Light up everybody................Join us in this celebration.

Hey you old drunks in congress, legalize NOW and levy a tax comparable to alcohol and cigarettes.

When 20% of the population demands permission to use a substance, and the congress continues to keep it illegal, for profit, then they are traitors. Sic semper tyrannis!

Drinking rates fell. Oh-oh, call out the liquor lobbyists - this is getting serious!

OK only 19 comments so far...almost all very positive. How about instead of hooraying on the newsvine, you write your local representative.

Smokers are a quiet bunch with good reason, but the time is NOW for our voices to be heard. Sign petitions, write letters, join NORML. Let's show the world we are not lazy couch potatoes!

ALL Positive. People are using pot instead of meth or cocaine. What the heck is wrong with that? NOBODY has really found any negative effects of pot use and, if you have a choice between pot and alcohol, the alcohol is FAR more dangerous. And the tax income! We ended alcohol prohibition largely because the country and the states needed the money. That is at least as true today.

LEGALIZE NOW!

This issue seems to be coming more into the mainstream. We need to make as much of a push to legalize marijuana as was made to legalize gay marriage. It should be a much easier issue to get through than that one was.

You know that this means we need more drug testing. Buy stock in drug testing companies now! They will never legalize Mary Jane there is just to much money to be made keeping it illegal.

I'll admit pot is the lesser of what's legal, and what's not legal. As far as legalizing it for the tax revenues goes, I don't think there will be enough revenue generated to do much after the government gets done regulating, licensing, etc. it! In my younger days a kilo was $125 (I'm getting old!). Imagine the cost after you let those greedy corrupt legislators get control of it! The financial argument for legalizing pot is really dumb when you think about how the lotto's were supposed to help education in the states that legalized them. Those in office went through that money faster than it came in, and look at the condition of education in any of those states, it got worse! Decriminalize it, don't legalize it! The feds refuse to enforce our immigration laws, we should refuse to enforce the federal, state laws against possession of pot! Please don't put any more money into the hands of those in office, look at how well they've done with our economy!

elect Ron Paul 2012

Man I love this!! Missed Hempfest in Seattle this year, but WILL be going to Hempstock in Portland this weekend. Marijuana, Music, & Munchies. It's going to be a lazy good time. :-)

For once an article about some good news!

We need to Legalize it Nationwide it's pretty much legal here in California 8)

I can grow up to 6 full mature plants by state law and that lasts me 6 months

Fresh Green Dank 8p for the win

Drug War = Epic Fail

How many young people have died from big Pharma 8(

"Hey, hey, hey...smoke weed everyday!"

With the lousy economy and political instability around the globe, along with the almost unprecedented number of natural disasters, many folks simply want to take the edge off and those folks have the choice of a) prescription from Big Pharma, b) a tasty adult beverage (my personal favorite) or c) smoking a little of Mother Nature's recipe.

It should come as no surprise that option c) is gaining favor and our authorities could take advantage of that by legalizing hemp and taxing the f**K out of it, but instead will continue the idiotic prohibition of it, locking away non-violent and otherwise law abiding citizens while allowing violent predators to thumb their noses at our legal system (unless they happen to be in possession or have committed a financial crime at the time of their arrest) and prey on the innocent.

The numbers of the survey say 22 million, and if the REAL number was out---- because MOST pot smokers will never tell anyone they smoke pot ----would be 50 million plus!

Any chance that the DEA will look at the LACK of increase in crime or medical issues, and ADMIT that cannabis is virtually harmless?!?

Anyone willing to hold their breath?

Not me. The DEA will fight to the death over the ridiculous failure that is America's 'War on Drugs!'

All drugs should be legalized. To ban drugs is an anti-freedom position.

8.9% use 'illegal' drugs in the U.S.????? LMAO

Okay, who the hell is lying? It's probably more like 20% plus.

all drugs should be legalized? what are you on, anyway!???????

Yeah, a great example of the uselessness of surveys and polls. How many people are going to admit to doing meth? Oh, the one's that got caught.....

That has to be one of the most unintelligent arguments I've seen yet. Come back when you actually have something intelligent to say.

What is unintelligent about it? Telling the People that they can't take drugs undermines our freedom to take them. Taking drugs infringes on no one; it should be a private matter and the government should have no say in that decision. Embrace freedom and you would understand my position.

If you think the alcohol and tobacco industry or the pharmaceutical industry will permit the legalization of marijuana you must be baked. Their lobbyists will spread around millions of dollars to the whores we call congress and it will never see the floor of either house or senate.

Idaho Dragon,

WTF!! Are you high on contact cement or something?? You don't know dick!!

If you think the alcohol and tobacco industry or the pharmaceutical industry will permit the legalization of marijuana you must be baked.

The use of lobbyists to undermine our freedoms should be punishable by life imprisonment in my opinion. All drugs should be immediately legalized.

Just leglize it already!

I'll tell you why it's unintelligent. You seem to be under a misunderstanding of what freedom is. You think it violates your freedoms if you can't legally do whatever drugs you want. Well, what about the freedom of others to not have to be put at risk by idiots who use dangerous drugs like PCP or crack cocaine or meth?

Freedom means that a person can do anything they want unless they infringe on others. Taking drugs alone doesn't infringe on anyone. If someone uses drugs and it forces them to kill then they are responsible for those actions. There is no freedom to not be put at risk. Driving puts people at risk because others may be distracted drivers. Flying puts people at risk of plane crashes. Taking drugs alone doesn't infringe on any rights. And taking drugs alone in one's own home is not infringing on the rights of anyone. It may be dangerous but it isn't the government's problem.

What about their freedoms? Or don't their freedoms matter?

Spare me the phony outrage over your "lack of freedom" to do whatever drugs you want. It has nothing to do with freedom. There are always limits to your personal freedoms. Sometimes those freedoms have to take a backseat to common sense.

They don't have freedom to undermine what a person can and can't do. Our "limits" to freedoms only apply when they infringe on others and taking drugs or alcohol doesn't infringe on anyone. "Common sense" used to relate to non-aggression and the ability to let others live the lives that they want to live (with drugs or without). All anti-drug laws are wrong and should be repealed!!

And by the way genius, I embrace freedom a hell of a lot more than you could ever imagine. So save your snide comments for someone who cares.

Hmmmm, and you want lobbyists should be thrown in prison for life because they are against legalizing all drugs huh?

Yeah, you're a hypocrite alright. You talk about freedom, but would take it away from others because they disagree with you.

You're a joke...just like most drug users.

First, I have never taken a drug in my 24 years of existence and don't plan on starting anytime. Ever.

Second, I am against people working to undermine our freedoms regardless of who it is or their intent. Undermining our freedoms are always wrong and should always be seen as unconstitutional and illegal! Those freedoms that include freedom of speech/religion/expression and our freedom to live our lives in peace without government aggression disguised as some authoritarian's form of "morality".

You don't embrace freedom. You are against it or you would be against the drug laws for undermining our rights. They are built on the same pointless morality arguments used to promote anti-marriage equality in this nation.

the irony in all this is how many law enforcement officials, judges even politicians making laws and sending people to jail for having marijuana, at some point in their lives they had the best times while they didn't smoke marijuana, they ate it, like it was the last batch on the planet... i know many of them now are just crazy for a bill to decriminalize it and go back to those happy days and stop living that double moral life they are in now.

While pot use increases, so with it increases contempt for the law. Smoke it if you have it.

So Idaho Dragon I assume following your argument about people who might live with a pot smoker you would favor prohibition of alcohol and tabacco as well?

Theo,

You might want to brush up on your reading comprehension sometime.

You want to legalize pot, go ahead. I think anyone who uses it is an idiot, but other than its obvious harm to a person's lungs, I don't see any real harm in it.

As you can see, I specifically said I didn't see any real threat in someone who uses pot, other than the potential damage to their lungs. My earlier comments referred specifically to dangerous drugs like PCP, meth and crack.

As for alcohol and tobacco, they have their own dangers, which pretty much everyone should be well aware of by now. Personally, I would rather humanity learned to do without "recreational" drugs...but that is unrealistic.

Too many people need a crutch.

Has anyone taken a look at the old farts that are in Congress, or even their local state governments? Clearly, since Federally pot is illegal, the STILL consider it a "gateway" drug to heroin, barbiturates, methamphetamines, and bathtub drugs like Special K, meth, and crack. I've smoked since I was sixteen, never saw stoners in a fight, but I've seen some seriously stupid @!$%# done under the influence of alcohol. The fact that we think it's intelligent to drug test people applying, or receiving, welfare, attests to the fact that it's gonna take another generation, probably, for the Federal Government to throw in the flag and legalize ONLY pot. I'm all for it, been doin' it for over 40 years, and everything's all good. Please refer to "Sweet Leaf." Gotta love
Sabbath.............

You say a person should have the freedom to do whatever drug they want, in their own home. What about the rights and freedoms of the people they live with? Should a spouse or a child have to be placed at the mercy of a drug user?

If a drug/alcohol user is abusive then they should leave the home. Taking drugs and attacking others are not the same concept. Some may take drugs and not attack anyone and others may be more violent. The same applies to alcohol.

And yes, I DO embrace freedom. My arguments aren't based on some vague "morality" arguments. Unlike you, I use common sense along with an actual UNDERSTANDING of what many drugs do.

I've seen firsthand what certain types of drugs do to people. There is nothing beneficial about them. There is nothing safe about them. There is a great deal of danger associated with them, to the user and to anyone around them.

Drugs may be very dangerous but is it not government's place to dictate if the People can and can not take those drugs. That decision should be made by the individual citizen. It is not about safety. It is about the freedom of the citizen to take any substance that they want to consume.

You want to legalize pot, go ahead. I think anyone who uses it is an idiot, but other than its obvious harm to a person's lungs, I don't see any real harm in it.

Yes, if a person's actions do not directly infringe on any other person then their actions should be legal. Taking drugs should be legal. Attacking another person should not be legal. Arson should not be legal.

The concept of non-aggression and the protection of rights is promoted by the libertarian ideals. Freedom for all the People to do anything they want that doesn't infringe on others. That is why I recommend that you and others fully accept freedom and not see freedom as something that government should restrict "for our own good".

Pfft. No matter how many hysterical fears of catastrophe people have, my liberty is not for them to restrict. Piss off.

IdahoDragon- What disasterous things do you believe have occured in European nations where drugs are legal?

Why is MJ illegal? All this argument to make it legal or decriminalize, but I have never heard a real reason for it to be against the law to smoke, hold, or transport. This has to be the most obtuse law that has ever been made. If lawmakers were required to elucidate why any law were to be passed, this one would be the most difficult to explain without looking like a fool.

Wouldn't it be nice if looking like a fool bothered congress?

Stone...

Read about the street sweeps in Amsterdam where they just picked up the OD corpses each morning.

The thing about that was that they did it to themselves so the user was the only perpetrator and victim. I understand that the free zones have been eliminated because of the morning sweeps' effect on public relations.

" ... Well, what about the freedom of others to not have to be put at risk by idiots ... "

Uuummmm. And here I thought that we were talking about pot, not guns. I guess that I will have to pay more attention then. Oh well.

You are intentionally blind to the consequences it would bring.

The consequences of a free society would be better then the current situation of incriminating acts that do not infringe upon others.

od corpses from marijuanja? HUH?

Dragonmaster. I have been to Amsterdam 4 times. I went looking for these "copses" you described and they weren't there!

You are spreading more government propaganda.

Idaho,

Portugal legalized ALL drugs a few years back. They also instituted programs that addressed the root cause of why people were using hard drugs like cocaine and meth - and do you know what happened? Without the stigmata associated with being a criminal, people actually actively sought help with their addictions and - you guessed it - DRUG USE WENT DOWN!

FYI it is Portugal where they did that for all drugs and the abuse... wait for it... WENT DOWN

IF marijuana were to be legalized, the revenue generated from taxes on marijuana would at the least help reduce the deficit.

Also, there are many other uses for marijuana, or "hemp" as some like to call it. There are a multitude of products that can be made from just 1 acre of hemp. 10x more bio-fuels can be produced from 1 acre of hemp then from the same acre of corn. Clothing materials that are more durable than cotton and feel much less lighter. Petroleum based products would become lower in price due to the influx of "hemp" made product. Hemp was used a paper, roping and even Henry Ford made a car out of hemp. And it worked!

Personally, marijuana should be treated the same as alcohol. The effects are much more diminished than alcohol and the long term effects have not been proven to cause health issues. In fact, NIH completed a study showing that "Marijuana" significantly reduces the spread of cancer from one cell to another. Make it a medicinal remedy? Like you come home a drink a beer after work. Whats the harm in that?

So, if marijuana use is on the rise, and harder illicit drugs are on the down-turn, why wouldn't the Federal government make it legal and just get it over with. Debate ended!!

Read about the street sweeps in Amsterdam where they just picked up the OD corpses each morning.

Well, thank goodness that NEVER happens in America. On a daily basis, in every major city....

Bluelake...

If you think the alcohol and tobacco industry or the pharmaceutical industry will permit the legalization of marijuana you must be baked.

