at who smoked Pot, not just now but in the past. Until it was demonized by William Hurst (who had stock in cotton and lumber, a competitor of Hemp) it was widely excepted and used. Marijuana is one of the few drugs you can use without withdraws or major effects, thus it's use by prominent people.

On the other hand alcohol has been the leading cause of many problems, family violence, auto accidents/deaths, health issues, crime etc..and is the leading "gateway drug". I've seen good people turned into monsters with its use and know first hand what it can do! If you take alcohol and tobacco, combined, they prove to be the most addictive and the hardest things to quit (studies by the Government and private sector).

Gary 420: You're one of those people who would doubt sticking your finger in a wall socket will shock you! You need to get back to playing with that ball of yarn of yours.

Thought: How many parties have you been to where Alcohol is used and seen fights brake out or something like that? If you ever been to a party where Pot is used how many problems did you see, other than the consumption of food items?

To those claiming pot is not addictive, unfortunately that viewpoint is not entirely true. It actually meets all of the criteria for an addictive substance. It produces self-administration, leads to neuronal tolerance, causes a release of dopamine in the main reward pathways of the brain, and (contrary to popular belief) it has been demonstrated to produce withdrawal symptoms upon cessation of use. The withdrawal symptoms are mild compared with other drugs, but they are still there. And, yes, it is true that the addiction liability is less than that of something like cocaine, but pot still meets the definition of an addictive substance.

My proposition since I knew this would cause people to come out of the woodwork to then say legalize pot *rolling my eyes*

My proposition:

LEGALIZE EVERYTHING. ALL DRUGS, ALL ALCOHOL!! LEGALIZE IT ALL

Oh and let us toss out the "legal" age limit too. Why bother. Young kids drink, young kids do drugs LET THEM

People want to ruin their lives, I don't care anymore.
People OD, I don't care anymore.
People become addicts, I don't care anymore.
People die due to consumption, I don't care anymore.

People won't stop consuming, sniffing, snorting, shooting, bonging, chugging, mixing, no matter what. So screw it let them. But guess what I am NOT paying for your medical fees or rehab nothing. You take care of yourself. You wanted to get into the junk YOU learn how to take care and PAY for yourself. Let them suffer with their vices. Let violence go through the roof I mean that is one excuse people claim about the war on drugs, violence is not going down. So screw it legalize it all and let complete anarchy win.

I will simply petition the Government that my taxes do NOT take care of these people. Of course I will lose, but ya know, at last it will be such a heartwarming thing to know that me not indulging in any of this garbage is helping to pay for the pathetic ones that are.

If you have to take drugs and consume that much alcohol because of life well you are too weak to deal with life then.

I smoked for 20 years, through college, and now I have a job designing Steel Mill Furnaces, quit for a couple of years with no problems, and I partake in smoking a couple times a year. People are so hypocritical about Marijuana. Everybody has their drug/food of choice to fill their void times, and if you want to burn a doobie you should be allowed. I'm sorry, but I hate alcohol, and would rather see anybody smoke weed then drink. I could care less if people do, but I lost 3 uncles, 2 grandparents to liver failure, and a cousin last year who drank to much fell asleep on her back, puked in her mouth and suffocated. I have never, ever heard of anything like that happening from marijuana. I know probably 2 to 300 people who are very educated and smoke pot regularly. People are going to smoke whether it is illegal or not, so you might as well make some taxes off of it and free up prison space.

I guess I'll just have to keep my well-paying management position in software for now

No wonder the computer programs don't work, the management is too busy toking up to follow through on the programmers...

British "scientists"? Pour me another cabernet, sweetheart.

KJR--

Being logical, as in your post, is not the American way. I mean at one point all the hard drugs were legal until it was shown they were dangerous. Now they are illegal because people abused them.

Alcohol used to be illegal, now it is legal and it is still dangerous, and violent either way. Bloody murder would happen if it was made illegal again.

Tobacco at one point used to be thought of as healthy, now it is deadly, and being able to use it wherever is decreasing drastically.

People go off their nut to say pot is harmless, it does nothing. I have had people here call me nuts for saying what it does to people. Denial and well addicts go into denial about their drug of choice. The pot potency is increasing growers admit it. People will use the Dutch excuse well as of 2009 the Dutch have actually shut down public use of the coffee bars and turned them into members only use as they were fed up with drug tourists and the growing violence and congestion for people just to come and smoke pot there.

Anyone that says pot is harmless and does nothing to you are flat out liars and are probably addicts. As you could turn around and ask, well if it does nothing why bother smoking it. Of course they will mention reefer maddness that dumbass movie that first came out in 1938 a time when tobacco was considered completely safe as well. The movie was turned into a joke anyway. I mean hey lets make a movie called Heroin Madness or Cocaine Madness or Meth Madness while we are at it.

Pot isn't addictive? HAHAHAHAH, I love how one person on this board assigns themselves the leader of the pot pack, and from their blurb, with opinions laced throughout, it becomes fact based.

Not addictive? Maybe not PHYSICALLY addictive, mental and emotional addiction certainly exists with Marijuana. Don't allow a daily pot smoker to smoke a joint for a week, if there's no addiction, how come they are so pissy and irritable?

This isn't a new study anyways. Alcohol and Heroin utilize similar chemicals in your brain, making the two nearly identical with dependency factors. I do believe Alcohol is worse than Pot except when considering driving, both are bad. I would say Heroin will kill you quicker on average, Alcohol will rake you through the coals a lot longer usually.

Quit drinking coffee for a week and see how pissy you get, along with headaches.

No wonder the computer programs don't work, the management is too busy toking up to follow through on the programmers...

Okay, I have to admit that was pretty funny, Chief. For the record, though, I never smoke at work . . . and I don't work for Microsoft either, so don't blame me ;)

Stoners never accomplish anything other than getting stoned more often. It is a waste of life.

Assuming that ALL pot smokers are stoners is like assuming ALL people who drink are drunks, including someone who only has a glass of wine on major holidays and their birthday. The vast majority of pot smokers indulge only on weekends or special occasions. They are no different than so called normal drinkers. The effects of any chemical are dose-dependent, after all.

You can abuse any drug, but alcohol happens to be one of the most dangerous. It causes most of the violence in society, half the car crashes, probably at least half of all divorces, sexual assaults, and many other social pathologies.

Randy

When I was not making good money, I did not have the money to buy pot so I did not.

POT IS NOT ADDICTIVE.

I've been smoking it now for about 35 years. I don't drink alcohol.

I don't smoke before or during work.

By the way, I'm one of those educated pot smokers (3 degrees including a masters which the school paid for as I was on full scholarship).

I write better when I am high.

I can not explain the thrill of smoking pot with an attorney IN HIS OFFICE! Only in CA. Only in CA!

and i'll bet if you made heroine legal, it would surpass alchohol in a yr to 2 yrs time. in an overall basis herione is more addictive, causes more damage to the body, and so on. BUT being the basis for the study was NUMBER of people, not the % of those who use, the study is with no merit. if you count yes, in numbers, heroine is less used over alch., and marijuana, guessing combined, simply because it is legal. There is no drug screen to test for alch, preventing you from getting job, losing a job, unless driving related, or in the heathcare industry. So people will substitute. NOW if like i said heroin was legalised, this article would be a complete turnaround within 2 yrs tops.

Kshark says: "Anyone that says pot is harmless and does nothing to you are flat out liars and are probably addicts."

Abuse of anything is dangerous. Look around you, I'd be more worried about obesity than people smoking pot.

The arguement is not that pot is harmless, it is that it is less harmless than alcohol, which is legal. And no, I'm not an addict, nor is anyone I know who smokes pot. I actually don't prefer to smoke pot, and only partake a few times a year, and even then, very little. I also might go out once a week and have a drink or two with friends.

I'd say in my 48 years of life, I have seen cigerettes and alcohol ruin many lives, cause the death of many, but not one pot smoker I've known has had any negative effect in any way.

So tell me, why should we all be scared of pot?

It sounds as though the Brits should just legalize smack and use it to sober up the drunks.

A substance cannot be classed in each category - pharmaceutical AND recreational.

Why not? Coffee can be first aid for an asthma attack. Believe it or not, until quite recently alcohol was sometimes given to pregnant women (in a hospital setting) as it can be effective in stopping a threatened premature birth. As recently as the 1970s, doctors actually told pregnant women to have ONE drink to treat shortness of breath or to help them sleep. (Those doctors may have been wrong, but then they have been wrong about many pharmaceuticals as well--overprescribing is a real problem.) Opium has been used for centuries both medicinally and recreationally. We do ban the recreational use of opium simply because it is addictive, but there is NO logical reason the same substance cannot serve both functions. The only REAL reason we separate the two categories is to increase the profits of Big Pharma and the medical profession. It has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting the public.

I'm one of those educated pot smokers (3 degrees including a masters

A formal education. BS, MS, PhD. In most (not all, there are a few exceptions) cases it stands for Bull Sh--, More Sh--, Piled High and Deep. Obviously college degrees still haven't helped you come to the realization that breaking the law (whether you agree with it or not) is still breaking the law and subject to the process of the criminal justice system. It's not the law you broke, it the fact that you broke the law. I've worked hard all my life to keep a clean police record, and darn proud of it. More than I can say for a lot of "educated" people...

What most of you missed is the fact that alcohol causes so much damage because it is so widely available.

Water is widely available, as is air. Do they do any damage? The lethality of alcohol has nothing whatsoever to do with availability. What drinkers can't acknowledge is that alcohol is TOXIC. In any but the smallest doses (7 drinks a week for a woman, 14 for a man, and no, you cannot safely save up your quota and take it all on Saturday night!), it damages the brain and the rest of the body. It is VERY addicting; the ONLY reason more people aren't "alcoholics" is that they are physically incapable of consuming the quantities necessary. Thank God for the ability to vomit! When people who are physically addicted stop, they suffer a very, very severe withdrawal syndrome that can kill them. They can hallucinate for days, run a very high fever, and have potentially fatal seizures. NONE of this is true of MOST other drugs, and it certainly isn't true of marijuana.

I love how everyone against legalization have absolutely no proof, research or facts to support their claim. All they have is an opinion . . . which is basically worthless.

If you want to make a valid argument, provide proof . . . actual scientific proof supported by studies. There are countless studies that support legalization, so argue facts with facts. This is not a difficult concept.

I've worked hard all my life to keep a clean police record, and darn proud of it. More than I can say for a lot of "educated" people...

There are higher values than obeying the law. Ever hear of the Freedom Riders?

Your so cool Chief. I just met a cop the other night that shoots steroids. Is that any better?

It's not the law you broke, it the fact that you broke the law. I've worked hard all my life to keep a clean police record, and darn proud of it. More than I can say for a lot of "educated" people...

If all laws are created equal, as your above comment implies, Chief, then can I assume that you have never exceeded the speed limit? Jay-walked? Spit on the sidewalk, or committed any other such heinous criminal act?

I knew a guy that would do only one drug (cocaine, crack, heroin, ghb, whatever...) for 6 months straight wake up one day and say "I am never going to touch that stuff again" and never take any of that type of drug ever again.

This is true, you can quit any drug cold turkey after you make the "big decision" to do so. You don't need AA or Narcotics Anonymous. People do it all the time. However, you are far more likely to DIE from alcohol withdrawal than from any other substance with the possible exception of barbituates. For people who have been drinking heavily for many years or who are serious binge drinkers, it's a very good idea to seek medical advice before stopping. Be totally honest. If your doctor thinks you should do it on an in-patient basis, take his advice as your life may be at stake. It should only take about five days. To prevent DTs and other life threatening consequences of withdrawal, they will probably give you Librium, large doses of vitamins, especially B1, and they will take your vital signs several times a day.

Just because alcohol is part of our culture does NOT mean it is anything to take lightly. People die of acute alcohol poisoning AND from alcohol withdrawal all the time.