Phillip Morris has already invested quite a bit of $$ in preparation of legalization. When big business buys in, only a matter of time before the politicians are bought. Legalization is on its way...

@ Bluelake: Cantakenomore is correct, Phillip Morris and the other major tobacco companies have had designs for boxes and cartons drawn up for ages, for the day that Marijuana is legalized. They're simply waiting, at the moment, perfectly content with their profits from Tobacco, but absolutely more than willing to tap into the Marijuana trade, once it becomes legalized.

I think they'd be more pro-legalization if they knew how much of an impact legalized Marijuana would have on the Tobacco trade, and if the profits from Marijuana would offset/increase those losses/profits.

so are the feds...:

Production, Analysis, & Distribution of Cannabis & Marijuana Cigarettes
Solicitation Number: N01DA-10-7773
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Office: National Institutes of Health
Location: National Institute on Drug Abuse

Synopsis:
Added: Aug 05, 2009 9:03 am
The National Institute on Drug Abuse is soliciting proposals from qualified organizations having the capability to (1) grow, harvest, analyze, store and distribute GMP grade cannabis (marijuana) on large and small scales; (2) extract cannabis to obtain purified phytocannabinoids including delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (delta-9-THC), analyze, and store; (3) prepare marijuana cigarettes and related products; and (4) distribute marijuana, marijuana cigarettes and cannabinoids, and other related products for research and other Government programs upon NIDA authorization.

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=13b43512c37e45befa6e8f9556d276b0&tab=core&_cview=1

Wow...

You say a person should have the freedom to do whatever drug they want, in their own home. What about the rights and freedoms of the people they live with? Should a spouse or a child have to be placed at the mercy of a drug user?

Idaho, Really? Maybe I'm taking this out of context, but this article is about Marijuana, so let's keep with that drug for just a moment. Marijuana calms me down, i'm not sure about how many people it make aggressive, pretty sure none, but alcohol makes some people very arrogant, and extremely aggressive... I'd rather be at the hands of someone who smokes pot, than someone who drinks. but that's just my opinion...

And yes, I DO embrace freedom. My arguments aren't based on some vague "morality" arguments. Unlike you, I use common sense along with an actual UNDERSTANDING of what many drugs do.

Genesis 1:29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food." - Morals? God gave it to us... Talk about unequivocal permission to use...

Smoke some pot, then get back to us.

Dear Idaho Dragon, change is coming in the way of cannabis legalization. The movement is strong to not just decriminalize but also to legalize and with good reason. Its not just a bunch of people wanting to get high on a safe substance anymore, its also people looking to treat their medical problems with one of the safest medicines known to man. Its not just for pain any longer..we are talking about a cancer fighter and a neuroprotectant...pretty serious medicine I think most would agree? Yes??

If you ever bothered to research this then there would be no spouting a load of garbage. I never used anything that wasn't prescribed by an MD. After getting progressive Multiple Sclerosis, blindness in one eye, can't go anywhere without wheelchair/walker. It was suggested to try it, I did and have gotten some amazing relief for many symptoms and relaxed enough to take the injectable meds that I also have to take. So can the crap and research it, you would be surprised how much good it does provide. I suggest you try Blue Moon.

Idaho dragon, don't bother. it's apparent this post has been overrun by misguided individuals who actually think a world full of rampant drug use would be a good thing. obviously they did not grow up in a good solid family where there was no drug or alcohol abuse, with loving parents and extended family. had they, when seeing dysfunctional families of friends, lives twisted and f'ed up by alcohol abuse, drug abuse or both, they would understand your argument. there is no good side to any of these life wrecking substances. do you think it's good for a growing child to have pothead parents versus clean and productive parents? no, how can anyone make that argument unless they are already f'ed up themselves. so I applaud you for taking on the fight against heavy odds.

to the rest of you, the only good part of this article is that the more serious drugs are in decline. let's hope that continues to the point of no use at all. that is the utopia you should be looking for. a world of altered consciousness is a stanley kubric sort of hell. be careful what you wish for.

get off your high horse

A world where everyone was forced to do drugs would be hell, sure. So would be a world where no one is allowed to change their consciousness without legal repercussions, where children sell crack, where police are encouraged to violate the Constitution, where the law violates the Constitution, where the government steals property from people merely suspected of being involved in the drug trade, where plants are considered contraband and certain horticulture is considered a felony, where politicians and cops decide what is medicine based on what is politically expedient and how much money is to be made...

That's the hell we live in. I don't care if people do drugs on their own time, as long as they don't hurt anyone else. But to use government to infringe on that choice sets very anti-liberty precedents and brings to the forefront of my mind the following question: "does the government think they lord over my body and mind?" They must think they do, along with those who support the government in their violent prohibition. It is a foot in the door to the enslavement of all.

"get off your high horse" - isn't that a ridiculous comment. sorry I have a viewpoint and am not afraid to state it clearly. should I water it down so I don't offend you? how about commenting on what i actually said instead of the tone you didn't like?

I agree thumper, this world will never be perfect and it is a choice between degrees of hell. I personally believe a drug saturated world (notice I did not say "forced" which was the basis of your argument) is a far worse place than one where usage is kept within controlled limits. excess by its nature a bad thing. I do think people who use drugs undeniably on the whole have an effect on other people, whether it is friends, family, children, spouses - or someone using excessively and making the poor judgment of getting in a car and killing any one of us posting today. I don't think it is our "freedom" to do things that place others at risk. we do not live on this earth alone, we live in communities and have responsibility to others. why do we limit the speed people drive? is it not their own personal choice what speed they feel comfortable? Do you want to be on the highway trusting everyone else's judgment? that's their right by your argument, correct? laws should be fair and set to limit those risks. not to control reasonable thinkers, but to restrain those that are not reasonable from doing stupid things that place the rest of us at risk. having no law is not freedom, that is anarchy and hell.

1. Legalising marijuana will not lead to "a world full of rampant drug use". This is a logical fallacy called "slippery slope". Nobody takes such an argument seriously even if they aren't aware it is a logical fallacy.

2. Your highway example is an obvious case of public safety concern. Private drug use in one's own home is not a public safety concern. Obviously there are exceptions such as when a user has dependents like children or a disabled family member.

3. I don't think anyone suggests that should marijuana or any drugs be legalised, that driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol should be legalised. To assert such a thing is quite silly.

4. Its really funny that you got so bothered by his "high horse" comment. I would tell you how to deal with trolls but if your mother didn't tell you how to deal with such people when you were in third grade then I doubt you will take my advice.

5. I would be really curious to know how you feel about alcohol and tobacco.

Bwhatever....I would refute your first post point by point but it would not sway your opinion. "pothead parents versus clean and productive parents." @!$%# you! Marijuana users are not clean and productive. @!$%# you! There ...now you can say we are filthy, non productive, and angry at ignorant Prohibitionists as well. As for violating the rules of Newsvine ...I'm ready for my punishment. Oh, by the way I am clean and productive as well as the other millions of marijuana users.

1. I wasn't commenting on marijuana - I was commenting on the belief all drugs should be legalized. MJ, who cares. the rest, I care, I would think most sane reasonable people would care too.

2.the "exception" is it not effecting others. there is more than public safety issues, there is leading others to addiction, taking one out of active participation in family life, work productivity being reduced (speaking of drugs other than MJ), etc. etc.

3. I did not assert such a thing, if you read the posts leading up to that one, others were suggesting it and bashing Idaho dragon for disagreeing

4. trolls, my mother, sounds like you still are in 3rd grade. although I responded to the high horse thing, it does not bother me, I just find it....... annoying that someone comes on to these things not expecting to hear people on a soapbox. that is what these forums are for. take your five part post for example. I take no offense in your high horse, I just respond to it, which is exactly what I told "Kyle" to do. you are fully entitled to your opinion.

5. I am against tobacco, nothing good comes from that. alcohol, there should be laws to prevent irresponsible use, just like I said about drugs. I don't think the current laws are effective in either case.

B,

We all affect other people, sure. But your argument is a red herring. Not all drugs affect people in the same way (even if you are talking about the same drug), and being "drug-free" doesn't mean you aren't a royal pr!ck to your family or others in your life or that you are a productive citizen.

"I do think people who use drugs undeniably on the whole have an effect on other people, whether it is friends, family, children, spouses"

What you are saying here is that the government has a responsibility to regulate the private dynamics of families and friends. I'm sorry, but if that isn't totalitarian to the extreme, what is? Video games, excess television, work habits, hobbies - these can all affect the quality of interpersonal relationships, as well... just as there are very productive people with happy family lives who drink or smoke pot, there are drug-free people who are emotionally distant from their families or are just plain terrible people. It isn't the government's right to regulate interpersonal relationships, no matter what kind of private behavior you are talking about.

or someone using excessively and making the poor judgment of getting in a car and killing any one of us posting today. I don't think it is our "freedom" to do things that place others at risk.

Driving under the influence is illegal already. Drinking and driving is illegal, but drinking itself is LEGAL. You shouldn't write laws that restrict freedom based on what bad decisions someone MIGHT make, you enforce laws that already exist that punish people for causing harm to others. If someone wants to trip on LSD at home, why should you care? If they get into an automobile and drive, however unlikely that may be, then they have made a decision that directly puts people on PUBLIC property at risk. There is a difference between private behavior and PUBLIC behavior when it comes to risky actions. In any case, just getting in a car with a SOBER mind is dangerous as it is, so your argument that we can't do things that put others at risk is disingenuous and vague.

not to control reasonable thinkers, but to restrain those that are not reasonable from doing stupid things that place the rest of us at risk

Our laws do not distinguish between "reasonable thinkers" and "those that are not reasonable." If you are caught with a controlled substance it doesn't matter if the government trusts you to work on nuclear weapons because of your genius or if you are homeless and living in a gutter, you are treated the same way. We write reactionary laws, based on emotions and media-driven fear, that punish ALL for the transgressions of a TINY minority. That is NOT reasonable.

To B-2454409 and Idaho, bigotry is defined as stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

No one here is suggesting that either you or Idaho do or partake in anything you feel strongly against; yet, you’d begrudge, demean, and would have criminals made of literally millions of good Americans; all based upon an your unsubstantiated mindsets. B, your perfect black and white stereotypical Ozzie and Harriet world is truly what’s not real and misguided herein. People are fundamentally imperfect and all families are dysfunctional to one degree or another; to think otherwise is feeble and is as unintelligent as our Federal government imposing this total prohibition of a natural and useful plant, hemp.

The truth be told, it's the law that's life (and industry) wrecking, not the substance. Remove the stigma of its illegality and this small segment of the population wouldn’t even be on your radar. not only are good, clean, and hardworking productive people in prison or have been forever barred from meaningful employment because of a ridiculous criminal record. Entire industries are equally being barred. Canada and other hemp producing nations import such products as quality paper, twine and rope, durable cloth just to name a few.

These past seventy years of unsolicited oppression (no one voted for it) is a national travesty and an affront to American civil liberties. It's a tyranny To further maintain this nonsenical is prohibition; stop the madness and decriminalize hemp.

i stand by the high horse comment, don't throw your preconceived notions of "druggies" around. Don't assume that it is only people with bad families or poor upbringings. Just because their life doesn't fit into your small narrow minded ideal doesn't make you any better or any worse then them.

Smoking pot is a form of escapism. Just like using drugs or drinking booze. I'll stick to books for my escapes. Fiction brings me to places drugs never could..and with no hangover.

I personally don't care either way if they legalize pot. I don't use it. I don't think it's going to help our debt. Not even close. Too many already have figured out a way to grow their own. It could get rid of the street hustler, but only if the government figures out a way to tax it and sell it cheaper than on the streets. I don't have a lot of faith in that happening.

unlike some here, I do appreciate the comments, and I am far from narrow minded. do we not all strive for betterment of ourselves and our society? we can all agree we are writing here in part because we think things should change, we just disagree with what the changes should be.

I make no assumptions and I am not stereotyping. I am sorry I can't write a complete dissertation in a posting, i gave a few small extreme examples to make a point. and yes, constitution thumper, I agree, there are a lot of pricks in this world with or without drugs or alcohol and we can't control all of that. and no the government can't do anything about it. but will ALL OF THIS, aren't we striving for improvement? and is it not a collective goal to improve our condition not only personally, but as a society. do we not care for our brothers, or are we only concerned about ourselves. citizen frank thinks legalizing makes the problems go away.......the usual argument, i agree with janine. i personally don't want my son to head down to the local wine, liquer, and crack store and decide trying crack one day might be a good idea. i don't think i want to see that world. I stand by the core of my statement, less drugs would make for a better world. . and I do care enough to make the argument that legalizing ALL drugs is not that answer to a better society. personal freedom has its limits. the constitution was not written as a one liner - "everyone can do what they want" - it was written as a set of RULES, guidelines to create a great society. why do so many miss that point and think it gives them personal license to do whatever the heck they want?

and concerned criminal - in case you miss the irony in your statements - you are clearly on just as high of a horse, just of a different color? I made no such assumptions, I just didn't cite every possible example, only the extremes to make a point. perhaps you're a bit paranoid. wait, paranoid.......you must be smokin' right now - ha!

mary J, i don't care, the rest being legal is my gripe.

and jeff, i don't know what to say. i would take parents who don't smoke pot over parents that do any day. clean and productive - you are right and i apologize for the generalization - that was off based. but i would still take the non-partaking parent any day.

B-2454409 Must be one of those that would run out and use all the drugs he can once they legalize them, because he has no self control.

The rest of us don't need our government's prohibtion to know better than to go shoot heroin, or smoke crack, or meth, because we use what's called "common sense" you might want to try that sometime B.

As for marijuana, it is safer than alcohol, tobacco, any prescription drugs, and EVEN caffeine, why would we not choose to smoke it instead of getting drunk and having a hangover the next day?

obviously they did not grow up in a good solid family where there was no drug or alcohol abuse, with loving parents and extended family. had they, when seeing dysfunctional families of friends, lives twisted and f'ed up by alcohol abuse, drug abuse or both, they would understand your argument.

These were the assumptions i was talking about. Don't judge other peoples lives because you have no idea what their situation was. If you grew up in a "good family" (by your standards) then all power too you. But just because someone didn't grow up in a privileged situation doesn't make them unclean and unproductive. The high horse i was referring to was you assuming that your upbringing makes you a better judge of what is right or wrong. I understand your upbringing might be what molded you as a person and what molded these beliefs, but every person grows up in different situations. That doesn't make their opinion any less valuable then yours.

"concerned criminal" - I apologized for the wording of that comment. I should not have generalized - clearly you are right -. I wasn't trying to be judgmental of the entirety of the group. overall I was trying to make a point that legalizing ALL drugs is a bad idea. MJ is not my issue, let me restate that again. clearly it is not worse than alcohol or tobacco - both legal. but did I say their viewpoint wasn't valid? need I remind you that you all have been disagreeing with mine too? does that mean you are saying my viewpoint is less valid? makes no sense to me. we are all just on opposite sides of an issue. I did appreciate the criticism without personal attack though.

"prohibition doesn't work" - was the mean spiritedness really necessary? I agree MJ is safer than those other things (which I have stated multiple times over) as for common sense? I have enough to know our young people don't always use common sense and make good choices. Do you have enough common sense to realize that? so let's make it easier for them to make bad choices? that's not common sense, that's stupid. I am worried about our next generation and what kind of society we will be creating when we say meth is ok, cocaine too. "do whatever you want, you are free". the loosening of all of this stuff thanks to the "me" generation which you have obviously been completely indoctrinated in to is what is leading our nation into the gutter.

but who am I to say right? so if you want to go home from your job and smoke a joint over dinner with the kids, have some crack for a night cap, go ahead, I'm sure that has no effect on them. I admire people like that. that's a class. can't wait to live in that world. legalize it all!!!

Mr B, although I still disagree with many of your opinions it is clear I have misunderstood your posts, didn't follow the whole conversation, and thus posted an inappropriate response. For this I apologize as well as for the tone of my post.

What I meant by the troll comment was that if you feel you were being "trolled" (I used this word because its what the kids say these days to mean "egging one on" or "trying to get a rise out of", I thought it would be easily understood and also concise), and you should treat those people the same way you treated annoying kids in your childhood: to ignore them, and they will go away.

If you want a calm discussion you would do well to avoid sarcasm and ad hominem, though.

thanks kyle and cheers to civility. we can disagree and be civil. and forgive my sarcasm in the last post. that's just frustration showing through.

I value your opinion like i value everyone Else's. I will argue against it if i disagree but that is because argument (if done civilly) is the only way to find common ground. I was in a bad mood this morning which is why my comment came off as a little more abrasive then i meant it. Forgive me that. Opinion wise you and I are pretty much on the same page. I just don't like the constant stereotyping of MJ users as lazy, dirty and drains on society. It is misconceptions like that one that stand in the way of ending a worthless prohibition on a plant that is not only good medicine but would also revolutionize agriculture and industry in this country.

and i agree. that is the point. discussing opposing viewpoints leads to better understanding for both sides. some veer left on this issue and some right. i think the value of these discussions is in understanding each other. and i had it tough on this thread so i was probably sounding a bit defensive myself. i should have avoided those who went on the tangent of legalizing everything. MJ was the issue and there doesn't seem to be much disagreement there.

to george in wa state. who wrote"

" ... Well, what about the freedom of others to not have to be put at risk by idiots ... "

Uuummmm. And here I thought that we were talking about pot, not guns. I guess that I will have to pay more attention then. Oh well."

How do legal gun owners put others at risk? U want to make all drugs legal, but not allow people the right to protect themselves? That is the stupidest thing i have ever heard. You are talking about freedom, but only the ones you think are good. You are a hypocrite. And if they did make all drugs legal you better believe there would be many more people needing guns.

B,

I don't disagree with your points regarding bettering ourselves and society. There are two problems with that goal, as I see it: 1) the ends do not justify the means... a good result that is achieved through massive application of evil (for example, in my opinion, criminal drug prohibition) can only be maintained by further application of evil if a good result is even EVER achieved; and 2) who defines what is "better?"

Surely, crack addiction is not "better," although someone could learn valuable life lessons by defeating a crack addiction. Whether crack is legal or not, however, the addiction still exists. Threatening jail time, criminalizing users, and confining the source of the addiction to the black market does not make for a "better" society in anyone's viewpoint except those who make money on the drug and those who work in the criminal justice system.

Conversely, many people have very positive life-changing experiences after experiencing the effects of LSD, psilocybin, DMT, and some other substances that are considered "dangerous, addictive, and without medical value," or, in other words, Schedule I substances. To them, "better" could very well involve the psychedelic experience. It is also true that people can experience traumatic psychological issues as a result of psychedelic drug use, even though the incididence of such trauma is rare.

That is why, in my opinion, a much more reasoned and open-minded approach to ALL drugs, not just pot, is needed to "better" society and ourselves personally. Drug "abuse" (as in overuse, not just "use" as politicians would define it) can be a personal and societal problem, true, but that does not mean that all drug USE, even in a "recreational" sense (when done sensibly and by informed people) has no value to society at all. Moderation is definitely key, in my opinion. The integration of drugs into society is not only inevitable, but it has already happened. We just haven't yet figured out, as a community, how to encourage "responsible use" (and what that actually means) and discourage "abuse." We call it all "abuse" now, and by doing so, we make the problem worse. There is a middle ground, and while not perfect for everyone, would certainly allow cognitive freedom while minimizing negative individual and societal harm.

For all of you that sit there and say that you have never seen a violent pot head I respectfully disagree. I have seen people smoke and then be quite violent. Have you ever seen what happens to those poor Doritos and Cheetos after they smoke a joint! They are defenseless against the savage cravings fueled by these people that have smoked that harmless plant. Think about the snack foods! The poor poor snack foods!

I think most people are for the decriminalization of all drugs but only marijuana should be fully legalized.

There's a difference between the two. I think when people hear the word decriminalize they think that means there will be crack and heroin next to the Hershey's chocolate bar at 7-11.

This is the most idiotic website site that I have ever seen with censorship at its greatest, so much for the first amendment rights when the community will collapses somebody for what they say because they happen to not agree with it, how left wing is that, that is socialism at its greatest. One person was collapsed for saying “Pure escapism. Nothing more or less.” I happened to agree with it, individuals that have to use pot are being controlled by a substance. Stand up and take control of your life or is it that you have no self-control.

i would take parents who don't smoke pot over parents that do any day

Oh my god, not me. I would have given one of my legs to have pot smoking parents to raise me. Knowing what I know now, no doubt in my mind.

Isn't funny how people can be so different in their desire's category....(-:

I think the problem lies jhdw4u is that there is a difference between I don't agree with you and you will agree with me whether you like it or not; and I don't agree with you but I am not going to force my view on you just speak my side.

That is the problem with prohibition. It is a force my view on you and that isn't freedom, that is subjugation. Would you like it if someone told you that they don't like vehicles so they were going to take everyone's car away? I am sure you wouldn't. I am all for people making informed choices. I just don't feel that it is the right of a few to force their decisions on everyone. That is how alcohol prohibition happened. It brought an amendment to the constitution and also brought organized crime into existence in the United States.

I personally don't like people that wear to much cologne but it isn't my right to force someone to stop wearing to much cologne. I can inform them how it affects those around them but that doesn't mean I can run up to them with a bucket of water and a scrub brush and wash them. Imposing your will on others is not what this country was founded on yet all to often we see a small group insist on doing just that.

Oh my god, not me. I would have given one of my legs to have pot smoking parents to raise me. Knowing what I know now, no doubt in my mind.

Better stoner parents than drunk ones any day.

So what, government should fight to stop Alchohol it's more dangerous. I don't smoke anymore well since 96. But before that I was a heavy smoker of pot. Never developed a habit from tobacco, fact is i've never even tasted a cigarette. Have always thought that was a nasty habit. Never developed a taste for alchohol. Only reason i stopped smoking pot was I got too lazy to roll a joint.

I think pot should be legalized and taxed. Will help the economy for one, and two the grade of pot would improve and kids will stop dyin from smoking the synthetic crap out of plastic pipes. Some thing is truely wrong with our country.

I don't think it's going to help our debt. Not even close. Too many already have figured out a way to grow their own.

But growing your own isn't exactly free, either, after you purchase the grow lights and other equipment. Furthermore, the average person can't be bothered, just as the average wine drinker doesn't make his or her own wine from dandylions pulled from the yard, even though it is both easy and can be as tasty as a lot of what you'd buy. How many people even grow their own tomatoes, even though home grown tomatoes taste MUCH better than what you buy at Safeway? Most people are too lazy. Casual, occasional pot smokers, who are the overwhelming majority of all users, certainly couldn't be bothered to grow their own. Parents might not want to because live plants are harder to keep away from kids. The only reason so many pot smokers grow their own today is because it is NOT possible to buy it at the corner liquor store.

Marijuana calms me down, i'm not sure about how many people it make aggressive, pretty sure none, but alcohol makes some people very arrogant, and extremely aggressive... I'd rather be at the hands of someone who smokes pot, than someone who drinks. but that's just my opinion...

It's an opinion shared by a great many people. I used to rent rooms in my house to individuals as well as couples. I had MANY women ask me where they could get some pot because it would be better than alcohol for their boyfriends. They told me alcohol made the boyfriends obnoxious or worse, with the clear implication that said boyfriend might even abuse them UNLESS I got him some pot.

Maybe we should spend all our time stone sober, pursuing activities that lead to self-improvement like exercise and learning foreign languages, but the reality is that a huge number of people do like to escape reality on occasion. Experience proves it is better they should do this with marijuana than alcohol.

According to the Center for Disease Contol (CDC) you are a problem drinker if you have more than two standard drinks a day if male, or one drink if female. "Binge drinking" consists of four or more drinks at one time, and not, as some folks think, just staying drunk for days until you start hallucinating. How many regular imbibers stick to that limit?

we get a laugh at possible side effects of some drugs on tv. Stroke or heart attack, Possible death. brain hemorrhaging. If you have a erection more than 4 hours call your docto. Hell no i'll calla friend to come help with it.

B24....Apology accepted. You realize that calling all parents that use canabis Pothead parents and unclean and non productive is wrong and I take back my two statements of f*ck you! I do take offense to anyone being called a POTHEAD. That is inflamatory and non productive when used to describe people that choose to use marijuana. Cursing is not generally something I do unless I am extremely irritated.

When people discuss marijuana prohibition they are usually only talking about maijuana. Let the other drugs get legalized on their own merit.

One more thing. The law makes it easier for children to get other drugs by criminalizing marijuana. Drug dealers do not card their customers. Liquor stores do. Limit sales to those over 18 and enforce DUI laws.

Most of the problems with marijuana involve the law. The law is wrong. Change the law!

"Pot head" is to an occasional marijuana user as "wino" is to a person who has a glass of wine once a week with their Sabbath dinner. Abuse should never be confused with responsible use. If any psychoactive substance stronger than coffee becomes something you "need" daily or can't imagine doing without, or if the first thing you do when you come home from work is to grab a beer or roll a joint, if you wouldn't even accept a free trip to Tahiti unless you knew you could get your drug of choice while you were there, it's time to seek help, preferably before you end up completely messing up your life. But normal, social use is an entirely different matter. The same is true of gambling, spending money you can't afford, or just about anything that might be potentially addicting, whether psychologically or physically.

Having a glass of wine once a week qualifies a person to be labeled a wino? Wow.

I understand your point of moderation and I agree. My question is what do you define as normal and what is socially acceptable? At what point is someone messing up their lives in your opinion?

good point. i'm in college, passing my classes, supporting my family, my kids are all doing well in school and are well-provided for, things are good for us. and my wife and i both smoke it up pretty much from morning to night. of course we realize moderation is key to everything in life, but i like to wake and bake, and i like to smoke it up throughout the day. stoned right now, in fact. in this case, there's no moderation and no ill-effect on our family as a result. so if that's how it is, then how can moderation or abuse of use be a point? if we're doing good, and smoking it up day in, day out and our lives are happy and good, then how can you judge us based on the fact that we smoke it up like that? we're still functional good people...so what's the point about moderation and who says where the line is if even "overuse" of marijuana doesn't have any detrimental effect?