Oom, freedom riders, yea, so? breaking laws to change laws. Not the right way to do things. Your argument will be that they got the law changed. So, remember, the squeaky wheel gets the oil. The squeaky wheel is also the lowest quality part of the machine.
Pitts Pens - SO? if he has a prescription for VALID pharmaceuticals, who cares. If he doesn't he is breaking the law. Turn him in, otherwise, you are an accessory to the crime.
To you guys its just a tiny crime so who cares? To honest, ethical, honorable law abiding citizens - it's a crime. Not as terrible as say cutting up your neighbor and using him a front yard fertilizer, but still a crime. The whole idea of obeying the law is to not break the law - law which is put into place to help maintain good order and discipline for the good of the whole community.

herione is more addictive, causes more damage to the body

Wrong. Heroin (I assume that's what you meant) does tend to addict more people and much more quickly, although I know plenty of recovering alcoholics who insist they were "hooked" with their first drink. Your second statement is just plain false. Heroin causes hardly any damage to the body, whereas alcohol is toxic to the brain, heart, kidneys, liver, and every other organ. That's not even considering the behavioral/social damage. Frankly, I'd rather be around even a heroin addict than a drunk.

A few things for those of you "pro marijuana" folks to consider:

Legalizing marijuana will not reduce the power of the drug cartels. The cartels' primary income in regards to smuggling drugs into the USA is made off of cocaine, not marijuana. So should we legalize cocaine too, using your logic? Think about it.

Your arguments for legalizing marijuana since alcohol is "more dangerous" are illogical as well. Why add another legal substance that IS addictive (say what you like, if it wasn't addictive there certainly wouldn't be 12-step programs to try and help you quit), is known to affect your mental processes and has been known to ruin peoples' lives? Sorry, but that is not rational by any definition of reason and logic.

Do I think people should be jailed because they got caught with a joint? Of course not. Make it a minor misdemeanor and have em pick up trash or other community service for a couple of weeks. Make em take a course on the negative effects of drug usage. Whatever. They don't need to go to jail for it.

However, having said that, I don't think that legalizing it is any kind of rational answer. It will not eliminate the problem, it will only increase the number of people who will buy it.

Huh, kind of like alcohol. And we all see how well that has turned out.

TELL US SOMETHING WE DONT KNOW!!! Alcohol is the source of all the problems HELLO!!! Alcohol is the # 1 leader to everything else Drugs & DEATH
Every where your turn in America there is Alcohol sold, here is how it start: you start drinking one beer and then more beer and then get drunk and then before you know it drugs gets involve and then you drink even more and then you end up in prison or 6 feet under or if you are lucky get sobered by attending AA meeting classes, congratulation you are one in 1000 who just made it but your life will never be the same.
How can America ignore this problem? let me guess!! everyone from liquor ownerS to court of law to lawyers to hospitals to GOV. ETC... benefit from Alcohol, WHEN YOU FIRST GET YOUR FIRST DUI YOU WILL RECEIVE SEVERAL LETTERS FROM LAWYERS TRYING TO ASSIST YOU BY MAKING MONEY OFF OF YOU, IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY in this country BRAVO, keep IT UP AMERICA.. WITH AMERICA YOU ARE IN GOOD HANDS.

To you guys its just a tiny crime so who cares? To honest, ethical, honorable law abiding citizens - it's a crime.

So, if I happen to disagree with the validity of a particular law, then I'm dishonest, unethical and have no honor?? I'm sorry, Chief, but blind allegiance to the status quo does not necessarily make you a good citizen, nor does it make you any better than those on whom you've seen fit to pass judgement in this forum. If we were to apply your strict criteria to history, then segregation would still exist today.

Idaho Dragon...

Well said. Thanks for a voice of reason.

There have been over 30,000 studies done on marijuana world wide. Very few of them have ever been done in the United States because in order to make these studies one has to have the permission of the DEA, which they steadfastly refuse to give. One such study was done however.

The Shafer Commission’s Report was the most in depth political look the United States has ever done, and was commissioned by President Richard Nixon in 1970.

In 1972 the Shafer Commission returned with their official findings, findings that flew in the face of everything the prohibitionists and Goverment had been saying for sixty years. It was thrown in the trash by Richard Nixon because it didn't say what he wanted it to say.

The cartels' primary income in regards to smuggling drugs into the USA is made off of cocaine, not marijuana.

Respectfully, ID Dragon, may I inquire as to your credible, objective source for this assertion?

I have done a few things which I eventually stopped doing.When I was 15,the drinking age was 18.My mom used to buy us beer on occassion and make my friend and I drink it in the garage and simply tell us not to go too far away.I ended up just going out on the weekend and having a few drinks until about my mid-20's.Then I just drank less and less to the point where it was negligeble.These people can decide how much they drink.Alcohol is definitely a drug,classified as a depressant.If these people would stop drinking,not wasting all their money on alcohol,perhaps they would perk up to see what they can really accomplish while not being depressed 24/7.

chiefCRD

Oh well. Guess what? I'm going to be a certified cannibas expert FOR COURT.

And I guess you missed my post where I was toking with an attorney in his office.

If you have a medical authorization in CA, IT IS LEGAL!

I don't think that legalizing it is any kind of rational answer. It will not eliminate the problem, it will only increase the number of people who will buy it.

Your comment is RIDICULOUS. Do you remember when black people could LEGALLY marry white people? Did a whole bunch of them all of a sudden go do that? NO.

When women could finally serve in the Marines with men - DID ALL WOMEN start signing up?

The fact of the matter is - I smoke pot. I have since I've been 15. I never killed anyone and my driving record is PERFECT (and I smoke and then drive).

I think my recreational use should be legal.

We should question WHY IT IS ILLEGAL, not the other way around.

Someone already answered. WILLIAM RANDOLPH HURST.

Pot WAS LEGAL until prohibition. Hurst made certain it remained illegal.

Alcohol was prohibited,then after Feds saw what people were doing with it even being illegal,they finally realized,it is 'harmless' and people are doing it anyways,we may as well cash in on it too.Alcohol is way more dangerous than marijuana ever will be.DUI,liver,innocent people killed daily.Lawyers,judges,police,all benefit from it because it means more people necessary to back up these laws,at everyone's expense.Marijuana is not legal because there is no definite test to determine how high someone is,that is the only reason.If it isn't the reason,I would like to know why "medical use of marijuana" is acceptable in 13 states,but noone else can use it legally.

The cartels' primary income in regards to smuggling drugs into the USA is made off of cocaine, not marijuana.

Respectfully, ID Dragon, may I inquire as to your credible, objective source for this assertion?

It is common knowledge that cocaine costs WAY MORE than pot. When I was in my 20s, it was about $100/gram. A gram of weed (you didn't buy grams back then) would be $1.43.

That was 30 years ago.

Thank you for making my point for me Karen.

First off, simply saying that it won't increase the number of people who use it doesn't make it so. There WILL be an increase in the number of people using it, simply because now they don't have to worry about breaking the law. It's human nature. Don't believe me? Ask any psychologist.

And considering the fact that you've smoked pot since you were fifteen, you really aren't an unbiased individual in regards to it. Do you deny that people can become addicted to it? Do you deny that people have killed others while under the influence of it? If you aren't willing to be intellectually honest about the subject, you shouldn't tell other people they're ridiculous.

My comments are based on facts. Yours are based on emotion. I'll take my facts over your emotion any day.

During the 60's and early 70's,when police used to pull over people who were inebriated,the police would laugh at them...SERIOUSLY.Then,when more and more innocent people were being killed as a result,they did something about it.Why not just make it illegal so 50% of America can be in jail,the other 50% will guard them.We will fix the jobs,economy,construction,etc.

Marijuana is not legal because there is no definite test to determine how high someone is,that is the only reason.If it isn't the reason,I would like to know why "medical use of marijuana" is acceptable in 13 states,but noone else can use it legally.

Someone came up with a test the other day - a video based test to measure motor reaction time.

Here in CA, it is quite simple to get a medical authorization. My friend told the doctor it is to help her PMS.

Mark941197 and Itssimple. Let's not forget Hernest Hemmingway, Jim Morrison, Eric Clapton, Jimi Hendrix, Kurt Cobain, Edgar Allen Poe, Janis Joplin, Toulouse Lautrec, Keith Urban, Stevie Ray Vaughn, too many other painters for me to remember, lots of the top creative people I worked with at a major global advertising agency which will go un-named, and my mother. She was a writer. On the other hand, pot can be a wonderful and insidious drug. However... it never really helped with my creativity. I thought I was having good ideas, but when I re-visited them later, I realized it was just the drug making me think it was a good idea. I've heard a lot of bands say the same thing after a recording session and listening to it later. They ended up re-cutting everything. Every time I have stopped smoking, within 5 days or so I start feeling very clear headed and the real creative ideas started flowing. That was a cycle I went thru for years. And I wasn't a heavy smoker. Who needs to be with the strength of all the hybrid pot on the market these days? I would take 1 hit at a time. Then maybe another one later, and so on. Never letting myself get too out of it. I remember having a panick attack on this beautiful beach in Mexico because I decided to smoke most of a joint by myself. My girlfriend was taking a walk and by the time she got back I could barely talk to her. Real nice way to spend a vacation... Anyway, it affects everyone differently, but I still think it fools most people into believing it's beneficial. Not to say it isn't in a medical sense, but I'd rather deal with the arthritis pain in my hip than be on a cannabis bender constantly. And I write better songs without it. I will still take a hit every now and then, but I refuse to keep it around, because I know I will just smoke it till it's gone. Hey... that sounds like a bit of an addiction doesn't it? More power to all of you that can, or think you're functioning fine in a constant THC haze. Just remember, it takes days for it to get out of your system.

"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There is also a negative side."

Hunter Thompson.

PDK,

There are several sources of information regarding the drug cartels in Mexico and Central/South America. Here are some of them:

Organized Crime: From Trafficking to Terrorism Vol. 2 by Frank Shanty

www1.american.edu/ted/ice/cocaine.htm an article in regard to the trafficking of cocaine into the US.

There are others that are easily located as well. Also, consider this, in addition to marijuana and cocaine, the Mexican drug cartels are also heavily involved in the trafficking of heroin and meth. That was my initial point. Regardless of whether marijuana is legalized, those other 3 will still be coming into this country. You will not stop the violence of the drug cartels by legalizing marijuana.

Some believe that, but they are obviously wrong.

Idaho Dragon

Just because YOU say more people will smoke it, I don't believe you.

PROVE IT. Why in the world should I ask a psychologist for the answer? Why don't you cite a study proving yours since YOU are the one trying to make a point.

At least I gave examples. YOU did not.

POT IS NOT ADDICTIVE. When I was in grad school for 1.5 years, I smoked a grand total of 4 or 5 times because I was living on my stipend and did not have extra money.

NO ONE KILLS ANYONE AFTER SMOKING POT. We are just too freaking mellow to expend all that energy. I actually laughed at your comment thinking about it.

However, add a pint or two of liquor to that weed and the alcohol rage would be sufficient to get someone to murder someone. It IS NEVER THE POT, IT IS THE ALCOHOL.

It is apparent IDAHO that you have NEVER SMOKED POT AT ALL.

That's OK. You don't have to just like I don't drink ALCOHOL. Alcohol related diseases kill people. I never heard of pot related diseases.

Hunter Thompson committed suicide. It was not the pot. It was the LSD and the chemical drugs he was on - IF IT WAS EVEN THE DRUGS in the first place.

TO EVERY POSTER WHO CLAIMS POT IS "ADDICTIVE":

It has already been stated that a physical and psychological dependency on a subsance is what constitues an "addiction". Marijuana may have a psychological dependency componenet but not a physical one THERFORE it does not fall under the definition of an addicitve substance. Also consider that anybody can be dependent on anything if they have the propesity of an addicitve personality. Marujuana is not agateway drug andymore than Tylenol is. If you bave that disposition that you can be "addicted" to anything and there are published studies to support that. If you're argument states that it must be addicitve becasue there is a recovery "12 Step" group associated with it take into consideration that there is aslo such a group for : shopping, gambling, hoarding, over-eating.