The problem is Joe, that not everybody can do what you do. Your life is an unattainable accomplishment even to many sober people. It is possible to abuse marijuana and it can affect one's life (but of course, only if one allows this to happen). Thus, some people need to save the smoke for the evenings or weekends or the end of their current project at work for example (this would be "moderation").

Personally, I would love to smoke it up all day every day but unfortunately I cannot perform academically (too much math in my field of study) while under the influence. Chores? Housework? Errands? Grocery shopping? Bills? Cooking? No problem, I'll do a wake and bake, knock those things out in record time even while hitting the bong between loads of dishes (that belong to my non-stoner roomate, BY THE WAY). There's no way I could do the same with my classes.

So I'm a perfect example of somebody who needs to be careful and take it in moderation. However just like you, I'm also a perfect example of a productive, moral, hard-working pot smoker. The whole point is that it is up to each person to decide what "moderation" means to them.

My question is what do you define as normal and what is socially acceptable? At what point is someone messing up their lives in your opinion?

I'm not sure my opinion matters because I'm prejudiced (somewhat pro-pot in moderation but anti-alcohol, period, except maybe for use in cooking.) I can only go by what the experts say. According the CDC (Center for Disease Control) you have a problem with alcohol if you are a woman who has more than one "standard" drink a day or a man who has more than two. That's seven a week for her and fourteen for him, and no, you can't save them all up for Saturday night! I'm not sure what they're calling a "standard drink" but their website probably clarifies that.

i'm in college, passing my classes, supporting my family, my kids are all doing well in school and are well-provided for, things are good for us. and my wife and i both smoke it up pretty much from morning to night.

No offense, but that sounds a LOT like what nearly every alcoholic says when confronted, a variant of "I'm holding a job, dammit, and I'm not lying in some gutter so how can I be an alcoholic? I'm gonna enjoy one of my few pleasures in life whether you ungrateful parasites like it or not." (By ungrateful parasites he means his wife and kids.) I realize that pot is a lot safer than alcohol, and it won't give you DT's, cirrhosis, or Wernicke Korsakoff Syndrome, BUT....

I'm going to go out on a limb and imagine you are both fairly young, no more than early thirties at the latest, right? It's important to realize that as we age, our bodies become less capable of processing drugs (foreign substances) in general, be they legal or illegal, prescription or OTC. Sooner or later your bodies themselves will tell you it's time to cut back, which this can be problematic if you haven't really learned to function without your artificial happiness formula of choice. Since this tends to happen to women a bit faster than men, how is it going to affect your marriage when your wife quits or cuts way back while you continue to smoke at current levels? And this is a biggie: You may be able to perform okay at class or on your job, but are you developing any hobbies or interests outside of that? That is, are you growing as a person? Are your kids really getting the quality time they need if you're zonked EVERY single day? (Yeah, a stoned dad is better than a drunk dad, but that's not saying much, is it?) For all these reaons I think it's wise to set limits like most people do in terms of when you use, how much you use when you do, and drawing a line between when it's social vs. when it's getting to be self-medication.

This is from the CDC.gov website, to further answer the question raised above.

What is a standard drink in the United States?
A standard drink is equal to 14.0 grams (0.6 ounces) of pure alcohol. Generally, this amount of pure alcohol is found in

• 12-ounces of beer.
• 8-ounces of malt liquor.
• 5-ounces of wine.
• 1.5-ounces or a “shot” of 80-proof distilled spirits or liquor (e.g., gin, rum, vodka, or whiskey).

Is beer or wine safer to drink than liquor?
No. One 12-ounce beer has about the same amount of alcohol as one 5-ounce glass of wine, or 1.5-ounce shot of liquor. It is the amount of alcohol consumed that affects a person most, not the type of alcoholic drink.

I'm not sure my opinion matters because I'm prejudiced

Not to be rude but that speaks volumes. That statement basically will support my thinking in that it all comes down to the individual. You know yourself and your limits and the way you want to live your life but that may be totally different for another person. Why is it that some people who drink very little alcohol can get smashed off their ass while others can drink til the sun comes up and still maintain a conversation? That's because we are all unique and react differently to different stimuli. Of course we all have commonalities.

I can only go by what the experts say. According the CDC...

While I'm sure they have everyone's best interests in mind, to say if you have more than one drink a day (2 for men) you have a problem is a bit much, don't you think? I think this is a result of Puritanical thinking and doesn't really reflect reality. But what I don't understand is I thought this was a free country and if you want to stay @!$%#ed up all day on whatever drug that was your choice just as long as you weren't hurting anyone else, hey that's your prerogative, right? Of course that is an exaggeration but is it not the reality? I would never recommend that lifestyle to anyone and would discourage it, but who am I to tell someone else how to live their lives? If a loved one were screwing up their lives, losing jobs, losing a marriage, destroying others lives, etc. then I would try to get them help or keep them from causing anymore pain. But people like joe420er who are maintaining and holding down a job and doing the right thing by his family, hey, as long as they are happy what more could you ask for? Hell, I bet many families would kill for that and their parents don't do any kind of drugs. I think there is too much pressure to be successful and to reach your full potential. I mean that is great and if people want to do that I say that's fantastic but if someone wanted to be a bump on the log and they could afford it, that is their business and I say more power to 'em.

As far as that aging thing you brought up, YES, my body has talked to me and YES I have had to make an adjustment in how I treat my body. LOL

Why is it that some people who drink very little alcohol can get smashed off their ass while others can drink til the sun comes up and still maintain a conversation?

Unfortunate analogy there, and I'll tell you why. I used to be one of those people, the five foot tall girl who could drink the football players under the table in high school. Guess what? Those are the exact people who end up severely addicted to alcohol. The ones who get smashed after two beers don't have this worry. This is not just my opinion. A doctor once told me when I'd been locked up in the detox ward thanks to the intervention of someone who loved me, "Your blood alcohol level is high enough to send some people into coma and yet we are having an ordinary, normal conversation. You aren't even slurring your speech! You think that is proof you are functioning just fine, but actually this is NOT a good sign! It is proof of very serious dependence. Unless we monitor your vital signs around the clock and give you appropriate doses of Librium and vitamins, you could very easily die. And you are not leaving this hospital until I say so." But, gee, doc, and we were having SUCH a nice chat...

Again, alcohol and pot are very different drugs, but it is nevertheless true that ridiculously high tolerance to any drug is NEVER a good sign. How does a person who uses any psychoactive substance the way Joe claims to even know what his normal mind is like when he's never sober long enough to find out?

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that we should make it a crime to be a stoner, pot head, or drunk for that matter. That sort of attitude only makes it less likely that people will get help when they need it. I do think we would need controls on marijuana just as we currently do on alcohol--that's why bars and liquor stores don't stay open around the clock and cannot serve you if you are obviously intoxicated. And I do think it's unfortunate when every time sensible people argue in favor of legalization or decriminalization, the potheads of the world always step up and insist it's perfectly okay to toke up morning, noon, and night, on the job, before final exams, while driving, and presumably right before performing neurosurgery or piloting an airplane. It's like someone during Prohibition had encouraged the town drunk to make speeches in order to end it. You would just be giving the other side ammunition. The whole point is that MOST people who use drugs like marijuana and alcohol do so responsibly and without incident.

While I'm sure they have everyone's best interests in mind, to say if you have more than one drink a day (2 for men) you have a problem is a bit much, don't you think? I think this is a result of Puritanical thinking

No, they are saying this is the point at which the very real health risks outway any possible benefits. Recently it's been discovered that even one drink per day increases a woman's risk of breast cancer, for instance. You have to balance that against the alleged lowered risk of hypertension, but I hope you see the point. (Remember, they are talking about doing this on a regular basic, not a rare overindulgance. Dose always matters.)

Reality check: they call it "intoxication" because it's TOXIC, which means POISONOUS. I do think, in fact I know, that marijuana is far less toxic than alcohol; at very least it's virtually impossible to have a fatal overdose. But hiding our heads in the sand and calling people "Puritans" for pointing out the facts when it comes to addicting, toxic alcohol isn't logical. And if you can't even admit that alcohol, one of the deadliest drugs of all is, in fact, a real danger makes it less likely that people will believe you when you talk about other drugs as well.

hold on now...i never said it was ok to be smoking it up if you're showing up for work, regardless of the profession...some people at least are born with common sense...i don't smoke it up before going into work, i mean, i don't want to rock the boat in any way when it comes to work. i don't "need" it so bad that i gotta smoke it up before i have to do something important...and that's not for my sake, it's for others', cuz i know the general feeling regarding marijuana. i mean, i don't even go to my college classes high...how the instructors react to me will determine my grade, no matter how well i do the work...i'm very aware of how people perceive "potheads" and i adjust my life in accordance to them. it's very easy...it's not hard to just not smoke...in fact last month i had to go 3 weeks with no bud, and that was a cakewalk...i understand the point you're bringing up oom, but there's a fundamental difference between your experience and mine. you risked your life and was in danger of dying...especially when you tried to quit. me? no risk to my life...no danger of dying...hell, i once went a year without smoking it up...

Sorry, Joe, I didn't really mean you personally. I was exaggerating your position to make a point. Of course I HAVE known people who thought it was okay to be stoned at work "as long as you can do your job" or who bragged (in high school) of getting stoned in the woods prior to class and then remaining on the honor roll. Or who said such off the wall things as, "I'm actually a BETTER driver when I'm stoned."

Of course you're right that stopping pot for whatever reason is usually no big deal, especially if you know you have a good reason. It wasn't for me either. I do think though that when trying to make a case for legalization, it is better to downplay the notion that you can use every single day and still function, because that DOES make you sound so much like the typical rationalizing functional alcoholic, who ALWAYS says things like "I hold a good job, dammit, and I can quit any time I want!" Like it or not, in our culture, most people's only frame of reference for intoxicating drug use is alcohol. What they know about alcohol is going to color their views of all over drugs. I think it's much better to simply stress that a good many regular users DO function very well, but I'd downplay statements like "I smoke every single day!" because, well, nonusers are going to assume you are just like someone who brags about drinking every single day. In other words, they will view you as a drunk who merely takes his booze in the gaseous rather than liquid form.

It's a lot better alternative to those drugs they listed as going down in usage too.

I certainly don't condone it (ESPECIALLY in conjunction with driving or on-the-job), but if it's out there, add it to the sin taxes! We could use the money!

DoubleJ1:

Any drug? Do you drink a beer now and again? Coffee? Tea? ALL OF THEM ARE DRUGS. Be specific. Do you mean illegal drugs?

Yes I meant illegal drugs. No I don't drink beer. I prefer rum and coke so I get my alcohol and caffeine at the same time, much more efficient that way. LOL

Hey marijuana is a safer and better alternative for a lot of ailments (cataracts, depression, eating disorders, cancer, etc) than EVERY pill the big Pharmaceutical companies would have you take. Have you ever really listened to all the "possible" side effects from prescription drugs? It's astounding that they can still sell this stuff legally. I was trying to quit smoking and my Dr. prescribed Chantix. What an effin' nightmare that stuff was. I'd rather smoke. Then it turns out a few years later the FDA found the Rx company fudged the "test" records for the drug and hid the fact that nearly 13% of one study group... get this... your gonna crap your pants... COMMITTED SUICIDE!!! And they STILL are allowed to prescribe and sell this drug. WTF? Where is the justice?

Hey I am all for m.j. But since when did m.j. help cataracts??? That is a ridiculous claim. It comes with age whether you smoke or not. Maybe you are mixing that up with the claims that it helps glaucoma. I don't know about the truth in that but have heard it over the years.

Smoking pot is more harmless than what alcohol and tobacco have and continue to do to society, yearly. So yes, smoking pot is more harmless than virtually any drug, legal or illegal. Even aspirin can have detrimental effects if taken to excess.

"Even very heavy, long-term marijuana users who had smoked more than 22,000 joints over a lifetime seemed to have no greater risk than infrequent marijuana users or nonusers."

This is a fact from an article that was published on WebMD. Here, read it yourself:

http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/20060523/pot-smoking-not-linked-to-lung-cancer

Oh yeah and Idaho Dragon...POT IS HARMLESS!

Smoking pot is more harmless than virtually any drug, legal or illegal. Go talk about something you know. You and your tea party buddies are whats wrong with this country.

It will increase the chances of developing bronchitis, it's been proven. It isn't harmless. But then again, neither is breathing city air, skydiving or racing cars. Idaho is entitled to his opinion, and if you don't agree with him you're entitled to ignore him.

@ Idaho Dragon:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html - Study finds no link between smoking Marijuana and Cancer

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm - Smoking Marijuana cuts Lung Cancer tumor growth, in Half.

That took me about 2 seconds to find via google.

I honestly have no concerns about my private activities, because I don't make them a public issue. However, my primary concern is that Marijuana prohibition was done to ensure the monopolies of William Randolph Hearst's Paper Manufacturing, and DoW Chemicals Synthetic Fiber industry.

Since 1937, the prohibition has only made public awareness of the drug increase by 95-100%.

Arrests for possession, exceed that of all major violent crimes combined.