Human beings can pretty much bring out the 'con' in ANYTHING. It's part of our duality experience. Take this into consideration concerning marijuana usage. It was take for the local paper when a 70 year old cancer patient was evicted from his subsidised housing due his enrollment in the NM "Medical Marijuana License":

Congress voted for its illegality in 1937 because it would have injured the profits of William Randolph Hearst, the newspaper baron. Invented in 1935, the Decorticator, was the scientific breakthrough that would cheaply process hemp into paper. The devise was unveiled on the front cover of the June 1935 issue of Modern Invention as the "miracle machine" and hemp was forecast as "America's first billion dollar crop." In over 70 years since the criminalization of marijuana most people are entirely unaware that hemp was once an integral commodity that helped build this nation. Both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are penned upon hemp paper. The sails of ships, the ropes that hoisted them into place, and the canvas of the covered wagons were made of hemp. The first Levis were woven from this fiber, which was the major crop grown by Washington, Jefferson, and every other farmer who planted this basic staple of existence. However, William Randolph Hearst produced newspapers and was heavily invested in the sulfuric-pulp process that makes trees into paper. He owned forests, too. He supplied his own businesses with paper and sold paper to other companies across the country. This invention had him very worried so he personally began writing propaganda essays in his papers decrying marijuana as a public health menace that turns normal people into ax-wielding mass murderers. Andrew Mellon, much wealthier than Hearst and also an investor in the sulfuric-pulp paper industry, was the Secretary of the Treasury at the time. Mellon was also chairman of the Mellon Bank, which was the main source of finance for DuPont Chemical, which held the patent on the sulfuric acid wood-pulping process. And DuPont had just invented nylon and rayon and they never wanted to see another rope made from hemp ever again. Mellon was instrumental in creating a new government agency called the Bureau of Narcotics and he placed Harry Anslinger, married to Mellon's niece, as its first director. Anslinger testified before Congress, reading actual Hearst-written articles, about how this dangerous weed drives people insane and turns them into violent animals. Doctors and scientist's testimony contradicted Anslinger's when they provided proven studies that marijuana actually causes users to become quite serene and contemplative. Anslinger then reversed his angle of attack completely and said, "Marijuana causes its users to become so peaceful and pacifistic that in the future American boys will not want to fight in our wars." Congress voted and marijuana has been illegal ever since. The former governor of New Mexico, Gary Johnson, once said... "If you're smoking pot the only thing you're likely to attack is a bag of potato chips." In over 80% of violent crimes, alcohol abuse is a primary ingredient. And here's a bit more info regarding this pulp-sulfide paper making process.... the amount of fiber harvested from one acre of hemp, which takes only one season to grow, is equal to the amount harvested from five acres of trees that take 50 or more years to grow. The sulfide-pulp process is one of the leading contributors to our green-house atmosphere and acid rain problems, while the Decorticator hemp-process adds nothing at all. It is long past time that we legalize hemp, we legalize marijuana, and get over this ridiculous policy that has created half the population of our jails. More than half of the people jailed in America are there because of non-violent drug use and/or sales.

And of course there is the lobbying of the alcohol industry. It's all about corrupt politics just like anything else. America is really the Land of the Semi-Free.

@hunter thompson....You are not a Hunter S. Thompson. Be yourself.

The whole idea of obeying the law is to not break the law - law which is put into place to help maintain good order and discipline for the good of the whole community.

You would have made an excellent German during WWII.

Karen, your pot related experiences are not really pertinent to the discussion of pot being addictive. Just because you didn't get addicted does not mean pot is not addictive. There are more recent studies that point to pot being addictive.

Oh and blackbirdlove, pot does produce both aspects of addiction. Pot addicts will feel withdrawal symptoms upon cessation.

To honest, ethical, honorable law abiding citizens - it's a crime.

You ARE aware that the majority of your fellow citizens actually WORSHIP a convicted felon who was executed for his crimes, right?

Newsflash: the government is NOT always right.

awal

read 1.99. POT IS NOT ADDICTIVE.

My sister isn't addicted and neither are any of my friends.

I notice you have not produced one single study.

Check out the hundreds and thousands of studies on NORML.ORG

Hunter Thompson-2258309 - I agree, you have a problem. You say you couldn't keep any pot around the house, as you would smoke it all. You have an addictive personality, plain and simple. I could purchase a very small bag, have it around for a year before giving it away. I don't seem to have your addictive personality.

As far as being creative? Everyone is different, you seem to be an idiot if you get high, others might not be. It's kind of the same with drinking alcohol, think about it. Don't you know people who drink and turn into instant a$$holes? While others mellow out and laugh? Hmmm, why would that be? Maybe people react differently to different substances?

We all have different experiences with everything in life. Why knock something for everyone if you had a bad experience? I've had bad experiences tequilla and vodka, I know my limits, I don't need someone to tell me that I shouldn't drink them. Should I also talk bad about penicillin, as I break out in hives when I take it, it must be bad stuff.

We could get into food here too. I gain weight when I eat ice cream, my wife does not. Again, different reactions and experiences with different people. My brother almost drowned in the ocean when we were kids, I don't remember my parents trying to close down the beaches because they were too dangerous. The list can go on for many individuals in many catagories, not just drugs and alcohol.

consumed regularly by a large percentage of people who function just fine in their lives

that made me laugh.

a-wal - Anything can be addictive. Let me know when you want to outlaw food. There are actual studies that it can be addictive, and I'd bet food addiction has caused more people to die prematurely than anyone who smokes pot.

Karen,

Just because you aren't addicted, you sister is not addicted and supposedly none of your friends are, does not mean that pot CANNOT be addictive. Why do you think there are 12-step programs for people trying to quit smoking pot? If it wasn't addictive, there obviously wouldn't be any reason for those programs to exist now would there?

Not everyone becomes addicted to something, but just because it doesn't happen to you or someone you know, does not mean it does not happen at all. Look at smoking tobacco. There are plenty of people who were able to just quit with no problems at all. There are also people who CAN'T quit on their own without help. That is called an addiction. Pot is the same thing.

As for the rest of your comment, you really need to take the emotion out of your thinking and try to use basic logic instead.

You said no one has ever killed anyone while high on pot. Wrong. There are numerous instances of people being in automobile accidents while high and fatalities were involved. Please don't try and say it wasn't because the person was high on pot, because they freely admitted they were stoned at the time. And no, they hadn't been drinking at the time. Therefore, being high on pot is directly responsible for the deaths of some people.

I don't need to cite sources to back up basic logical facts either. It is a fact that marijuana impairs your thinking, whether you want to believe it or not. It is a fact that marijuana impairs motor skills, whether you want to believe it or not. It is a fact that marijuana can be addictive, just like any other drug.

Learn to take the emotion out of your argument or at least learn some simple manners. I didn't call you ridiculous or insult or ridicule you. If you can't be civil, then please do not respond to my posts.

blackbirdlove,

Sorry, but a psychological need for something is still an addiction to it. Oftentimes the psychological need is far harder to get over than the physical need. I don't know where you got your definition of addiction, but it's wrong.

Seriously, do you think gamblers suffer a physical symptoms if they quit gambling? No, it's ALL psychological and it's still called an addiction. It can be physical, psychological or both.

Idaho Dragon -- thank you for the response. I went to the link you provided, but it contained no data regarding the profit to the cartels from cocaine relative to pot. In fact, it contained zero information about Mexican drug cartels at all. It was also dated 1997.

That said, cocaine is obviously more expense than pot at the "unit level," if you will. However, it is also more costly to produce, and the source of the raw materiels from which it is refined are not located in Mexico (i.e. coca leaves from Colombia and/or Peru). Pot, on the other hand, is very cheap and easy to produce virtually anywhere, and has a greater overall demand.

I raise these points because you claimed a fact, but have no objective evidence to support it. I'm not saying that these cartels do not also traffic cocaine, etc., but it would appear that pot is a much more lucrative product given the above factors. Hence, legalization would theoretically deal a significant financial blow to the cartels, and help stem some of the border violence.

Well, for one good source for marijuana addiction, look for Filbey et al 2009 in the National Academy of Sciences Journal. It outlines the neurology of drug craving in people who are marijuana dependent. Drug craving is a highlight of drug addiction. Not definitive proof on its own, but I'll post more studies later that provide more and more evidence of the existence of marijuana addictions.

Here's another one.

Iyalhomne 2009. It is a literature review of the most recent studies on cannabis and addiction. The article discusses the addiction mechanism according to current studies and also discusses harmful effects of prolonged exposure to cannabis.

For the record, I am not really against smoking pot. I myself am an occasional pot smoker. I would, though, like to be objective in this discussion and try to prevent the scientific findings rather than just my feelings about it. Pot may be addictive, but that does not mean that it is any worse than alcohol or tobacco or many of the Rx drugs that people abuse.

I got this link from some lawyers:

Prop 19 PSA Parodies: Pro Propaganda Pokes Fun at Pot Stereotypes

http://laist.com/2010/10/27/prop_19_psa_parodies_poking_fun_at.php

Since I am taking Idaho Dragon to task a little about citing relevant, credible sources, I figured I should hold myself to the same standards. Thus, the following link is to an article published in September, which supports the assertion that legalization of pot could have an appeciable effect on the border violence associated with the Mexican drug cartels: http://tucsoncitizen.com/view-from-baja-arizona/2010/09/05/mexican-marijuana-fuels-drug-cartels/. Enjoy.

Idaho

PUH-LEEZ. Pot is not considered a drug at Narcotics Anonymous meetings.

You are wrong, plain and simple, and you just can not handle being wrong.

Awal is trying to help you and NOT ONE OF YOU CAN PROVE IT.

Give it up. It's not addictive.

And maybe you should try it. I make well over the median income in CA.

Ricky-

do you always make such broad generalizations that are completely exagerated and based on zero facts and zero personal experience?
---------------------------------------------------------

RickyBobbyRestored

Do people really enjoy being hooked on pot and being messed up all of the time? Is that their idea of the high life?

Stoners never accomplish anything other than getting stoned more often. It is a waste of life.

• 23 votes

#1.2 - Mon Nov 1, 2010 3:24 AM EDT

----------

I smoke pot literally 3-4 x a day every single day and have for the past 10 years of my life.

I am by far the highest paid person of all of my friends and almost everyone I know my age. I go to work and work 10 hour days every day by selling software to fortune 1000 companies.

How the hell do you figure being a "stoner" means you are going to accomplish nothing? You do realize that humans have been smoking pot for literally thousands and thousands of years right? You do realize some of the most respected people in human history smoked pot right?

I am pretty sure i read even our founding fathers smoked pot (jefferson, ben franklin and others) so it is clear your just an ignorant idiot basing what you say on what you were told by people who had a self interest in marijuanna being illegal.

Not only that, but before the paper and timber industries spread lies to make marijanna illegal... it was by far the worlds most abundant and lucritive natural resource in the world. You can make clothing, paper, oil, almost anything out of Hemp (which is less than 1% THC btw... so the fact it is illegall is absolutely proposterous)

get your facts straight before you spread pointless hate on something that doesn't harm anyone.

God made marijuanna, man made booze - WHO DO YOU TRUST?

PDK

A Harvard economist agrees with you. In fact, he wants ALL DRUGS (including cocaine, heroin and meth) to be legal.

The Harvard economist says that there will be less violence at the border if ALL drugs were made legal.

PDK,

Doh, thanks for letting me know that link was old. Figures I'd forget to check the date. Kind of important. I posted the link because the information I read in it relates to cocaine being a primary source of income for the cartels. And while that link may not have mentioned the Mexican drug cartels, those cartels DO smuggle cocaine into the States for the Columbian and Peruvian cartels. And cocaine is very cheap for the cartels to make.

As for the demand, while marijuana may have a greater numerical demand, it does not compare with cocaine in its profitability. Nor does it compare with heroin and meth. Where do you think the Columbian and Peruvian cartels got most of their money for the last 30 years?

It certainly wasn't off of marijuana. Grass is cheap to grow and process. I certainly wouldn't dispute that. But it is also cheap to buy. And it is also a large product in comparison to cocaine. While marijuana is very cheap, it takes large amounts to generate large dollar amounts of profit. Why smuggle in $500K worth of marijuana in an airplane when you can smuggle in $5 million worth of cocaine in a suitcase? Logistics certainly plays a role in regards to operations of this type.

I'm sorry, but legalization of marijuana would have only a very limited impact on the cartels. They would simply shift their operations even more to producing and distributing cocaine, heroin and meth. And since the violence is primarily due to a matter of which drug cartels and gangs control what area, the product that they are smuggling is immaterial.

As long as they have a product to smuggle and make money off of, there will continue to be violence.

Idaho Dragon,

I do not disagree that legalizing pot would not necessarily put an end to the violence of the Mexican drug cartels. But, I think to say that it would have a very limited impact on their resources and ability to "wage war," so to speak, ignores all credible evidence to the contrary. As noted in the article I posted earlier, however, it's all just conjecture at this point anyway, since the data is virtually impossible to validate. In short, I don't have "the facts" any more than you do. Interesting discussion nonetheless. Peace.

Oh, and one final thought on the whole "it's addictive - no it's not" debate: I always go back to a line I heard from a comedian -- Chris Rock I think -- who said, "No one ever sucked a d--k to support his weed habit!"

PDK,

I don't disagree with you that in the short term, legalizing marijuana might have an impact on lessening the violence, I do honestly believe that it would be a short term thing. The cartels and drug gangs would simply increase their production of other drugs. They are not going to simply give up their money and power because we legalized one of their products. They'd find another way.

That's what people like that do. Hell, that's what any business would do.

As for the violence, I am not ignoring credible evidence, so long as the "credible evidence" looks at all factors and doesn't focus on one thing. Consider this, the primary reason there is violence between the gangs and cartels is because it is a matter of control. Do you honestly think that legalizing marijuana would change that? The matter of control will be there as long as they have a product or products to smuggle and make money off of.

It is just like the gang related violence we see in this country. Turf wars, areas of control, whatever you want to call them. They are all related to one thing. Power and control. I'm sorry but I simply do not see the violence going down much, or for long, just because we legalize one drug.

Granted, it is just conjecture as none of us can see the future, but based on my experience with human nature, I simply cannot see that happening. I have enjoyed our discussion and thank you for being polite and a very rational person.

Peace.

PDK,

I always go back to a line I heard from a comedian -- Chris Rock I think -- who said, "No one ever sucked a d--k to support his weed habit!"

It's a funny line, but not really true. I never sucked a d--k to support my cigarette habit either...but that doesn't mean I'm not addicted to them.

Here are just some of the many studies the Feds wish they'd never commissioned:

01) MARIJUANA USE HAS NO EFFECT ON MORTALITY:

A massive study of California HMO members funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) found marijuana use caused no significant increase in mortality. Tobacco use was associated with increased risk of death. Sidney, S et al. Marijuana Use and Mortality. American Journal of Public Health
. Vol. 87 No. 4, April 1997. p. 585-590. Sept. 2002.

02) HEAVY MARIJUANA USE AS A YOUNG ADULT WON'T RUIN YOUR LIFE:

Veterans Affairs scientists looked at whether heavy marijuana use as a young adult caused long-term problems later, studying identical twins in which one twin had been a heavy marijuana user for a year or longer but had stopped at least one month before the study, while the second twin had used marijuana no more than five times ever. Marijuana use had no significant impact on physical or mental health care utilization, health-related quality of life, or current socio-demographic characteristics. Eisen SE et al. Does Marijuana Use Have Residual Adverse Effects on Self-Reported Health Measures, Socio-Demographics or Quality of Life? A Monozygotic Co-Twin Control Study in Men. Addiction. Vol. 97 No. 9. p.1083-1086. Sept. 1997

03) THE "GATEWAY EFFECT" MAY BE A MIRAGE:

Marijuana is often called a "gateway drug" by supporters of prohibition, who point to statistical "associations" indicating that persons who use marijuana are more likely to eventually try hard drugs than those who never use marijuana - implying that marijuana use somehow causes hard drug use. But a model developed by RAND Corp. researcher Andrew Morral demonstrates that these associations can be explained "without requiring a gateway effect." More likely, this federally funded study suggests, some people simply have an underlying propensity to try drugs, and start with what's most readily available. Morral AR, McCaffrey D and Paddock S. Reassessing the Marijuana Gateway Effect. Addiction. December 2002. p. 1493-1504.

04) PROHIBITION DOESN'T WORK (PART 1):

The White House had the National Research Council examine the data being gathered about drug use and the effects of U.S. drug policies. NRC concluded, "the nation possesses little information about the effectiveness of current drug policy, especially of drug law enforcement." And what data exist show "little apparent relationship between severity of sanctions prescribed for drug use and prevalence or frequency of use." In other words, there is no proof that prohibition - the cornerstone of U.S. drug policy for a century - reduces drug use. National Research Council. Informing America's Policy on Illegal Drugs: What We Don't Know Keeps Hurting Us. National Academy Press, 2001. p. 193.

05) PROHIBITION DOESN'T WORK (PART 2):

DOES PROHIBITION CAUSE THE "GATEWAY EFFECT"?): U.S. and Dutch researchers, supported in part by NIDA, compared marijuana users in San Francisco, where non-medical use remains illegal, to Amsterdam, where adults may possess and purchase small amounts of marijuana from regulated businesses. Looking at such parameters as frequency and quantity of use and age at onset of use, they found the following: Cannabis (Marijuana) use in San Francisco was 3 times the prevalence found in the Amsterdam sample. And lifetime use of hard drugs was significantly lower in Amsterdam, with its "tolerant" marijuana policies. For example, lifetime crack cocaine use was 4.5 times higher in San Francisco than Amsterdam. Reinarman, C, Cohen, PDA, and Kaal, HL. The Limited Relevance of Drug Policy: Cannabis in Amsterdam and San Francisco. American Journal of Public Health. Vol. 94, No. 5. May 2004. p 836-842.

06) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART 1):

Federal researchers implanted several types of cancer, including leukemia and lung cancers, in mice, then treated them with cannabinoids (unique, active components found in marijuana). THC and other cannabinoids shrank tumors and increased the mice's lifespans. Munson, AE et al. Antineoplastic Activity of Cannabinoids. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Sept. 1975. p. 597-602.

07) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER, (PART 2):

In a 1994 study the government tried to suppress, federal researchers gave mice and rats massive doses of THC, looking for cancers or other signs of toxicity. The rodents given THC lived longer and had fewer cancers, "in a dose-dependent manner" (i.e. the more THC they got, the fewer tumors). NTP Technical Report On The Toxicology And Carcinogenesis Studies Of 1-Trans- Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol, CAS No. 1972-08-3, In F344/N Rats And B6C3F Mice, Gavage Studies. See also, "Medical Marijuana: Unpublished Federal Study Found THC-Treated Rats Lived Longer, Had Less Cancer," AIDS Treatment News no. 263, Jan. 17, 1997.

08) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART 3):

Researchers at the Kaiser-Permanente HMO, funded by NIDA, followed 65,000 patients for nearly a decade, comparing cancer rates among non-smokers, tobacco smokers, and marijuana smokers. Tobacco smokers had massively higher rates of lung cancer and other cancers. Marijuana smokers who didn't also use tobacco had no increase in risk of tobacco-related cancers or of cancer risk overall. In fact their rates of lung and most other cancers were slightly lower than non-smokers, though the difference did not reach statistical significance. Sidney, S. et al. Marijuana Use and Cancer Incidence (California, United States). Cancer Causes and Control. Vol. 8. Sept. 1997, p. 722-728.

09) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART 4):

Donald Tashkin, a UCLA researcher whose work is funded by NIDA, did a case-control study comparing 1,200 patients with lung, head and neck cancers to a matched group with no cancer. Even the heaviest marijuana smokers had no increased risk of cancer, and had somewhat lower cancer risk than non-smokers (tobacco smokers had a 20-fold increased Lung Cancer risk). Tashkin D. Marijuana Use and Lung Cancer: Results of a Case-Control Study. American Thoracic Society International Conference. May 23, 2006.

10) MARIJUANA DOES HAVE GREAT MEDICAL VALUE:

In response to passage of California's medical marijuana law, the White House had the Institute of Medicine (IOM) review the data on marijuana's medical benefits and risks. The IOM concluded, "Nausea, appetite loss, pain and anxiety are all afflictions of wasting, and all can be mitigated by marijuana." The report also added, "we acknowledge that there is no clear alternative for people suffering from chronic conditions that might be relieved by smoking marijuana, such as pain or AIDS wasting." The government's refusal to acknowledge this finding caused co-author John A. Benson to tell the New York Times that the government "loves to ignore our report … they would rather it never happened." Joy, JE, Watson, SJ, and Benson, JA. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. National Academy Press. 1999. p. 159. See also, Harris, G. FDA Dismisses Medical Benefit From Marijuana. New York Times. Apr. 21, 2006

Karen,

Why do you state things that have no basis in regards to each other?

And maybe you should try it. I make well over the median income in CA

Sorry, but smoking pot has nothing to do with how much money you make. If you really believe that, you're not as smart as you think you are.

As for the rest of your commentary, you ask me to provide facts to back up my statements and yet you don't bother to even acknowledge the basic logic of them. Since you can't even do that much, I won't bother discussing the points with you.

And by the way, you may think you are smart, but your attitude is that of a child. You make snide comments and belittle others in your posts and seem to have little in the way of manners.

Grow up.

I am sooooo scared of you Idaho. NOT.

If you are so concerned that legalizing pot will help the Mexican cartels - please be advised that Californians DO NOT SMOKE that funky weed from Mexico. It tastes NASTY.

We smoke our own, grown in Northern California, Humboldt County.

The reason you are so dead set against it is your state. My friend had the unfortunate experience of living in Idaho because that is where his ailing parents needed help. He told me about your state's draconian pot laws.

SteveJ-How're ya doin'? Um...what? Rehab? Oh yeah, it works so well that people go back again and again just to experience it...

Ahhh. Pot. Archeologically documented domestic usage 8,000 years ago in ancient China. Thousands of years of usage in India. In our time, both of these enormous groups are now recovering from their brutal run-ins with Euros who were fortified not only with their own virulent diseases which acted like advance "shock and awe" (see the book "1491") but also equipt with technical advances such as printed books (China), gunpowder of course (China), the compass (China), the catchment mechanism that made clocks possible and enhanced navigational accuracy greatly (China), Cannabis for sail cloth, ship rigging, paper, clothing, medicine, food, and thought (China and India), Zero, making positional notation in mathematics possible (India and Arabia), steel (India and Arabia), Algebra making the Universe more understandable (Arabia). All of these people were potheads, all of European intellectual borrowings came from societies that placed great value on Cannabis in their lives. While these civilations were growing, the Euros were still wiping their butts with their hand.

Where are they now, these great civilizations? Well, for a time their elites became like ours is now and they succumbed to the wave of psychotic killers pouring out of Europe with their deadly cargos, especially their gods and their greed and their endemic diseases. But this previous and clearly temporary situation is coming to an end and the real "Big Guys" on this planet are starting to wake up. You younger folks have much to look forward to, I think, in terms of scores to be settled. America has shared in the abuse and America will pay as will Europe as they further weaken from internal greed and cultural rot. This is not due to drugs, it's due to a rapacious elite who have been and are still selling us out to these very groups. The manifestations of the elite visible to us are the corporate machines whose only function is to facilitate removal of as much 'value' from the Mass as sociopathically possible, condensation of this 'value' (profit), and feeding of this 'value' to the elite. Occasionally, the elite even crash their favorite Ponzi scheme, the stock market, and cheaply harvest all of the factories and businesses painstakingly built by others over the previous years. If there were ever a real "grassroots" movement, it is MJ legalization.

This rapacious elite comes to us in the form of Big Pharma, Big Ethanol, Big Offshore Drug Cartel, Big Religion, Big Prisons, and as Scott-1040450 pointed out, the paper industry as well: Big Pharma is, singularly, the biggest killer on the planet when you view their overall output. According to the National Academy of Sciences-Institute of Medicine report "To Err is Human" (look it up), the corporate medical industry in America is killing >90,000 people a year just through medical error (iatrogenic error=medical incompetence) unrelated to the presenting illness. You have not heard of this because, when the report came out, the corporate medical industry was absolutely silent. You don't argue scientific accuracy with the NAS. And you don't call attention to your own dirty little secrets which, by the numbers of fatalities alone, makes an American two and a half times safer in their car than anywhere near an American medical facility, and you are in your car a lot more than in medical facilities. A large percentage of these deaths are due to direct drug actions and drug interactions, mostly due to the fatal side effects in these FDA "safe" pharmaceuticals which, themselves, have only marginal beneficial effects, huge risks, and huge costs. Big Pharma does not care about drug efficacy and safety, only patentability and profit. We have seen this over and over in the news. My belief, and I believe Big Pharma's belief as well, is that fully one half of OTC pharmaceutical poisons now on store shelves will be gone if MJ is legalized. The prescription pharmaceutical poison market will also take a significant hit, hopefully in the deliberate marketing of the highly addictive 'painkillers' the industry deliberately pushes for just such profitable addiction. This alone makes legalization of Marijuana desireable.