All keeping Marijuana illegal does, is give money to privatized prisons, waste taxpayer dollars, fund illegal drug trade via Mexico, siphon police resources away from serious, damaging crime, and create actual criminals. What, you think jail actually rehabs people? It's like criminal college. It just makes you a more skilled criminal.

Just because it's legalized (and eventually, it will be), doesn't mean you have to partake, doesn't mean everyone who doesn't currently smoke it will go out and do so. It just means that the ridiculous 'war' against it, will end. Not like they're winning anyway. Stopping the influx over the border, does nothing. Small-time grow-ops have already done more to stop the influx of Marijuana from Mexico vastly more than the US Government ever was capable of doing.

The current estimates of Marijuana production domestically, place a value of $35 billion, exceeding every other agricultural product grown here. We spend in taxes, roughly 12-20 billion on prohibition. Not including costs of incarcerated individuals.

Do the math, it's pretty simple. The US Government has never lost a war, this badly. They've never been this ineffectual at anything. And it's because they're fighting their own citizens.

Idaho Dragon, do you find it difficult to type with all those donut crumbs all over your keyboard?

idaho dragon:

stoners don't hallucinate or go crazy. Thanks to CBD's (cannabidiol) in marijuana, the negative effects of THC is offset. it's actually anti-psychotic as well as anti-carcinogenic...so we're protected from carcinogenics as well as psychotic outbreaks, unlike the feds would like you to believe...

The effects of herbal cannabis are a composite of a number of cannabinoid compounds, terpenoids and flavonoids. Thus, cannabidiol, a constituent of herbal cannabis, may offset some δ-9-THC effects (Zuardi et al., 1995). The ratio of the constituents of herbal cannabis varies, and this may result in important differences in its net effect.

http://www.namicalifornia.org/document-detail.aspx?page=newsviews&tabb=previousnews&lang=ENG&idno=126

Cannabis, of course, is more than THC. Other ingredients provide additional benefits...

Cannabidiol, for example, reduces dysphoria and depersonalization provoked by THC while contributing its own anxiolytic, antipsychotic, analgesic, antiemetic, anticarcinogenic, antioxidant, and neuroprotective effects.

http://www.jaoa.org/cgi/content/full/108/10/586

Neurophysiological and cognitive effects of smoked marijuana in frequent users.
Overall performance accuracy was not significantly altered by marijuana
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20600251?dopt=Abstract

as an example of the addictiveness of marijuana, let's see the withdrawal symptoms of marijuana and see how it holds up to other drugs...

Cannabis "Withdrawal" Syndrome Short-Lived, Affects Few, Study Says

Symptoms associated with so-called "cannabis withdrawal" among marijuana "dependent" subjects are relatively mild, short-lived, and "may only be expected in a subgroup of ... patients," according to the results of a prospective clinical study to be published in the journal Drug and Alcohol Dependence.

A 1999 review by the US National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine reported that marijuana's withdrawal symptoms, when identified, are typically "mild and subtle" compared to the profound physical and psychological syndromes associated with most other intoxicants, including alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19783382

wow...even caffeine withdrawal is more profound than marijuana's. hmm...mild and subtle, huh? yeah, sounds dangerous, especially when you factor in the fact that both alcohol and caffeine are psychotic substances far more harmful than marijuana...god, i'm so scared now....

Idaho Dragon:

http://ssdp.truman.edu/top-five-marijuana-myths.php

Idaho,

If your issue is with the actual smoking of the marijuana, there are other more healthy alternatives. There are brownies, cookies, lollipops, hell, even lip balm and topical ointments infused with tetrahydrocannabinol. You don't have a leg to stand on in this argument.

@ Idaho Dragon: I said less harmless than all other drugs, I didn't say it was completely harmless. Talk about incompetent reader.

I've shown you two articles, that literally took me a few seconds to find...you think I couldn't inundate this thread with thousands, just like it showing more proof of how benign Marijuana is? It wouldn't matter anyway, your head is jammed so far down in the sand, it's unlikely anything will ever actually reach your brain.

You are one person, who is CLEARLY trying to control other peoples lives. And that simply isn't your call. Simply by majority rule, Marijuana will eventually be legalized. With the rate of it's use climbing yearly, and the rate at which people are openly discussing it, it's simply a matter of time. So, foam at the mouth all you like over your misconceptions (and reading incomprehension), but you will lose. And freedom of choice, will win.

Dragon, it is not always smoked FYI. Some people can't smoke it so it is ingested.

The problem with people like Idaho Dragon is that they can't come to terms with the fact that prohibitionists will have to stand up and ADMIT THEY WERE WRONG. Then, they have to release all the people in jail for pot charges. And this is something that they can not bear to imagine.

Most people have a hard time admitting they were wrong about something.

When you have something on this large a scale, they have an even more difficult time admitting that they were wrong.

And this points to that age old saying "Oh what a tangled web we weave when we learn to decieve."

Hey Idaho Dragon:

No one is ever going to force you to smoke. So stop being the "health police".

It used to be that opponents outnumberd the proponents regarding the marijuana issue. Now it seems that statistic is beginning to change. It only goes to show just how effective a well managed propaganda campaign can be in managing very gullible minds who actually believe their own government acts in their best interests.

It is only when we realize that all governmental institutions only respond to money, power, and influence that we finally come to our senses and actually start to think for ourselves. This harmless plant has so many uses that it is actually doomed by its own multiplicity. There are just far too many industries who are threatened by its existence. The paper industry, the textile industry, the oil industry, the food industry, the alcohol and tobacco industries, the pharmaceutical industry and the synthetics industries are just a few of those who would be directly affected if this simple plant were legalized and it was allowed to be developed to its fullest potential.

We are all sometimes affected by our own preconceived notions about this or that. I am just as guilty as anyone else. However when I am confronted by substantial evidence and empirical proof that my preconceptions are flatly wrong I am open minded enough to change my mind and accept the facts.

Even Christian fanatics are being confronted with substantial evidence that Jesus Christ himself may have used cannabis routinely in his ministry as both a curative and a preventative. Most of his holy ointments with which they all so liberally annointed each other appear to have been made from the hemp plant (aka cannabis or marijuana). A number of people have re-discovered the curative powers of hemp oil and are routinely using it to treat a number of serious ailments with considerable success. Jesus made the blind to see (cured glaucoma) and healed the lepper (annointed with strong hemp oil) causing their leisions to disappear and caused the dead to arise (cured a person in a diabetic coma). At last an explanation for some of his so called miracles that actually sounds plausable.

Unfortunately we, the little people, are the ones who must suffer and even die so that the politicians and their handlers can pocket huge profits. Even our own government produced study results showing the curative powers of this plant as recently as 1974 and deliberately suppressed those results at the behest of some very large corporate sponsors. I am not saying that all Congress people are corrupt criminals but it only takes a few rotten apples to spoil the whole barrel as they say.

Look at it this way. Here is a very useful plant that has many uses. It is a gift from Mother Nature or from God if you prefer provided for our use and comfort. It is free for the taking just as the fruits and vegetables were in the legendary Garden of Eden. Thanks to our own sinful and corrupt actions this plant has been kept from our grasp for over 70 years. Hundreds if not thousands have suffered and died from ailments that it could have cured or made less painful.

Our 'drug war' has cost the human species thousands of lives and trillions of dollars all told for no other reason than to line the pockets of the corporate leaches and further the political ambitions of career politicians who feel that their ambitions are more important than the lives of the peons who elected them. As I see it this trend toward acceptance is just the beginning of a civil awakening that will lead to a complete public denial of this corrupt law. More importantly it will produce a nation of people who totally distrust their own government with all of its lies and deceptions in the name of greed and personal gain.

Hopefully it will lead to term limits to eliminate the "career politician" who so easily sells his or her soul to the corporate devils. It will cause a public outcry to eliminate all forms of lobbying and do away with PAC groups and large corporate funding for political candidates' election campaigns. We simply cannot continue with 'business as usual' with the level of internal corruption that we have now. It is destroying our nation from within just as Kruschev of the USSR predicted so long ago. Just like the lowly hemp plant we (America) are a victim of our own success. LOL

Excellent post Shepherd!

Sheperd....Other then the politics at the end of your post you had an excellent view! Whether or not marijuana is legalized....the fact is marijuana is a benign herb and it has many uses. Vested interests are working very hard to keep marijuana stigmatized and illegal. Normal people are going to have to work much harder to relegalize marijuana. I have hope because the tide against marijuana seems to be turning. I want complete legalization. I don't want a limit to how many plants I am permitted to grow. I don't want to be on some government approved list to use it. I want complete control over how much I use or don't use. I will respect the DUI laws and laws restricting it's use for minors. Taxes on marijuana in sales are OK as long as they are not ridculous. Why have millions of people accepted this horrific situation? We are Americans...the land of the FREE...the home of the BRAVE! Why can't we choose to legally use cannabis? Reschedule marijuana. Legalize it. Regulate it. Tax it. Use it. Keep the taxes and regulation to a bare minimum.

It is my opinion that pot be treated in much the same way as alcohol. it doesn't need to be legalized just decriminalized. The way I think it should be controlled is through the workplace. If you need a job or want to keep a job then all that is needed is to pass the UA that the workplace forces you to take. If you get caught driving while under the influence then pass the Ua provided by the police or loose your driving privileges.

Why spend all that money when the ATF could be called ATMF and get some tax revenue coming into this BROKE country that we call a democratic country

During the alcohol prohibition pot was the main stay for the law abiding citizen that still wanted to indulge. and when that happened the "Moral citizens" outlawed that. When they repealed the prohibition they just left marijuana on the books

hardman...Prohibition was repealed before they made marijuana illegal. (1937 Marijuana tax Act)

ALL of idaho dragon's arguments are nullified by the way we treat ALCOHOL. If he wanted freedom from risky behaviors of others, he would HAVE to have alcohol prohibition as law and enforced. We've had it as law, we learned it is impossible to enforce.

How are companies and police going to be able to control pot use through UA's? Last i knew you couldnt tell when someone smoked pot. So if someone gets pulled over for driving under the influence, they wouldnt be able to tell when someone smoked pot, his natural defense would be that he wasnt high at the time but smoked it hours or even days ago. And how are companies going to protect themselves? what if someone who is high hurts himself at work or worse yet hurts someone else, his defense would be i did it on my time. Then what, these companies would be responsible for this guys workers comp claim. Doesnt seem fair.

I know there would be responsible people out there who would respect the laws if it were legalized, but before you get my vote to legalize it there has to be a way to protect innocent people from the ones who would inevitably abuse the right.

At least with alcohol the test is straight forward, you know without a doubt that someone is either drunk at that moment or not. And companies have some protection against all other drugs, if it is illegal then you probably lose your job, if it is a prescription drug you have to have a valid prescription.

I disagree dragon should be banned.

stoners don't hallucinate or go crazy.

Unlike alcohol, which has done both to me personally. The hallucinations generally come a few days after you are forced to stop either because your body will no longer tolerate another drop, or you are in such severe withdrawal that you can't even walk two blocks to the nearest bar or liquor store. (Alcohol depletes the body of vitamin B1, also known as thiamine. When that happens, which can happen in just a few days of severe binging, you develop symptoms similar to beriberi including ataxia, which means your muscles no longer work correctly. I got to where I couldn't walk from room to room without holding onto the wall. If not treated promply with massive doses of thiamine, it can become permanent.) The "going crazy" can happen either when intoxicated or a few days after you stop. When it happens after you stop, it's called DT's, and it can kill you. Or become permanent--ever hear of Wernicke Korsakoff Syndrome? Hint--it's not a Russian composer.

Marijuana does none of this, even when abused. I'm not saying it's good to abuse it; I'm not even saying it's harmless because virtually nothing is harmless when taken to excess. But far more people die in alcohol withdrawal than in heroin withdrawal, even when you adjust the stats based on the total number of users.

Yes, tax it and watch our economic woes dissolve!

Nope, not at all. It'll be like taxing cigarettes or requiring registrations on ATV's. The government will tell you it's going to boost the economy, when in reality it will disappear into the 'general fund', never to be seen again.

Legalizing marijuana and taxing it won't make the slightest dent in our economic problems

PROVE IT!

Mark,

I am pro-legalisation. However the, as they call it, "burden of proof" is on us. Thus, YOU prove it WILL.

(I know it will, its common sense, just saying.)

Then my reply should have been "LET US TRY". Thanks.

I personally don't think it will help the economy enough but it can't hurt it. But I enjoy partaking in it so I want it legalized. So just like John Doe gets home and pop's open a cold beer after work I intern would like to enjoy a big fat sticky Bud of White Widow. What's the problem?

Idaho Dragon...Billions of dollars of money would be made by legalizing marijuana and Hemp. Whole new industries would spring up. Thousands of new products would come out. We would actually have new useful products to export around the world. All of the money wasted going after marijuana users would not have to be spent. Court costs, jail costs, lost productivity, ect...the savings would be tremendous. As far as fixing the deficit that is another issue. It certainly would not hurt as in continuing the failed Prohibitionist policies we have now.

Dragon...I really don't understand your hatred of all things marijuana. Marijuana is a benign herb. No one will force you to use it. No one wants children to use it. All marijuana users want is to be left alone and not crminalized for using a benign plant. They can vaporize it if they are concerned about smoking. What is it your business anyway what people do in the privacy of their own home?