Big Ethanol will see a 50% decline in hard alcohol sales. Ethanol is as effective a preservative of biological tissue as formaldehyde, and tissue "preservation" is not compatible with tissue "function". Ethanol produces the same effects that sniffing gasoline does, the very same sort of intoxication, but much more extensive and disseminated damage to the user's body. Marijuana, smoked or munched, for me at least, made ethanol seem crude and painful and dangerous and generally obnoxious when combined in almost any way with human personality. Certainly EtOH addicts use MJ to ease the pain of ethanol as do others, which relates back to the paragraph above. One of the big plusses for me personally is that MJ users rarely make the discovery that they have one of the most attractive personalities on the planet and must share their wonderfulness with anyone within earshot, or share their internal anger, even more common. And EtOH kills so many innocent people but, so what, just more 'collateral' damage. Here, in America, we don't care about that. We'll just have another drink. Support of the potable ethanol market in America is very well funded and involes Big Agra as well. Corn. Most cheaper ethanol products have added corn alcohol (EtOH is EtOH). But they also keep Cuba isolated because a return of cheap Cuban sugar would destroy the HFCS market (and the obesity epidemic except for artificial sweetener users) in America. Big War will also be a supporter of Marijuana suppression as, it seems to me, killing another human would seem a lot less 'reasonable' while stoned. I'm a lucky exMarine and never had to learn to rationalize murdering another human, albeit I know, given the necessity, my training (boot camp is just 'brainwashing' really, teaching how to overcome that natural humanzee inhibition on killing one's own) would kick in. I believe that being stoned would stay my hand, maybe fatally to me. Too bad. And my antagonist would very likely be drunk.

Big Offshore Drug Cartel may have a range of products but MJ is an enormous profit center for them. If an epidemic of rationality were to hit America, cocaine and the other derivative recreational products would be viewed as a medical issue and made available under controlled circumstances, and the cartels would cease to be. This one is the simplest to fix. But these other substances present the same 'loss of profit' potential to the same sociopathic players and so are lumped into the profit-killer category, lawmakers are paid to keep it a 'moral' issue, and, unregulated, is most of what makes these agents dangerous. Profound addiction has also been shown to have a strong genetic basis in many people so crippled, including ethanol susceptability.

Big Religion is concerned because MJ makes a person think. It tends in many people to create new ideas, lots of new ideas. Many of these ideas seem strange to other people because they often transcend the usual limits of habitual thought patterns. Marijuana somehow removes certain blockers in one's rationality, not complete dissolution of rationality as seen in EtOH intoxication, but an enhancement of the range of ideas that one may explore. Some of these ideas seem 'weird' and 'pothead' ideas to others and generalizations are made. Another generalization made by a guy from Oregon named Linus Pauling (only person to win two solo Nobel prizes in different fields and, with Marie Curie, two Nobels in different fields) said, "The best way to have a good idea is to have lots of ideas." Hellllloooo Marijuana! When Kary Mullis made PCR (polymerase chain reaction) practical and opened DNA to close inspection, manipulation, and a GIANT step in understanding ourselves, the story he was supposedly telling was that he was stoned and sitting on the pot when the idea came to him. When, years later, describing it to the audience at the Nobel ceremonies, he had a completely different story. Those of us who know ideas and who know both Pot and the creative potential of sitting on the pot simply laugh when we hear " I was driving with my girlfriend on a beautiful curving country road when...". Not really intellectual dishonesty, just lack of courage. But Big Religion abhors thinking. Anything that can allow people to penetrate the intellectual prison wall of Faith is poison to Big Religion. Hellloooo Marijuana!

And on. The paper industry, the fiber industry, the medical industry, the ethanol industry, the illegal drug industry, the religious industry, the prison industry, and others all have a big interest in Marijuana, in keeping it suppressed. In our "For Hire" lawmaking 'industry' in America, much profit is tied to keeping certain substances and products away from consumers. If anyone reading this believes that there is even a shred of altruism, actual concern for the welfare of users, in any of the 'substance' prohibitions written into U.S. law, it may be time to crack a book. A detailed 'neutral' history of American business practices would be a good place to start. The same strategy to suppress competition with lies and phony 'evidence' and one-off bad examples is a basic American business practice. Even tobacco, which had been KNOWN for generations to be highly carcinogenic with continuous use, was only attacked when a certain "special interest" with almost complete control of our media decided it was strategic to attack the Southern power structure to both demonstrate their own power and to damage an otherwise hostile group. Health concerns were the rationalization only, not even a little the REASON that tobacco 'suddenly' became Cancer-Causing in the popular mind. It is the same kind of propaganda that makes the mutilation of male infants acceptable in America when voluminous objective evidence shows that this mutilation has wide and profound negative psychological and physical effects for the individual so mutilated (look it up). Tobacco IS poisonous. But this would never have become the issue it is today had not there been another more important political side to the story, not individual American's health. If individual health were a concern in America, our healthcare industry in America would be much different and we wouldn't already be statistically a third world country in national health and survivability.

Marijuana has been a fond companion of the rise of the greatest civilizations that have ever existed. The chances of American 'greatness' in historical memory has been forfeited by our infestation with competing elites. This is another story and offtopic here. The needs of all Americans are subsumed to the greed of the elites who have gotten a grip on the one half of all Americans of below 'average' intelligence. These poor people do not have the wit to find their way out of the maze of authoritative lies that highly paid and talented marketing departments have created to mislead them. This is clear simply from these people consistently voting against their own best interests and for people who are little more than corporate shills and puppets. Plenty of Americans in the other half of the distribution fall for these lies also. Marijuana does not owe its popularity to reputation, it owes its popularity to efficacy, its obvious benefits, in so many areas of human interest. When Prohibition caused people to look for alternatives and Marijuana became explosively popular, all of these industries took note and joined the bandwagon for suppression of this ancient/new major competitor. "Reefer Madness" only ever existed in the boardrooms of America's corporations. Let's cure this 'madness'. Legalize. Legalize. Legalize.

marika,

So if you can't stop, it is just a self-indulgence? Guess it's a good thing you're not a doctor.

definition of addiction as per Princeton edition of the dictionary:

Note the "dependent on something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming". So I guess the dictionary is wrong too huh?

It has nothing to do with not wanting to take responsibility for so-called "destructive choices". It has to do with not being able to mentally and/or emotionally overcome the perceived NEED for whatever it is that they are addicted to.

Maybe you should have a serious talk with a real addict about what keeps them being an addict. It isn't the physical or physiological aspects of it that are the hardest to get past. It's the psychological.

Karen,

Still at the childish remarks I see. And still making no sense in regards to your comments either.

First off, I'm not concerned that legalizing pot will help the cartels. It won't help them. It won't hurt them much either. You really need to work on your reading comprehension.

My viewpoint on pot has nothing to do with the state I live in either. What an ignorant comment. Besides, my comments have been in regards to the flawed and flat out false information you and others have been dishing out.

Pot can be addictive to some people. It's not a belief, it's a fact. I personally know some people who can't quit smoking it. So don't tell me it's not addictive because I personally know better. Does that mean it's highly addictive? No, of course not. But to say no one can get addicted to pot is a lie.

People who have been high on pot have been in auto accidents that have killed others. That is documented in multiple occasions. So the statement "no one has ever died or been killed due to being high on marijuana" is simply not true. Sorry if you don't believe it, but that's your problem.

You want to smoke pot, feel free. I could really care less. My issue with people like you is you say things that are untrue and are proven to be untrue and then you insult people who disagree with you.

Since intellectual honesty is obviously beyond your capabilities, I won't bother commenting to you anymore. Try to learn some manners sometime huh?

Here is proof that it is not addictive.

My friend who had to live in Idaho to help his parents DID NOT SMOKE it at all while he was there.

He was afraid of going to jail because he said those Idaho people watched everything he did.

There you go. My friend was in Idaho for at least 3 or 4 years.

Speaking of manners Idaho, please pick up Emily Post's book on etiquette because you don't have any manners.

YOU'RE the one calling people names.

And again, YOU ARE WRONG. It is not addictive.

I am sorry that the people you know could not handle it. That is not my problem.

I will continue to post and disabuse everyone of your FALSE points, particularly that pot is addictive.

My friend was not kidding about the draconian laws in Idaho. YOU GO TO JAIL FOR POSSESSION - 6 months to a year and the fine ranges from $500-$1,000.

http://norml.org/index.cfm?wtm_view=&Group_ID=4534

I guess people from Idaho just don't want people to smoke pot.

I wonder what the laws are on alcohol. I wonder if Idaho jails people who kill people when they are drunk and drive. CA does.

So if your friends and family are proof of pot being not addictive, Karen, then my brother who is addicted to marijuana is proof that it is addictive. Forget your anecdotal evidence when trying to discuss something scientific.

a-wal,

Don't bother wasting your time trying to debate with Karen. Facts don't matter to her.

You tell her you know someone is addicted to it and she'll say that they're not addicted. They just "couldn't handle it".

You just can't argue with the intellectually dishonest.

Why do you think there are 12-step programs for people trying to quit smoking pot? If it wasn't addictive, there obviously wouldn't be any reason for those programs to exist now would there?

There are 12 step programs for virtually everything by now. I wouldn't be overly surprised to find a "Bad Hair Day Anonymous" group, right across the hall from "Adult Children of Co-Dependents".

I was going to join "Paranoids Anonymous", but nobody would tell me where the meetings were.

People get sentenced by well-meaning but clueless judges to such groups. Attend one and notice how many little slips are being signed. Those get forwarded to the probation officer.

awal and Idaho

NEITHER of you proved that pot was addictive.

And I repeat, if you go to a Narcotics Anonymous Meeting and tell them you are addicted to pot, THEY WILL LAUGH AT YOU.

And what I did learn today is that Idaho people are really against pot - so much so that they put you in jail for having it in your possession.

Karen,

We don't have to prove pot is addictive. We know it is. At least to some people anyway. You don't want to believe that, fine. You want to say that someone who IS addicted to it just "couldn't handle it", that's fine too. It only makes you look sanctimonius and foolish.

You seem to only be able to deal in absolutes, which only highlights your own narrowmindedness. Neither you nor anyone you know is addicted to pot, therefore pot CAN'T be addictive. Not pot may only be addictive to a small minority. No, pot CAN'T be addictive. What an illogical attitude.

You also seem to feel the need to denigrate and mock an entire state simply because of one law. That's ok too. Just proves you're not someone worth taking seriously.

I learned something today too. Never attempt to have an intelligent discussion with someone who is obviously incapable of intellectual honesty.

Overgrow,

I did read the article again.

Kewitt acknowledged that he had ingested marijuana the night before and into early morning, admitting that the marijuana diminished his ability to drive safely.

7am is early morning isn't it? And he himself admitted that he was high while driving.

I linked this particular article as it was the first one I found, but I know of several other incidents like it, I just didn't have handy links to them.

Sorry, not 'catch'ment but 'escape'ment for anyone that might care. Lots of good comments here. One guy from Idaho wanted us to abmire the "logic" of his obviously fallacious statements. Kewl. Have another beer, Big Bubba. And mebbe, look up 'logic' and GIGO. And recall that the word you want for your retort is actually fe... not fa...

Although fellatious would, somehow by certain of its nuances, seem to well describe some of the sad states of "knowing what you're talking about" ness that people here have demonstrated regarding MJ.

Some of you seem to forget that you are talking to USERS, people with actual firsthand knowledge of the subject, subjective experience from which we create our collective reality. In almost any area of human thought, experience and expertise are recognized as the gold standard of believability. Only in these heavily propagandized areas do we have to listen to children speak, people with no experience of their own, and speak exactly the programmed speak that we have heard word-for-word over and over again. It's just like Faux News. Some people just don't learn the lesson of Santa Claus and trusting Authority. Authority dances them around like little puppets, moves their mouthes, makes them think they are smart, and they then feel they have the right to insult people who have actually gone to the trouble to learn as much of the truth as they can suss out.

Ah, the beauty of backcountry living. The Simple life. What, me worry? We don't need no dad-blame thinking here, we got our feelin's and that's all we need!

Anyway, Idaho and others, you may not believe it just now but you are getting older and, sooner than you think, you'll begin learning what that means physically. At that time, I would like to revisit Marijuana with you while you're taking various expensive Big Pharma products to allay these various new 'inconveniences' and point out that the 'active ingrediant' in many, if not, most of them by that time will be Cannabis. There is absolutely nothing else like it. Few things on earth known by humanzees have several thousand years of Chinese and Indian plant design and breeding in their history. We are still behind the Chinese in so many ways. Ah, my poor America. Have we always been like this?

And I repeat, if you go to a Narcotics Anonymous Meeting and tell them you are addicted to pot, THEY WILL LAUGH AT YOU.

To be entirely fair, they will also tell you not to touch marijuana, beer, or any other intoxicating drug. A lot of them won't even use prescribed narcotics after surgery on the theory that "your body cannot tell the difference", even though when people are in severe pain, they don't feel the high. They can be a bit extreme.

but when I was young, I did tend to over indulge in drinking and smoking. From my own experiences, what I noticed is that the smokers smoked to get as high as possible, any time they could.

Don't you see that you are comparing immature college age pot smokers with middle aged, respectable drinkers? NOT a valid comparison. Haven't you noticed that kids that age ALSO drink to get as drunk as humanly possibly, preferably very late at night? I live in walking distance of a couple of major universities so please trust me on this. That practice is still going strong. Just as you ended up able to enjoy an occasional drink, most people our age who continue to smoke can also enjoy it on an occasional basis and they know enough not to overindulge on any occasion. The only difference is that when you are young and still overdoing virtually everything, alcohol can KILL you but marijuana can't, unless the marijuana is laced with something else. And that would not be a problem if people could buy government inspected marijuana at legitimate stores.

And that would not be a problem if people could buy government inspected marijuana at legitimate stores.

That is why I know where my reefer comes from.

Stormport,

Considering the majority of your post dealt with insulting me and others that you disagree with, you're one of the last people I would ever worry about hearing logic from.

Instead of attempting to rationally and politely debate my points using your own logic, you chose to insult me and others and tell us we don't know what we're talking about.

Yeah, people should take you real seriously. Uh huh, sure they should.

So you like marijuana and think it's fine. Yeah, we get that. However, learn to disagree with someone and give them exact reasons why you disagree...and do it politely. Otherwise kindly shut up.

If your only way of replying is to hurl insults at people, you've already lost the debate.

As far as changing my mind when I get older, keep dreaming. I'm already 40 and I live with medium to high levels of pain every day of my life and I don't take ANY drugs for it.

So don't hold your breath thinking a little thing like pain is going to change my mind. Unlike some people, I actually practice what I preach.

Wow, you guys sound just like a bunch of alcoholics:

"It's not addictive: I stopped for 3 yrs."    Alcoholic version is "I'm not an alcoholic...

"It's not addictive: I could stop any time."

"I drive just fine when I'm stoned."           Alcoholic version: "Tight."

"I function just fine".  I still have my job.       Heard it word for word from addict.

I grew up in a family with alcohol and addiction. I know just what it looks like and what it sounds like. And saying pot is not as bad as alcohol is not saying much, guys-in fact, it's not really saying anything considering the harm alcohol has done. Even not being as bad as alcohol it still could be plenty bad!

Was that one commenter REALLY comparing pot smokers to the Freedom Riders? Looks like pot must cause delusions.

02) HEAVY MARIJUANA USE AS A YOUNG ADULT WON'T RUIN YOUR LIFE:

Veterans Affairs scientists looked at whether heavy marijuana use as a young adult caused long-term problems later, studying identical twins in which one twin had been a heavy marijuana user for a year or longer but had stopped at least one month before the study, while the second twin had used marijuana no more than five times ever. Marijuana use had no significant impact on physical or mental health care utilization, health-related quality of life, or current socio-demographic characteristics. Eisen SE et al. Does Marijuana Use Have Residual Adverse Effects on Self-Reported Health Measures, Socio-Demographics or Quality of Life? A Monozygotic Co-Twin Control Study in Men. Addiction. Vol. 97 No. 9. p.1083-1086. Sept. 1997

What kind of study is this? They compare twins to see if pot smoking "ruins your life." First of all, BOTH of them used pot. Second of all, their quality of life was self-reported-is it conceivable that they might have some incentive to report their life as better than it really was? Maybe? Third, and basically the same thing, how do we know BOTH of them weren't screwed up? (since this was self-reported-see title of study-and not measured). How valid is that? Plus they used a sample size of 2.

Uh-uh. I won't name the town because it's too small, but it's in the Midwest, and for Christmas one year my attorney gave me an esmeralda of Acapulco Gold

I apologize for not responding earlier marika. This is cool. What's an esmeralda? Thanks.

Dude

I'm getting busy on something else but 1.143 is tiring to me. I am just tired of proving that it is not addictive to one more person.

Can everyone read? Norml produces report after report. I am in my 50s and you'd never know it. Nobody believes me.

In one of the numerous reports I read on the Vine or Norml or in my life, pot is good for the skin. So are the vitamins and my healthy food. That's why my skin does not look 50.

Another report said it is performance enhancing in athletics. Yes it is. Another reason I don't look 50? I am in the gym or at the beach training at least 4 days a week.

Pot is a plant and it's pretty much smoked in unadulterated form.

How can anyone be afraid of a plant?

I hope the Norml members in So Cal join the VICTORY CELEBRATION tonight after the polls close.

See you there!

I live in Pennsylvania, but I hope you're right.

ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh, a pot smoker that is fit. Karen, I need to plan a trip out to LA. What do you eat for the munches?

I find it incredible that there are those who attach any credibility to this exercise in twisted logic. For example, while there are problem drinkers and alcoholics most people exercise moderation and regularly enjoy a drink and the accompanying health benefits of moderate alcohol intake.

Accordingly, I have yet to hear of any “moderate” heroin users or any who only "occasionally" indulge in crystal meth.

Karen;

If you have a medical authorization in CA, IT IS LEGAL!

Good for you. If you have a medical authorization to take Oxycontin, it's legal - for the medical purpose for which it is intended, NOT for the purpose of "getting high." How many doctors do you know will actually write up a prescription for any medication if you walk in and say "Hi Doc, I want to get high. Got anything good for me?" The whole point of my argument is that you can have medical marijuana, it has apparently done some good as a pharmaceutical for some people. But to use a pharmaceutical, ANY pharmaceutical for recreational use is out of the question. Sure, some low life nut jobs will abuse the system, but better to have it legalized for a valid medical reason than for "getting high." Oh, by the way, remind me not to hire your toked up lawyer friend or you for that matter. Honesty, ethical values and respect for the law as well as reliability are an important factors in hiring an attorney.

Idaho Dragon...I have watched you banter back and forth with Karen ...you say you do not need proof to back up your statements because "you know it"... are you f***ing god or something??? I do not mind an argument for or against something with proof other than the I am holy than thou kind!

Karen's obviously an addict that knows nothing of what she speaks other than her own ignorance. Some people can socially drink, I believe the same of drinkers that drink socially. They weren't born with a genetic predisposition. I don't think the first hit, drink, sniff of anything makes anyone an addict. You are born that way, you find out when you start playing the game. If you have an addictive personality, your behaviors show themselves before your first drug, but they don't get extreme until you're feeding a habit (mental or physical addiction - sex even utilizes neurotransmitters in the pleasure center of the brain, so sex can be addictive too) You don't hear about smoking crack or shooting, smoking, sniffing heroin as a social thing, and that's usually because those drugs are drugs you don't do until you're already partying with enough booze and pot that you end up around the type of people further in their journey than you are. Heroin doesn't damage your body like alcohol? HAHA! EVERY drug effects EVERY organ, who told you that line of $hit??

Fact, a drug is a drug, alcohol or pot or heroin. Fact, take pot away from Karen, and I KNOW without a doubt she's going to be at least irritable if she's daily smoker. See, just like a habitual alcohol abuser, cocaine abuser etc., pot too will give you emotion/mental addition. Sure, the withdrawals will be more limited to bitchyness and irritability, but the fact is that your mind becomes that way because of the levels of THC aren't being maintained to your comfort level. That's definitely backed by TONS of scientific research. Karen said Pot isn't considered a drug in NA, that's her shame talking. See, she's trying too hard to prove us all wrong, because she would have to be honest with herself otherwise. Pot is a drug, NA DEFINITELY recognizes it as such, as well as alcohol, though AA is where alcoholics tend to go for support. Karen also shamelessly admits how she drives after smoking and has a perfect driving record. I remember sounding just like Karen, until I couldn't bull$hit myself anymore and got sober May 18th 2001

Duh, we know why teens do heroin to begin with, so they can look like Lindsay Lohan, Olsen twins and Keith Richards

That would be cocaine... Not heroin. Lindsay, Paris, Olsens... Cocaine.

Here's to alcohol. The cause of, and solution to all of life's problems.

Homer Simpson.

The UK also did a study on the long term cost associated with alcoholic/addicts and compared it to people that were not addicted to anything and in good health.

There conclusion - Health people had higher medical cost that alcoholics and other addicted people. Because, THEY LIVED LONGER, and old age illnesses cost more.

What is the old saying about data/figures??? Ha! Ha!

Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain) said:

"There are lies, damn lies, and statistics."

Are you a booze hound?

Good ol' Homer Simpson!

I love how drinkers get so defensive when someone brings up that alcohol is a horrible drug.

"Just think about what happens (with alcohol) at every football game," said Wim van den Brink, a professor of psychiatry and addiction at the University of Amsterdam. He was not linked to the study and co-authored a commentary in the Lancet.

Why is this guy quoted if he is not linked to the study... and just what happens with alcohol at every football game? And are you talking about football-football? Or SOCCER-football?

Sundiver,

Sam might have said it, but he didn't author it or claim it. "The term was popularized in the United States by Mark Twain (among others), who attributed it to the 19th Century British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli (1804–1881): "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." However, the phrase is not found in any of Disraeli's works and the earliest known appearances were years after his death. Other coiners have therefore been proposed. The most plausible, given current evidence, is Englishman Charles Wentworth Dilke (1843–1911)."

foot + ball = soccer

Borsia-II wrote:

"As to getting "hooked" on pot; pot isn't addictive and this is well proven. There are no with-drawls no dts. Alcohol on the other hand is addictive."

Some fact-checking is in order here. Smoked in excessive quantity, marijuana use does indeed result in an abstinence syndrome (or, as you wrote, "with-drawls"). This information was published in a peer-reviewed journal back in the 1980s! Moreover, marijuana impairs reaction time, as in perceiving a hazard and responding to it while operating an automobile.

It is amusing--but also sad--when people post glib statements of misinformation supporting a pro-drug agenda.

"Alcohol . . . is addictive." Actually, alcohol can produce tolerance and dependence. And the impact on others can be devastating. Hence the focus of this article.

Health people had higher medical cost that alcoholics and other addicted people. Because, THEY LIVED LONGER, and old age illnesses cost more.

So I gather you plan to smoke, drink heavily, and eat until you can barely get out the door, just so you don't cost the government money by living too long? ;)

TELL US SOMETHING WE DONT KNOW!!! Alcohol is the source of all the problems HELLO!!! Alcohol is the # 1 leader to everything else Drugs & DEATH
Every where your turn in America there is Alcohol sold, here is how it start: you start drinking one beer and then more beer and then get drunk and then before you know it drugs gets involve and then you drink even more and then you end up in prison or 6 feet under or if you are lucky get sobered by attending AA meeting classes, congratulation you are one in 1000 who just made it but your life will never be the same.
How can America ignore this problem? let me guess!! everyone from liquor ownerS to court of law to lawyers to hospitals to GOV. ETC... benefit from Alcohol, WHEN YOU FIRST GET YOUR FIRST DUI YOU WILL RECEIVE SEVERAL LETTERS FROM LAWYERS TRYING TO ASSIST YOU BY MAKING MONEY OFF OF YOU, IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY in this country BRAVO, keep IT UP AMERICA.. WITH AMERICA YOU ARE IN GOOD HANDS.