Legalize , but no tax until we break the back of the cartels. The tax will come in the form of billion$ that are no longer spent on the Dea , prisons , courts and the users can save billions to spend on OUR economy not the rest of the world, do poppies also.

I think there's financial benefits other than taxation that can be derived from legalization. Firstly, anyone imprisioned on a marijuana charge should be released immediately...saving the $40,000 (or more) yearly cost of imprisonment. And, that would make more cells avaialable for truly dangerous criminals. Second, the immediate cost savings associated with eliminating the need for enforcement. That money could either be saved...or shifted to the fight against the really dangerous drugs.

Certainly there's revenue to be collected by taxation...and that doesn't even count taxes such as sales on the product itself as well as anything used to consume it...IE rolling papers, pipes, vaporizers, grinders, etc.

There's revenue available from the unsmokable parts of the plant as well...turning them into fiber for paper, cardboard, clothing...you name it. Even using a cellulosic process to produce fuel alcohol.

How to effect legalization? Bring pressure to bear on Congress. Just sit down and write an old-fashioned letter to your Congressperson and BOTH of your Senators. (An actual letter carries far more weight than an E-mail, a Tweet or posting on Facebook) Use clear, logical arguments to state your case. Then, (and this is KEY) tell 10 of your like-minded friends to do the same...and for them to tell 10 of THEIR friends to sit down & write as well. The power of 10 is a powerful thing...they'll need fleets of semis to deliver the mail to Congress.

Get crackin'!!! Time's a wastin'!!!

Proof: Colorado. They charge 100 dollars for the medical "card". 1,000 people a month buy one. that's 100,000 a month, or 1.2 million a year. Does that "solve ALL the problems?" NO, obviously it doesn't but choosing between ZERO dollars and 1.2 MILLION? that's a no-brainer.

Keep in mind the undetectable marijuana user(s) send BILLIONS of dollars to the criminal enterprises that supply them. Divert THAT revenue stream to honest american farmers and growers, you have a much bigger impact. See the repeal of alcohol prohibition for PROOF of this. Instead of alcohol profits buying tommy guns for cartels as it did under prohibition, now alcohol profits build Sea World and Busch Gardens. Focusing the law on the negligent users rather than the substance itself is a much more intelligent method of handling "substances of abuse".

Legalizing marijuana and taxing it won't make the slightest dent in our economic problems

PROVE IT!

All in good time my friend, all in good time.

Revenue yes, but where will it go? You honestly think it will go to "honest american farmers and growers"? It may start out that way but who do you think will ultimateley take over this new market? DUH the pharmaceutical companies, they have the funds to grow on a mass scale and as soon as it is legal they will be on their way. They will also get all the tax breaks on it and there you guy the little honest guy gets screwed again. And once that happens why on earth would they grow it in america and use american laborers when there are so many other countrys that have a more ideal climate and cheaper labor. And where do you think all these new textiles would come from. You can make all the teeshirts, shampoo, alternative fuel you want but you wont see a dime of that money cause it will be MADE IN CHINA.

The amount of money freed up by letting everyone out of jail, sounds good on paper, but where will that money go? To supporting the thousands of people now on the streets with no job, no place to stay etc. It will be used to pay unemployment, housing assistance, job rehab etc.. You cant expect all those people to come back into the system and not need help, especially in todays state of affairs.

All that said I dont think it is right to have these people locked up and am all for decriminilization but to use the argument of it making revenue and making a difference in the debt is pretty ignorant.

Scrim: I agree except for your calling the war on drugs "silly." Actually, it has been a catastrophe, with thousands killed and millions jailed, with minorities disproportionately impacted. It has also been horribly counterproductive, assuming the goal was to end substance abuse.

exactly!

Scrim-it's ok to drive while high. I do it every damn day.

I also go to work high everyday. That's ok too.

I took my road test stoned in 1977. It makes one a BETTER driver.

stoners driving is a non-issue. it's just as dangerous to drive sober as it is to drive stoned...stoners have no higher incidents of car accidents than the non-drug using population, and that is FACT. a few months ago i had to take my driving test and i was high as @!$%#...but i passed and my license was re-instated. happy days. (i got too many speeding tickets, on my motorcycle...no other reason it got suspended so don't read too much into that)...:

"[In] cases in which THC was the only drug present were analyzed, the culpability ratio was found to be not significantly different from the no-drug group."

REFERENCE: G. Chesher and M. Longo. 2002. Cannabis and alcohol in motor vehicle accidents. In: F. Grotenhermen and E. Russo (Eds.) Cannabis and Cannabinoids: Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Therapeutic Potential. New York: Haworth Press. Pp. 313-323.

"Cannabis leads to a more cautious style of driving, [but] it has a negative impact on decision time and trajectory. [However,] this in itself does not mean that drivers under the influence of cannabis represent a traffic safety risk. … Cannabis alone, particularly in low doses, has little effect on the skills involved in automobile driving."

REFERENCE: Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs. 2002. Cannabis: Summary Report: Our Position for a Canadian Public Policy. Ottawa. Chapter 8: Driving Under the Influence of Cannabis.

"This report has summarized available research on cannabis and driving.
… Evidence of impairment from the consumption of cannabis has been reported by studies using laboratory tests, driving simulators and on-road observation. ... Both simulation and road trials generally find that driving behavior shortly after consumption of larger doses of cannabis results in (i) a more cautious driving style; (ii) increased variability in lane position (and headway); and (iii) longer decision times. Whereas these results indicate a 'change' from normal conditions, they do not necessarily reflect 'impairment' in terms of performance effectiveness since few studies report increased accident risk."

REFERENCE: UK Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (Road Safety Division). 2000. Cannabis and Driving: A Review of the Literature and Commentary. Crowthorne, Berks: TRL Limited.

"Overall, we conclude that the weight of the evidence indicates that:
1) There is no evidence that consumption of cannabis alone increases the risk of culpability for traffic crash fatalities or injuries for which hospitalization occurs, and may reduce those risks.
2) The evidence concerning the combined effect of cannabis and alcohol on the risk of traffic fatalities and injuries, relative to the risk of alcohol alone, is unclear.
3) It is not possible to exclude the possibility that the use of cannabis (with or without alcohol) leads to an increased risk of road traffic crashes causing less serious injuries and vehicle damage."

REFERENCE: M. Bates and T. Blakely. 1999. "Role of cannabis in motor vehicle crashes." Epidemiologic Reviews 21: 222-232.

"In conclusion, marijuana impairs driving behavior. However, this impairment is mitigated in that subjects under marijuana treatment appear to perceive that they are indeed impaired. Where they can compensate, they do, for example by not overtaking, by slowing down and by focusing their attention when they know a response will be required. … Effects on driving behavior are present up to an hour after smoking but do not continue for extended periods.
With respect to comparisons between alcohol and marijuana effects, these substances tend to differ in their effects. In contrast to the compensatory behavior exhibited by subjects under marijuana treatment, subjects who have received alcohol tend to drive in a more risky manner. Both substances impair performance; however, the more cautious behavior of subjects who have received marijuana decreases the impact of the drug on performance, whereas the opposite holds true for alcohol."

REFERENCE: A. Smiley. 1999. Marijuana: On-Road and Driving-Simulator Studies. In: H. Kalant et al. (Eds) The Health Effects of Cannabis. Toronto: Center for Addiction and Mental Health. Pp. 173-191.

CRASH CULPABILITY STUDIES

“For each of 2,500 injured drivers presenting to a hospital, a blood sample was collected for later analysis.

There was a clear relationship between alcohol and culpability. … In contrast, there was no significant increase in culpability for cannabinoids alone. While a relatively large number of injured drivers tested positive for cannabinoids, culpability rates were no higher than those for the drug free group. This is consistent with other findings.”

REFERENCE: Logan, M.C., Hunter, C.E., Lokan, R.J., White, J.M., & White, M.A. (2000). The Prevalence of Alcohol, Cannabinoids, Benzodiazepines and Stimulants Amongst Injured Drivers and Their Role in Driver Culpability: Part II: The Relationship Between Drug Prevalence and Drug Concentration, and Driver Culpability. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 32, 623-32.

“Blood samples from 894 patients presenting to two Emergency Departments for treatment of motor vehicle injur[ies] … were tested for alcohol and other drugs.

… Based on alcohol and drug testing of the full range of patients … alcohol is clearly the major drug associated with serious crashes and greater injury. Patients testing positive for illicit drugs (marijuana, opiates, and cocaine), in the absence of alcohol, were in crashes very similar to those of patients with neither alcohol nor drugs. When other relevant variables were considered, these drugs were not associated with more severe crashes or greater injury.”

REFERENCE: P. Waller et al. 1997. Crash characteristics and injuries of victims impaired by alcohol versus illicit drugs. Accident Analysis and Prevention 29: 817-827.

“Blood specimens were collected from a sample of 1,882 drivers from 7 states, during 14 months in the years 1990 and 1991. The sample comprised operators of passenger cars, trucks, and motorcycles who died within 4 hours of their crash.

… While cannabinoids were detected in 7 percent of the drivers, the psychoactive agent THC was found in only 4 percent. … The THC-only drivers had a responsibility rate below that of the drugfree drivers. … While the difference was not statistically significant, there was no indication that cannabis by itself was a cause of fatal crashes.”

REFERENCE: K. Terhune. 1992. The incidence and role of drugs in fatally injured drivers. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Report No. DOT HS 808 065.

ON-ROAD PERFORMANCE STUDIES

“Marijuana's effects on actual driving performance were assessed in a series of three studies wherein dose-effect relationships were measured in actual driving situations that progressively approached reality.

… THC's effects on road-tracking after doses up to 300 µg/kg never exceeded alcohol's at bacs of 0.08%; and, were in no way unusual compared to many medicinal drugs. Yet, THC's effects differ qualitatively from many other drugs, especially alcohol. Evidence from the present and previous studies strongly suggests that alcohol encourages risky driving whereas THC encourages greater caution, at least in experiments. Another way THC seems to differ qualitatively from many other drugs is that the formers users seem better able to compensate for its adverse effects while driving under the influence.”

REFERENCE: H. Robbe. 1995. Marijuana’s effects on actual driving performance. In: C. Kloeden and A. McLean (Eds) Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety T-95. Adelaide: Australia: HHMRC Road Research Unit, University of Adelaide. Pp. 11-20.

“This report concerns the effects of marijuana smoking on actual driving performance. … This program of research has shown that marijuana, when taken alone, produces a moderate degree of driving impairment which is related to consumed THC dose. The impairment manifests itself mainly in the ability to maintain a lateral position on the road, but its magnitude is not exceptional in comparison with changes produced by many medicinal drugs and alcohol. Drivers under the influence of marijuana retain insight in their performance and will compensate when they can, for example, by slowing down or increasing effort. As a consequence, THC’s adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small.”

REFERENCE: W. Hindrik and J. Robbe and J. O’Hanlon. 1993. Marijuana and actual driving performance. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Report No. DOT HS 808 078.

TABULATED SUMMARY OF ROAD TRIALS OF CANNABIS AND DRIVING
Table compiled by the UK Department of Transport (2000)

DRIVING SIMULATOR STUDIES

“Overall, it is possible to conclude that cannabis has a measurable effect on psychomotor performance, particularly tracking ability. Its effect on higher cognitive functions, for example divided attention tasks associated with driving, appear not to be as critical. Drivers under the influence of cannabis seem aware that they are impaired, and attempt to compensate for this impairment by reducing the difficulty of the driving task, for example by driving more slowly.

In terms of road safety, it cannot be concluded that driving under the influence of cannabis is not a hazard, as the effects of various aspects of driver performance are unpredictable. However, in comparison with alcohol, the severe effects of alcohol on the higher cognitive processes of driving are likely to make this more of a hazard, particularly at higher blood alcohol levels.”

REFERENCE: B. Sexton et al. 2000. The influence of cannabis on driving: A report prepared for the UK Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Road Safety Division). Crowthorne, Berks: TRL Limited.

Drivers under the influence of cannabis seem aware that they are impaired, and attempt to compensate for this impairment by reducing the difficulty of the driving task, for example by driving more slowly.

Mmm'kay.

I can't say what I'd like to here.

then say it garth. tell us.

joe:

Excellent reference trove, much appreciated...

"

In terms of road safety, it cannot be concluded that driving under the influence of cannabis is not a hazard, as the effects of various aspects of driver performance are unpredictable. However, in comparison with alcohol, the severe effects of alcohol on the higher cognitive processes of driving are likely to make this more of a hazard, particularly at higher blood alcohol levels.”

Ok I am all for legalization, but seriously. Just because it is better than alcohol still does not make it safe to drive. Many drugs are safer to drive on than alcohol, that does not make it ok. There has to be laws in place to protect innocent people. Unless and until you have something in place to protect me and my family i will not be voting for legalization.

And to the ones who go to work high, this is why it is not legal. This is what you are putting forward for everyone to judge you on. I would think that a responsible user would wait till he or she is home. I used to smoke pot, and there was no way i would go to work high, because my job was to important to me.it does effect your performance. Although maybey not if you are working at mcdonalds. My husband has a very risky job, as a rigger, who moves millions of pounds of materials by crane daily. I cant imagine having his safety compromised by someone who was high and not performing their best.