Maxeemas,

Spare me. Alcohol is not the source of ALL problems. Alcohol does not automatically lead to doing drugs or anything else you mentioned.

Get a grip.

Drinking alcohol IS doing drugs, my friend.

You can definitely see the bias in this so-called study.

no what they are saying is that the death rate for alcohol is higher than any other drug!!!!! because of the mind altering it does any thing in moderation is ok in my opinion. I was 48 years old before i tried cocaine. it had no effect on me and i have not tried since...pot has had many medical benefits for me with my blood presure and gluocoma. i can take it or leave it. My mother my best friend in the world was killed my a drunk the day before Easter. I have yet to hear of a pot head that has killed any one just on pot. I see with my friends all the time on alcohol they do very stupid things. friends on pot are more reasonable they do not think they are bigger than life and do not think they will not die if they do stupid thinngs. I agree with this alcohol no matter how u add it up kills not pot. and i will put that in my pipe and smoke it before i pick up a drink and no hang over either i might add. if u knew how many ceos senators congressman do coke u would not believe it many closet drug user

Good point Pink,

Alcohol is likely one of the biggest reasons humankind survived at all. Most early societies drank large quantities of beer and wine because the water they had was toxic. Alcohol, and the brewing procedures killed off most of the harmful bacteria. Early societies hed no real concept of hygene and waste was dumped into the rivers which served also as the water supply.

The fact is thou8gh that life spans were a lot shorter and mortlity rates were high. That's why people generally tried to have a lot of kids.

They said "OVERALL". Taking into account the damage it does to society and property as well as to your health. Did you read the article, or only scan through the words you wanted to see?

The Germans and the Irish don't have anywhere NEAR the biggest problem with alcohol. The Native Americans do, followed by the Russians. And the Native Americans almost ARE extinct.

Actually Bill, I beg to differ. Economic studies have proven that people don't drink less if you raise price, they only find a substitute that is less expensive.

This is easily proven by a conversation I had with a friend that is a liquor distributor. He was telling me that in this down economy, he is selling more volume than ever before but all in the lower end brands. People are substituting top shelf for middle to bottom shelf brands. Even though the shelf price has not increased, the economic purchasing power of the individual through lower or no wages increases the relative cost of alcohol.

Bob-429579 you are absolutely correct. My father-In -Law is an alcohol and soft drink distributor. Brands like PBR are making comebacks because of the economy (and a ton of marketing thrown behind them). Manufacturers are churning out lower priced liquor, vodka is cheaper than Evian water. People are drinking more but going cheap. Drunk is drunk to them.

As for pot... time to stop the prohibition. I was a staunch opponent to legalization for 30 some years. I've never taken a puff other than the second hand smoke at some concerts. I never judged or condemned those who partook but I had a few friends who "dropped out" of life after becoming stoners. I was missing the point. it wasnt the substance... It was the character of the person.

I suffer from a degenerative, auto-immune disorder called Reiter's Syndrome and also have Fibromyalgia. I live in excruciating pain every minute of every day of my life. I function only because I am on a carefully monitored (by the University of Pennsylvania) regimen of medicines (including morphine). I have had series of chemotherapy to stop my body from attacking itself. Those meds are probably destroying my internal organs much faster than marijuana ever would. But if I smoke it, boom... I'm out of my pain management program. Medical MJ was legalized here in NJ but the state slapped so many regulations on it that no doctor can write for it.

Socially, the "war on drugs" is a failure. We're doing more harm than good by making Mexican drug cartels rich and violent. That is where the REAL WAR is, not Iraq or Arseghanistan. Time to seal our own borders. Medically, if I could stop taking the 5 different drugs, including doses of morphine large enough to stun a horse, and simply smoke a few joints to ease my pain... I'm in.

even in the worst economy, people will still buy alcohol, cigarettes and candy.

apollolanding, kudos to you!

You've really touched on something that many people don't realize - smoking pot actually HELPS some people! How about chemo patients? Smoking MJ keeps their appetites up, keeping a healthy body weight, making fighting the effects of chemo more successful. I'm sure that if the medical community took a reasonable look at the possible benefits of medical MJ, they'd find many more.

Guess those huge corporations disgused as drug companies will continue to spend mega millions against the legalization of MJ. We ALL know whose bottom line counts more!!

Be well, be happy!

Medically, if I could stop taking the 5 different drugs, including doses of morphine large enough to stun a horse, and simply smoke a few joints to ease my pain... I'm in.

and whether or not you meant to, you just explained the primary reason why marijuana is still illegal in this country...

Actually, my information did not come from a friend or a father-in-law. A comparison of per capita income to per capita alcohol consumption roughly shows the trend of less income = less consumption. I understand that the overall trend of consumption is much more complicated than this side by side comparison (such as changes in ethnic make up in communities and their patterns of drinking, changes in average ages, etc.). But the % of per capita U.S. income 2000-2006 rose 19.7% and alcohol consumption rose 10.6%. In a state with a slower economy, such as Michigan, income from 2000-2006 only rose 13.5% and alc. consumption only rose 5.8%. By comparison, California, with a healthier economy during this period (income rose 18.9%) the increase in alc. consumption was 11.9%. The argument that people are buying less expensive alcoholic products only further proves my point of the "price sensitivity" of alcoholic beverages.

My stats are from the U.S. Dept of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis and the U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services, Alcohol Epidemiology Data System, NIAAA.

Sorry Bill, but Bob-#7- just below you is correct. Why do you think they don't allow mouthwash in substance abuse rehabs. Some of the stuff hubby told me his grandfather drank is repulsive not to mention dangerous.

Bill: I see your point...

However (and I'm not trying to get into an argument here), your statistics indicate that an increase in income generates roughly half the same increase in alcohol consumption. I can't find any data to suggest the same trend should a decrease in income occur. For arguments sake though, let's assume that it mirrors the same trend. My question is what are they basing the measurement on? If alcohol consumption is up, is it measured in dollars or volume? If it is measured in dollars, it only means that people are drinking better stuff. If it is measured in volume, you would need a specific breakdown as to what is being consumed. Is it beer vs. wine, wine vs. spirits, etc.

Getting back to your original premise though, I find the demand for alcohol to be relatively inelastic. The demand for a specific beverage of choice is certainly elastic but there are vast quantities of substitutes. i.e. - if a person drinks Michelob, he might substitute for Budweiser should the price become prohibitive. Same could be said for Grey Goose vodka being substituted for Smirnoffs. You get the picture.

I accept your position that price does have an influence on quantity demanded, but I think it is fairly inelastic when considered in total.

Thanks for not calling me names...

#7.2 Apollolanding: I just looked up Reiter's Syndrome in my Taber's. It is truly roughhaving multiple problems that won't kill 'ya, but can make life, frustrating & miserable at times. I also suffer from FMS & have for almost 20 yrs. Mornings seems worse; some parts get up earlier than others. There's a whole plethora of other neuro-muscular probs. that seem to have "found" me along the way, too.

Personally, as a professional, I believe that pot would be better for you than morphine. I know I'm saying this w/o reading your chart/diagnoses, but this is 1st. hand experience speaking. Just don't give up.

Not having worked in chemotherapy, I don't know for sure what the chemo. is doing to your organs, but it seems a little pot just isn't as damaging except maybe to your lungs. Hang in there. #1 son has promised me that if I should get cancer, he will get it for me, so I DO sleep better.

Hang tight !

Bob: The figures are based on consumption. The real determinative factor is accessibility. Pricing is only one element in this factor. Other considerations such as restrictions on zoning, hours of operation, shelving strategies, enforcement of ABC laws, etc. are also effective but usually require self regulation - which isn't effective. My argument is that the easiest strategy to implement is pricing. The alcoholic beverage industry pours out millions to keep the tax rate down - even by the more modest of inceases. This alone is proof the industry knows of the power of price.

Bill:

Agreed.

This opens up an entirely different can of worms now when it comes to using tax policy to modify behavior. There are guys out there like Dick Armey that state emphatically that taxes should only be used to raise revenue and never be used to modify societies behavior. In part I agree and in part I disagree. Wasn't this article originally something along these lines??? I guess we could go on for days with that one.

Cheers,

Bob

Thanks Bob. Good discussion. I appreciate that this didn't turn into the usual debate about pot vs. booze. On another alcohol/drug site a question was asked if pot is addictive. This generated the same booze vs. pot arguments. I responded by staying with the question - is pot addictive? What is amazing is how black and white most commenters are - on either side of the issue. I guess dealing with complex issues by hard critical thinking is no longer vogue. Too bad. Thanks for the good discussion.

A person can be OK with medical MJ, but against legalization of recreational pot. People can't use morphine recreationally legally, can they? Nor can they use oxycodone recreationally. As for getting rid of the drug trade if pot were illegal, I have my doubts about that. Oxycodone is legal but tightly controlled, yet there is a major illegal trade in oxycodone here in FL. People still get killed, commit crimes like B&E and the like. Even if it can be regulated, what happens when people can't get as much as they want? I, personally, am OK with medical MJ for certain conditions as long as it is very carefully regulated (more so than in CA.) Did you know that in a hospital they will sometimes give an alcoholic patient beer with a meal (or they did in the 80's anyway) so that the patient doesn't go into DT's?

No Son of a Gun, hello

I think tobacco was not listed as it does not cause erratic behavior, violence etc.
I do not remember a case where after smoking 30 cigarettes someone ran out and killed anyone.

Have a good one.

I drink and I'm not dismissing these facts. I think Marsha is right that you are blowing tobacco out of proportion.

The United States needs tobacco because it gives southerners a means for making money. Second, it has not been proved that smoking or dipping causes cancer just that those that smoke or dip are more likely to end up with certain cancers.

Using Marsha, Logic, why was pot included?

The study addressed harmful effects on the body yet ommitted tobacco..tsk tsk..

Nicotine is a powerful drug it causes a complex change in the brain that is the main reason for its addictive properties..

A severe nicotine habit is harder to kick than herione.....

The cancer issue has been settled, even the tobacco companies warn users right on every pack. Smoking may cause death...

Have another, smoke 'em if you got 'em..dip that shiite...I've never seen a nastier habit...If it is so good why spit? Just swallow...

ShowMeMan

I believe that the inference was more on what causes behavioral changes but you do bring up a valid point as to what the basis of the study was about.
Thank you for your input.

All the best

Tobacco was in the report just omitted in this article.

SHAWN-1387469
Thank you- my error in not reading the full report- incomplete information does not make for educated replies.
Again, thank you.

Marsha. I've listened to countless alcoholics in AA Meetings say that tobacco was harder to kick than even alcohol. Never having smoked, I have to believe them. Hubby said the same thing & he quit smoking at one time for 6 YEARS! Finally quit over 20 yrs. ago-thankfully!

Tobacco is potent stuff.

Heh DrowningGrover - you got that right. Big Pharma is all over keeping pot illegal. They know they will lose business if people could use that to ease pain.

It's all relative. I smoked cigarettes for 8yrs and just decided to quit one day, two packs a day. (My two year old son was pretty motivating though) I had no problem quitting. I still long for a cigarette every time I see or smell one, it's been a year and a half since my last one, but I don't HAVE to have one. Everything effects everyone differently. I know some who took one sniff of coke were hooked immediately. Basically, and I think there are studies to prove it, some people are just more susceptible to addiction than others. MJ should be legalized, if only for better control. Drug dealers don't check ID.

I dismiss this study

V. Bevis

Thank you for your response. I used to smoke 3 1/2 packs a day of Camel nonfilter or ones that were made especially for me. I stopped smoking in one day because I have considerable will power and a nonaddictive personality. Anyone with an addictive personality has a much harder time of breaking any habit.

All the best to you and your hubby.

Do people really enjoy being drunk and stoned on a regular basis? Such people are a net drain on society and the economy. I really can't understand the dependence on alcohol and pot.

Alcohol dependence is physiological.
If there is a dependence on pot, it stems from an addictive behavior pattern, a psychological issue.

fyi marijauna is not addictive. You dont have withdrawals from not smoking, so your point is moot.