You want legalization, fine no skin off my back, but to achieve it i would think you would be removing all doubts people have about it, by having some kind of system in place to protect innocent people. If it was legalizedd wouldnt that be enough, but you also want it to be legal to drive and work on it. That is what is worrysome to the average american.

that's not true. we're not asking for the right to drive stoned. i for one am willing to abide by DUI laws regarding marijuana...the whole point is, stoners driving is not a danger at all. it's just a non-issue, and it will be much more obvious after legalization. in fact, within a decade of legalization, i doubt there would be DUI laws for marijuana after it's common knowledge that stoners just do not pose a risk on our roads and freeways, which have been proven time and time again.

Joe, may I point out that driving slower than the rest of traffic can also be a hazard, one the police will stop you for.

Oom...we're not talking 25 in a 60...we're talking probably the speed limit instead of speeding...

My husband was once stopped for driving too slow after smoking way too much pot with our favorite supplier. I was with him, holding an oz., and rather shaken up. He just received a warning, though.

if you had been buzzed from drinking, totally different story. you only reinforced my point...nobody was put in danger in your situation as a result of smoking marijuana. the only danger that was heightened was the danger of being arrested after being caught with some herb....nobody's driving skills were enough to warrant an arrest or a DUI arrest as a result of smoking it up, and even the cop that pulled you over agrees, obviously. you're only fooling yourself if you think he didn't know you were stoned...

This could be the case. But I would have to say that ideally, nobody should drive when impaired in any way. Even if whatever you took isn't nearly as bad as alcohol, your reaction time is still slowed and that could make a huge difference in an emergency. Like, say, having to avoid a drunk driver who appears out of nowhere?

For a similar reason I frown on getting high when you have to go to work. You may have a mind-numbing job that you can easily do while stoned--but what if something unexpected happens, like a meeting with your boss in which you are expected to respond intelligently, or an announcement that everyone has to learn some new and potentially dangerous machine or procdure? If people would just be responsible enough to reserve all drugs including alcohol or marijuana for appropriate times like evenings or weekends, and if they refrained from driving after using ANY substance with the ability to impair, the naysayers would have much less of an argument.

Why always TAX everything? To hire more police to enforce the tax laws? Just ordinary sales tax should be enough for our government to steal.

Taxing sales may be okay, but they can't tax what you grow in your garden.

You could grow Tobacco but most choose not too. I think it's a matter of convenience.

@ Cornmeal: Why not tax it? As it is, prices on pot are plummeting. Home-grow ops in the US are continuously on the up and up, and Marijuana has passed every other agricultural product in the US, as the biggest cash crop...and it's illegal.

There would be fees for growing it at home. Probably higher fees for higher amounts, taxes and licenses to sell, yada, yada, yada. The problem with thinking it would cure anything economically is that the money would go into the hands of the same goofballs who spent us into this mess and who will never let the money go anywhere but to them and their rich buddies. The system needs money taken out of the election equation and all of the current politicians taken out too....

Treat it like alcohol. It is heavily taxed if you buy it at the store, but you are allowed to brew your own beer or make your own wine as long as you don't exceed a certain legal limit.

most of thoes Drs. Excuses to smoke it are bogus in the 1st place..

I know first hand how easy it is to get a card in CA. Ohh Dr, I have cronic headaches.. Or I have cronic back pains stemming from this car wreck I have. I must smoke weed, its the only thing that helps..

Point blank is they want to get high, they dont " require it"

I got sick from a "super-cold virus" 5 years ago today, which left the nerves in my head misfiring pain signals. Even the Mayo clinic has never seen a case to this extent and there is nothing else they can do for me. Smoking a puff of MJ or about 3 cigarettes are the only remedies that work, and I am not going to get a presciption for cigarettes, and they leave me totally7 buzzed and aware of their harmful effects. If you think most of the people that have Dr. authorizations are faking it, maybe you should go to a hemp function and see all of the obvious arthritis stricken people, or many of the other people who would tell you that MMJ is their only relief.

You can take thoes arthritis stricken people and your problem ( sorry about that I really am ) and stack thoes people against everyone else and you are a drop in the ocean.

Hell out of everyone posting here with the " pro smoking " crowd Id bet you at least half of them have zero medical reason to smoke it. Want to call me on it? sit outside a medical joint in CA. Watch the people going in and out most are the young adult crowd 18-30.

@Jeremy...

I have no medical reason whatsoever to smoke marijuana. Yet... I do. And have been for over 35 years now. Which puts me well above the 18-30 yo crowd you're talking about. It has had no detrimental effect on my life. I have a good family, a good job, toys, love, and all the things that make life worth living. YET... If I got "busted" (because technically, I am breaking the law) it could potentially ruin my life. And for what? So some cop, DA, and judge, could pat themselves on the back for getting this obviously deranged criminal off the streets? Ridiculous. Legalize it NOW!!!

@ Pissedoffperson: People used to get prescriptions for alcohol, during the prohibition, for many folks gaining access to medicinal marijuana, this is no different. However, there are obvious benefits to folks who are seriously ill. It may not be a cure, but it certainly alleviates some of the more egregious side-effects of chemotherapy, provides a modicum of comfort for those with glaucoma, and so on. Alcohol? Not so much.

Calvin,

OK so because you do not agree with the law, does that mean it should not be enforced? Like it or not, it IS illegal. We all know what will happen if we get caught, but because you want to get high its an unjust law and needs to go.

Jeremy,

I don't think you just understood what Calvin just stated. I believe his point to be that he has had no problems during the last 35 years smoking. It's been over 40 for me with only the life's expected ups and down and I consider myself quite successful. So where is the harm? How would this infringe on other's rights?

I find the only harm comes from the criminal justice system.

Jeremy, do you sit outside of pharmacies trying to guess what ailment and what age people are too? Why are you so concerned with what someone does in the privacy of their own home? Why does it bother you so much?

Medical marijuana has one big drawback - your name gets entered into a national database. Get some ahole in there like Rick Perry and he could turn around and throw all MMJ patients in jail under federal law.

Far fetched? We have the only for profit prison system in the world.

Prohibition is illegitimate and IGNORANT.

Cannabis is HARMLESS and should NEVER have been made illegal. Harry Anslinger LIED to America and not only got away with it, he set in motion the masterpiece in the art of brainwashing prohibition has become.

IT'S DISGRACEFUL in a free society that pot is illegal.

On the issue of stoned driving:

Many people feel they are OK to drive while stoned. I am one of those people. However, I still feel that it is irresponsible to operate a motor vehicle under the influence of drugs (prescription or recreational), or alcohol. Not everyone is OK to drive when they are stoned. Thus, I support laws against drugged driving while at the same time supporting legalisation as a recreational user.

Your post is contradictory. You can't have it both ways. Legal and no testing, or illegal and testing.

What do you mean? They have roadside tests for alcohol which is legal, do they not? I know there's currently no method to test if a person is currently baked or if they smoked a week ago, however I am confident that once legalised, or research on it is legalised at the least, one can be devised.

We don't need to devise a test for pot. Trace amounts stay in the system for up to 45 days. Driving under the influence as we both agree is a NON ISSUE so there should be NO TESTING for pot.

Sorry guys, as a major backer of legalization, I think it WILL NOT HAPPEN if you don't keep DUI illegal for pot. There ARE tests which can determine if you are high RIGHT NOW, but they are blood tests, and they are slow (not roadside capable).

As someone who lost an immediate family member to an intoxicated driver, NO ONE should operate a motor vehicle if they are sufficiently under the influence of ANY drug, legal or otherwise.

Now, to develop a test that can tell if you've had one mellowing hit, or are baked out of your gourd, and do so in 5 minutes or less.

Furthermore, claiming that pot is HARMLESS is inaccurate and misleading. It DOES have side-effects if you are a heavy user (it exacerbates asthma, makes you more prone to bronchitis, and can cause issues with schizophrenics), plus it can become the focus of abusive habitual use, which is NOT harmless.

We can win the argument based on true merits, not by blowing smoke and pretending it is completely safe.

Nobody blowing smoke here. I took my road test stoned in 1977.

ok fred...then regarding all those adverse effects on long term recreational users that you listed...where does that tie in with "drugged" driving and the herb? oh yeah, and i just passed my driving test a few months ago and was baked as hell...passed with a perfect score.

Listen fellow stoners. I agree that many smokers (Including myself in my own opinon) can handle driving after some smoke, however many cannot.

What Fred has said is factually correct except for the part about schizophrenia which is unproven but merits investigation. There are negative health effects of smoking ANYTHING (obviously this only applies to the method of ingenstion where the marijuana is smoked), and it IS mentally addictive (although no more so than food, video games, etc). These things ARE fact, period. As Fred said, "We can win the argument based on true merits, not by blowing smoke and pretending it is completely safe".

Sorry Mark, but it is not a non-issue to everyone. Many stoners inaddition to those who only drink or do not partake in intoxicants at all feel this way. In exchange for full legalisation, I'm afraid that stoners must be willing to give up cruising under the influence wihout legal risk at least for a while.

@ Kyle/Fred: Definitely agree, you're never going to win this debate by creating as much misinformation as the Government and Big business did, in order to enact the prohibition in the first place.

There are laws in place already to prevent people from driving drunk, driving under the influence of powerful prescription meds, and other substances. Frankly, I have no issues driving under the effects of pot, however, I definitely try not to, not because I fear for my ability...but I don't want to become a statistic...a rallying cry for the ills of it. If an accident were to happen, regardless of whether I'm at fault or not, the simply fact that I'm otherwise altered would become a beacon that anti-drug advocates would rally behind.

Most people who smoke pot, preach responsible use anyway. Driving under any influence is a bad idea, as you aren't just paying attention to you...you're paying attention to every other moron on the road as well. May as well keep yourself as clear as possible, in case of an emergency.

I'm certainly in favor of legalization, but, to a point. Obviously children shouldn't be touching any drug or alcohol until a certain age, and I certainly wouldn't mind continuing the illegality of driving under the influence. That's simply logic. If you're attempting to fight that, this is a losing battle no matter how you look at it, because I for one, wouldn't support such a measure.

The motto of Alcohol is 'Drink Responsibly', the motto of Marijuana should be 'Smoke Responsibly'.

Under the zero tolerance per se drugged driving laws the government is pushing, any detectable amount of an illicit drug in your system means a DUI. If you are a regular pot smoker you will not be able to drive w/o risking a charge.

Are those the types of laws we should accept?

@ Tom88: The government would need a test that could detect such levels of THC in your system, which at the moment are not available in convenient road-side sobriety testing methods.

In addition, Marijuana testing charts, have a benchmark for a user and someone who simply may have come into contact with it. Above a certain level means you've likely done it recently, below, could be a contact high, could be that you smoked weeks ago and haven't since.

Once legalization occurs, such stringent policies as the one you describe would need to be revisited and rewritten to take into account the new realities of the laws. Additionally, if you take a current test (urine), while high, your levels are through the roof, when compared to someone who regularly smokes, but has taken the test sober.

i get that, and i understand there's always a little give and take in working out some compromises, but it is FACT that it's a non-issue, which has been shown time and time again. it shouldn't even be brought up, most drugged driving cases involve prescription drug use and abuse...but of course we'll have to bear it in the first few years of legalization, if not decades. but most of us know...smoke responsibly. i.e...i don't smoke it up if i'm drinking, etc. etc.

I THINK you guys are misunderstanding my posts. I'm not sure what mis-information you accuse me of spreading, BMurphy and I resent that accusation. I will try to break it down into something a little easier to read:

-I am a recreational user.

-I support full legalisation with age restrictions.

-I am fine to drive after smoking. I know many stoners are. However, I know many are NOT. I just don't trust people that much, sorry, I feel the same way about this as I do about drinking and driving.

-I support drugged driving laws. I realize they are already in place, sorry. I thought that was clear. I mean a law that is different than what is in effect, which is a zero tolerance law as Tom88 explained. We need something that takes into acount traces of marijuana use lingering in the system for a long time after actual use.

-I understand the CURRENT difficulty in detecting marijuana use. However little to no research is allowed on marijuana. I am confident with R&D a new test can be found to test for active intoxication rather than trace amounts, past use, secondhand exposure etc. It could be a new method we don't even know about yet as a human race, since we know relatively little about marijuana from a scientific stand point, as well as relatively little about body chemistry. Extensive personal experimentation does not count as legitimate data here, sorry. (if it did, I would have a few pHD's in High Medicine at this point, haha.)

Please, people. Driving under the influence of recreational or prescription drugs or alcohol is not a non-issue for most people, no matter how many times you say it is.

ok, i agree with you there...the way i see it, it's a non-issue with long term recreational users who smoke responsibly...i also see the problem that happens with new smokers over a short term period, in which they're susceptible to adverse effects, etc. this is why most goverment sites cite the "short-term effects of marijuana" to show how "bad" it "is"...hold on, i'm gonna get a copy to post...here we go:

The short-term effects of marijuana include:

• Problems with memory and learning;
• Distorted perception (sights, sounds, time, touch)
• Trouble with thinking and problem-solving;
• Loss of coordination; and
• Increased heart rate, anxiety.