I did not say pot was addictive; I stated that IF there was a dependence on pot, it stemmed from an addictive behavior pattern. Addictive personalities can be addicted to Twinkies or American Idol or computer use!

Pot, by itself, is not addictive.

Maybe if we as a society spent more time paying attention rather than reacting, we would be much better off.

That`s right.

You are right an addiction to pot is psychological, like anyone with an addiction that does not have real physiological effects, like alcohol. That said if you are psychologically addicted to anything you can have small effects but it is more based on your attitude, headaches, nervousness, etc. Whereas with alcohol, the worst withdrawals will kill you. Alcohol has the most dangerous withdrawal effects, with the benzos, and barbituates. Heroin, crack, coke are just really horrible but have much less chance of death unless their are other factors in your health.

FACT marika....you are correct...as a recovering alchoholic (finally), I seized twice while detoxin...I was and did have mediacl supervision and was lucky.

If you read etothex's whole post, I think he/she KNEW alcohol withdrawal can kill you. The post says as much. One phrase is just badly worded.

Anyway, let's say it one more time: alcoholic withdrawal can make you vomit over and over, shake uncontrollably, hallucinate for days, have seizures, and die. It's shocking that anybody gets through the 8th grade without having this taught to them.

Such people are a net drain on society and the economy.

How so, if they are self-supporting and pay their taxes?

Wow. For the first time in my life, I'm actually considering quitting drinking alcohol. And I don't have any problems with it!

Pot IS addictive, who tells you it isn't? I know you're in denial, but the fact is, even if you get a little bitchy, that's because physiologically, the level of THC isn't at your "baseline" level, and you have anything ranging from irritability to anxiety, to depression. It may be different for anyone, and certainly you can't compare alcohol or heroin to pot as each drug has different severity of withdrawal, but make no mistake, THC IS a drug, and IT DOES have withdrawals, side effects, and psychological addiction based on how the neurotransmitters work and that's the sad truth for any of the smokers here that are so defensive about their "hobby". You know, social drinkers don't wonder whether they drink too much, and they certainly aren't on threads defending that they like their drink once a week. Why? Because they aren't alcoholic. Why would once in while smokers be so defensive? Because they are full of crap, aren't once in a while smokers, know they are full of crap. Why would recreational smokers care about the law passing for medical marijuana being that most of them don't have medical reasons to get benefit from such a thing? Because they just feel loyal to their friend, lover, and owner, Marijuana.

It's so obvious that the ones defending it are not telling us exactly what the real deal is. And until they get real and honest with themselves, it won't matter, as what they tell us doesn't matter to us. They are the ones that have to wake up knowing that they need to smoke the next joint in the morning or on the weekend to feel right or "have a good time". honesty sucks when you have to look in the mirror and things aren't as good as the facade you put on.

You know, social drinkers don't wonder whether they drink too much, and they certainly aren't on threads defending that they like their drink once a week. Why?

Because the police are not chasing after them for their alcohol use and they can buy alcohol at a store?

Police never chased me and I used to smoke every day, and I got great weed and at a great cost from my old dealer, so your point is? Stop whining, you sound like a little girl.

actually Randy it is you who is whining about pot being too addictive for you to handle. honesty sucks when you have to look into the mirror

Kids watch sports.
What industry makes beaucoup moola via sports ads?
It's legal to push alcohol.

Harry, pot's a weed yet it sells for, well I don't really know, but say $30 per 1/4 oz. yet millions use it regularly. there's more at work here than supply/demand.

Raising prices will not do any good. Raising tobacco prices is hurting the poor. Raising alcohol prices upsets me. Why don't people just educate their children proper alcohol etiquette?

If raising tobacco prices is hurting the poor then perhaps they should spend their money else where.

Personally either way I couldn't care less, don't drink and don't smoke. But you are right Winker...people should educate their children a little better...not on etiquette but on a smart and healthy life decisions.

Anindividual:

I don't get why it is ok to have a million commercials on alcohol but they have banned cigarette ads....now it is all anti-smoking public announcements. I think alcohol shouldn't be advertised either...just the same as tobacco

I laugh when my tobacco user friends complain of the high price of their habit, yet must run to the store for their fix...

No Son of a Gun

Yes, an up in price does not seem to curtail any expenditure in said vice.

All the best.

TOBACCO is the current no-no, this is why you see endless anti-smoking ads and rude, ignorant behavior by non-smokers is tolerated, even supported.

Remember when alcohol commercials were banned? Nowadays, sporting events are paid for by the alcohol industry, complete with huge banners prominently displayed of course! Malt beverages that are packaged and taste like lemonade are developed and heavily advertised (are overtly marketing to juveniles or what??).

I'm sorry....it makes me so angry that tobacco is the boogyman du jour....while alcohol and prescription drugs wreak just as much destruction on families and society in general.

Drugs are drugs, and all have destructive side effects. I just wish the government would either slam ALL drugs or get the heck out of everyone's life.

Why don't people just educate their children proper alcohol etiquette?

Yes, indeed. Homeless bums on the street should always say "please" and "thank you" when they beg for money to buy booze. When they are extending a paper bag concealing a bottle of Wild Irish Rose to another street person, it is proper to extend the little pinky. And never reach; it's rude. Say, "please pass the wine." Also, if you must vomit, try to go around the corner so your companions don't see it. Just because you're a skid row rummy is NO reason you can't still be a gentleman.

OomYaaqub

Thank you for your excellent reply.

Have a super life.

Jet and Oom, good points.

People do not realize that even some particularly lethal and painful cancers come from alcohol consumption. Digestive problems also develop and intolerance to healthy eating slowly evolves. The psychological problems abound. Skin, heart, lungs - all the organs of the body are affected. Alcohol provides a slow, painful, and needless death; the facts cannot be denied in the end...and it WILL catch up with the drinker. It always does. Beer and liquor companies don't want you to see that part - it hurts sales!

You make the pot sound pretty good!

AnIndividual

Great post. Thank you

Doran-2578126

Thank you for your very well written and intelligently thought out comments.
I could not have written it better.

Have a peaceful and joyous life.

Go to rehab will you!

Developing bodies, developing minds, can be altered by any drug and even bad diets. Kids need to be taught the truths of drug usage rather than "just say no".

actually, ecstasy does kill, mostly due to heatstroke. I haven't heard of LSD killing anyone directly, but people have died due to accidents during "bad trips".

but try looking up the origin of the word "assassin" sometime, and it's roots in hash-smoking killers.

basically, all drugs have consequences

I learned the assassin thing too. However, when I learned it, I was taught they WRONGLY came up with the idea that the courage to kill a well protected superior officer (and thus be killed immediately in return) came from smoking hash. Think about it. Does smoking hash give people courage? The suicide bombers of today are also not known to smoke hash.

"Hashish men" -> origin of the word assassin. Crusaders could not imagine the enemy dying for something they believed in and tried to come up with what gave them the courage to walk up to an important, well guarded individual, and kill him - knowing that they would be killed in return with no chance of escape.

generally, I agree with you, just look at the number of alcohol related incidents of violence compared to the number of marijuana related incidents of violence, there is no comparison.

you simply don't have pot smokers typically flying into a rage and beating up on people.

You can hardly go by sheer numbers. There are WAY more alcohol drinkers than people who exclusively smoke pot. That goes for asking what most people come to detox from as well. There are way more alcohol drinkers and prescription drug abusers than people who only smoke pot. My cousin is one who checked in with pot addiction or dependence-pot. He says pot was his problem.

Leonard Rockstein: "might give transcendental meditation a try next"

I did that in the 70s- too boring and time consuming. Excercise is the best for mind and body and can be done anywhere and anytime.

Good luck and good health.

hrock: GOOD on you! What an accomplishment!

Congratulations to you!! I pray for many more years of continued freedom from your addiction.

Keep up the awesome work!!

hrock

Good for you- stay on track.
All the best

how many steps have you worked? put down the pot and keep comn back.

BRA-VO! H-Rock I tryed to get my mother to do that back in the day and it worked for awhile( but smoking weed was illegal ) so that was a reason not to so it went on for many years till I had kids and told her that if she kept drinking she would have no contact with her grand kids its sad it had to come to that but she didn't stop till she had to get a new liver sober for 18yrs now thanks MOM

how many steps have you worked? put down the pot and keep comn back.

What, pray tell, does "working the steps" (only two of which even MENTION the word "alcohol") have to do with leaving the booze alone? AA is about "character development" -- it is just a very watered down version of Protestant Christianity. If switching drugs to a less harmful one works, then more power to ya. Of course it doesn't work for everyone. There is no one thing that works for everybody.

Maybe you should read his comments again... Especially the dead celebrities one. It made no sense, and was definitely not well put.

or each individual can take responsibility to change themselves, i believe two alcoholics back in the 1930's started this little thing called AA that has been keeping addicts off drugs and alcohol for a hell of a long time and one hell of a success rate. because, it teaches them to change. keep it simple if one person at a time can change the world will eventually follow. also to those who think the disease aspect of addiction is some liberal don't blame me hooplah, it has been an accepted medical fact long before the age of the Politicaly Correct liberal nonsense. the addict/alcoholics body chemistry reacts differently to whatever drug they put in them. (fact)

I appreciate the positive perspective, Steve, but I must play the devil's advocate here.

Sure, drugs are an escape. And very good ones at that. Since the dawn of human civilization, nearly every society on Earth has consumed an intoxicant of one kind or another. The only population I'm aware of that has not are the Inuit (eskimos) of Canada, mainly because no particular native intoxicants are grown there, traditionally at least.

However, I wanted comment that it is highly optimistic that a much-needed change to the world would happen in any significant way as to encourage people to feel better about themselves and refrain from drug use. While that would certainly be a noble goal for humanity to reach, I must respectfully qualify your statement by stating that for most, drug use is not about the lack of a forseeable future or a low self-esteem issue, it is simply a way to reduce the impact of the mundane responsibilities of every day life that affect most humans.

In other words, while drug use is rampant in populations that do lack these things, I believe the majority of drug use is because people simply enjoy the stress release of the drugs for what they are, not what the individual lacks in character.

It's not that I disagree with your premise, which is honorable in its own right. I just feel it may not be practical in the light of the world as we know it.

How is it that a drug like heroin has become so popular within society today when the powers that be have had their campaign against drugs going on for so long now?
If the war on drugs along with the money spent on informational advertising on television and in magazines was effectual at all, then we should expect that things would have gotten much better on the number of people who are using drugs getting locked up for them or dying from them, if not at least stayed the same!
But the number of people, young and old, who are using heroin, is thru the roof! This is a drug that is the end of the road drug! It is the one that there is little hope of "full recovery" from! Meaning that the user will always have that urge to use again, and the chances of relapse are around 80% that they will!
It is well known that heroin, crack, methamphetamine and such can and will kill you! It is well known that they are highly addictive and lead nowhere but trouble. Yet everyday there are new addicts made.
The government has lost credibility with their repeated dogma against drugs and their lumping everything together as an evil drug that will certainly kill you and you must refrain from all of them except alcohol, which is good for you and will make you popular and sexy and will solve all of the world's problems!
Marijuana is lumped in with heroin and crack! It is not harmful nor is it addictive! People do not kill others to get money so they can buy it!
But the government will have you believe that it does! This weakens their argument and weakens what our children's perception of the dangers of drugs is!
Sensible drug policy and truthfulness are what is needed when it comes to getting the message out to the public about drugs!
A person has to WANT to change to truly get them the help they need! You cannot put them in prison and expect them to want to change just because they wound up in prison! If anything prison is more of a reason for a person to USE drugs, as they are readily available in just about every prison in the United States!

"and one hell of a success rate"

As a matter of fact, AA and NA have a very LOW success rate. It's hard to measure with perfect accuracy since it is, quote, "anonymous", but studies show that the vast majority of people drop out soon after joining. And who could blame them, considering the cliches, platitudes, and syrupy nonsene that comes out of everybody's mouth. It's all, "I used to be a bum, but thanks to this program, the Serenity Prayer and you wonderful people...." The ones who do attend regularly nevertheless "slip" all the time. It is a statistical fact that far more people attain sobriety outside those groups than in them. I'm not knocking using anything that helps you personally, but I deplore the way most 12 Step proponents insist it is the ONLY way to get clean and sober when the reality is quite different.