These effects are even greater when other drugs are mixed with the marijuana...

i remember this one time when i was first beginning to smoke it up in high school in a circle, we were passing a joint and for a second there they looked miles away even though they were sitting next to me and when i passed my joint to my buds, my arm stretched out for like, miles, and his arm stretched out from a great distance as well and we passed the joint by meeting eachother across vast distances and i didn't really understand why it was happening, it was like an acid trip. it was awesome, but a little unnerving too. it's never happened again since and i realize now it was because of the short term effects on newcomers, and we'll have to watch out for that on the roads with legalization, cuz you know there's gonna be that spike in newcomers buying the herb...

@ Kyle: No, I wasn't accusing you of anything, merely the entirety of this conversation, from all respondents. Obviously, if you haven't been spreading misinformation, you should have the wherewithall to pass over said comments.

However, as with driving ability, you are assuming that your list of 'short-term effects' apply to everyone, and that's simply...you guessed it, misinformation. In fact, a great deal of people who smoke, are much more verbose and tend to think about things far more than they would normally. Is that everyone? Nope. But, it stands in the face of your 'short-term effects' list.

Regardless, my post at 7.18, was in essence, agreeing with what you were saying. Not pointing you out as detractors, or complicit in said misinformation. Please read more carefully next time, before assuming anything.

Very well BMurphy, however I think the statement: "@ Kyle/Fred: Definitely agree, you're never going to win this debate by creating as much misinformation as the Government and Big business did, in order to enact the prohibition in the first place."

Would certainly give anybody whose name you replaced mine with the idea you were accusing them of creating misinformation. However I see now that I simply misread the statement. My apologies, sir.

Also: I have given no such list of short term effects, nor asserted that everyone feels the same effects from marijuana. That statement would be quite silly, as it is common knowledge everyone experiences different effects from all types of drugs.

B Murphy, the per se drugged driving laws have the backing of the fed gov't and a number of agencies along with pretty strong public support. They have a much better chance of passing than any sort of legalization measure right now. Once passed, legalization will threaten the new laws which will be an additional barrier to overcome.

Kyle - you are PANDERING TO THE PROHIBS FOR A COMPRIMISE.

There should be NO COMPROMISE. They have LIED to us for 74 years.

Sorry Mark, but it is not a non-issue to everyone. Many stoners inaddition to those who only drink or do not partake in intoxicants at all feel this way. In exchange for full legalisation, I'm afraid that stoners must be willing to give up cruising under the influence wihout legal risk at least for a while.

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

All that does is pander to prohibs, who have been LYING TO US for 74 years.

Fixing a LIE with another LIE is NEVER the SOLUTION.

@ Tom: Few if any are arguing the case for not having DUI laws remain in place. I don't believe I mentioned anything of the sort in any of my responses. What I did say, is the current tests have huge flaws, that would make the people reading the results need to be educated on that data. It's not as simple as 'You've got THC in your system, you're busted.' You can currently test positive, with very high levels of THC in your system, without being high, for example. Because THC stays in your system for weeks, simply a positive result could mean you smoked 25 days ago.

As for what the Federal Government supports, I'm pretty sure it's obvious they can't be trusted as it is, so really, I prefer to do my own research and take from my own real-life experiences, rather than what 'Big Brother' cooks up.

@ Kyle: What part of I agree, doesn't make sense to you? Both you and Fred spoke of clarifying things about Marijuana that some of the pro-legalization folks were ignoring, in an attempt to prove their points. Using misinformation, to get it legalized, is no better than what the Federal Government has done to push it's prohibition upon the country. Seriously man, the entirety of that post was me simply going into depth about why/how I agree with you and Fred. Notice Fred didn't respond with some kind of argument about it.

And you're correct, I was talking about the list that Joe420er wrote, my apologies. I thought he was quoting you, and hadn't read the entirety of his post (ok, egg on my face hah). But, the fact remains, drugs have many side-effects, however, not all side-effects impact each person the same. I was just saying it to the wrong person heh.

As we all know, most laws are made, because of the lowest common denominator, just because some people can drive safely hammered, doesn't mean everyone can. And just because some people can drive safely while under the influence of Marijuana, doesn't mean everyone can. For that very reason, there is no way Marijuana will be legalized to the degree that people are free to use it, and drive without suffering consequences, if caught.

All of it did, B-Murphy, I didn't dispute that, did I?

In fact I was apologizing for the misunderstanding.

The combination of easily mis-interpereted statement by you, with the misquote by you of me led me to this misunderstanding. Please avoid the "generic you" when typing online, as it is tough to understand if the user actually means me (especially when you were addressing your comment to me a few words earlier with an @), or the "generic you".

B Murphy, sorry, i am a drug reform activist and i have to live in the real world, deal with real laws and find real solutions.

While i agree with your idea, really the work that needs done is convincing people the existing tests are problematic. For that you face two problems: 1) people do not care, think drugs are illegal and if you are taking them you should get busted and 2)the supposedly legitimate sources of authority also have no interest in casting a smaller net--lower thresholds means more busts.

For those who want to see drug use lowered, the higher threshold would make it more likely to get caught and catch more drug users hopefully leading to less use and a more drug-free society.

For those who are making money, the existing tests are fine, relatively cheap and are selling like crazy. Money abound. Grant money to get rid of drugs (hopefully this will be cut along with the other budget cuts) and headlines that the police are doing their jobs.

As for the fate of the unfortunate convicts--who gives a rats ass.

THAT is what we have to battle. That is sweet if you are working on tests that are better but even once that is developed 3/4 of the battle remains in place. If you are not working on developing those tests, you are in great company because i don't know who is. Maybe someone is. Can the real slim shady please stand up?

Why is this stuff not getting done? Simple. nobody is doing it, nobody is funding it and nobody wants to work for free. Opinions are great but the reality of the situation is that these DUI laws i speak of are coming to a neighborhood near you if they are not there already. Now what...

@ Tom: In the real world, we spend tens of billions of dollars a year on a war that does nothing but make drugs more easily accessible to everyone. In the real world, minor possession infractions outnumber all major violent crimes combined. In the real world, more people in the civilian population know that the Federal Government talks out of their a$$, than not. In the real world, more people smoked pot last year than are employed by the entire US Federal and State Government.

The real world, that you speak of, realizes this is a failed war, with the only outcome being legalization and proper education. Misinformation and fear tactics, disguised to keep Big Business in control can only work for so long. And fortunately, people are starting to wake up.

As a drug reform activist, you seem to be pretty weak on the reform side. And seriously, a Marshall Mather's quote? Really? Ugh, pathetic.

B Murphy, i think you miss the point and quite frankly i don't have the time to continue to respond to you.

@ Tom: Well, the good thing is, with 'passion' like yours, the misinformation war against Marijuana will eventually come to an end, along with prohibition. Keep on folding!

B Murphy, what have you done/what do you do to end the drug war?

Fellas...Get along. Legalize marijuana. Develope quick tests that determine levels of thc in your body. Allow liberal standards for not being intoxicated. Bust the damn drunks!

A person who smokes TOBACCO for the first time should not drive. I CANNOT drive when I have just smoked tobacco, my head is too spinning! However, I see plenty of people smoking tobacco and driving just fine once they've developed a TOLERANCE.

The same is true for cannabis, if you just did your 1st hit in your life, or in 2 years or so, you're going to go "shutter-speed" for a bit when you peak, and you probably shouldn't drive, however those who have a TOLERANCE for it, can drive NO-PROBLEM, and in fact usually drive better because they respect the speed limits etc.

I've NEVER been pulled over driving after smoking pot and 90% of my driving is after smoking. When NOT smoking, I'm in too big of a hurry, I speed, I tailgate, I honk, and I sometimes get pulled over. When smoking, I set the cruise control on the speed limit, and it takes as long as it takes. . . .

A person who smokes TOBACCO for the first time should not drive

This is virtually impossible anyway. Goes for 2nd and 3rd timers also I believe. 4th timers should proceed with caution. It is not an easy thing to do. Took me 6 tries. But I'm a slow learner anyway.

I see plenty of people smoking tobacco and driving just fine once they've developed a TOLERANCE

It certainly is not for everyone, but I believe everyone can do it if they will just be patient and wait for the tolerance to be developed.

I agree with you on the driving cannabis users. 'I've rode with many a fu'd people. They do seem to adhere to the rules of the road much better than the straight ones. I've almost gotten to the point that I won't ride with anyone through rush hour traffic unless one of us is fu'd up.

How about arresting people for obviously impaired driving, regardless of the cause? If an impaired driver rams you, assuming you survive, do you really care whether he or she was drunk, stoned, taking presciption drugs, texting, or applying makeup?

This article is more propaganda to get some to believe we have this increase when reality is more people are comfortable talking about their usage. The stats cited for usage are quite low IMO. Couldn't agree more with your post.

puff........puff........bogart......puff......puff......pass

Rhonda? I bet you pass it wet too don't ya?

I sure try to. I find I get it back quicker that way.

Well Rhonda, I won't pass on it if you're hot! ;)

Guess you will miss your turn.......puff........puff

Don't Bogart that joint, my friend...

Pass it over to me...

puff.......puff......nrk....puff.....'ear

*passes it along*

Roll another one

Just like the other one

You've been hanging on to it

And I sure would like a hit

aw screw that, i'ma just load me a bowl...

Hit it, don't sit it! I get a courtesy hit for that!

Rhonda...Nobody likes a BOGART. It doesn't matter how HOT you are. Be sure to bring some of your own to share. Other than that you are fine. I m not trying to tell you what to do I am trying to point out common courtesy.

That's exactly what I was thinking.

Yes sir!

You speak the truth sir.

well said

RON PAUL 2012 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Could not have said it better myself...was about to, but you beat me to it.

chrisORD

With the price of Krispy Kreams, even if you won you would lose. ; )-

get out of my head....

that is all that i was thinking in the back of my head when reading this.

I am a mathematician / school teacher, and i know a lot of professional people who smoke, but b/c of the stigma and fear of job loss/ arrest/etc. wouldn't admit to it for anything.

The lying statistics are only for the aide of the prohiitionists. If everybody wasn't afraid of losing his job or getting arrested it would be legal already.

Progress at last!

Um, the contaminants in pot smoke are 10x more harmful to your lungs than cigarettes. The tar is much more concentrated. While it might not be nicotine it is REALLY harmful to your lungs, any smoke is. That being said, I smoke and support legalization, it's just that no drug is free ride...

No Pat you are wrong.

http://ssdp.truman.edu/top-five-marijuana-myths.php

Pat- While I do agree that all drugs or any substance for that matter can be harmful, while pot has carcinogens, it is not correlated at all with increase cancer. It seems there are other things in pot that have a protective effect to somewhat negate the carcinogens. Very cool stuff. I'm not a pot smoker either and I also agree that it should be legal but I think that it somehow doesn't have the carcinogenic effect in humans it's predicted to is fascinating.

Copied from above:

http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/20060523/pot-smoking-not-linked-to-lung-cancer

there is a doctor in Canada (no longer practicing) who had a 90% cure rate for cancer patients using nothing more then concentrated THC oil. We could be on he verge of discovering a far better treatment for cancer... but the stigma of the illegal substance is preventing any real research

Rick Simpson.

Film:
"Run from the Cure"

...available on YouTube...

Sorry but there are a lot of people who smoke more than a little weed and it can be addictive. Besides most don't just stick with the weed and the numbers can and will swing back and forth on what people use including marijuana. Marijuana is not harmless as its pro people claim. I find it fasinating that the biggest pro people for marijuana are often its biggest users.

@ Clarice: Physically, there is no addiction. Mentally, yes, there is. Of course, the same can be said for video games, and really any other means of escape out there.

You'll not find a single reputable Doctor, backing your claims of physical addiction. Go ahead and look.

@Clarice,

You are sooo wrong. You have been brainwashed by the feds anti-drug propaganda. Marijuana is NOT addictive and people who use it in general are not using other drugs. You cannot put heroin, meth, cocaine, and other hard drug users in the same category just because they "also" use marijuana. There is a BIG, BIG, difference between a marijuana user (not everybody smokes it) and a drug addict.

And of course the biggest pro-marijuana people are often the biggest users. That's why they are pro-marijuana. What a ridiculous statement. That's like proclaiming that the biggest proponents of literacy are often the people who read the most. Well DUH!!!

ED-Legalized MJ IMO would decrease use of other drugs.

Clarice- Who cares how much someone smokes that is their issue. MJ is not addictive anyone who smokes knows this. What you see as addiction to MJ is a personal obsession which can manifest itself in many ways, many of those are much more harmful than MJ.

The gateway drug theory is 100% pure BS propaganda by the Feds who profit off of and fund massive agencies with its prohibition. In the end NOTHING is harmless including food, scripts, cars, motorcycles, alcohol, gambling ect.. but personal responsibility and freedom to choose are all people want.

And if you accept the "gateway" theory, then you are admitting that Marijuana is not dangerous in and of itself, what's concerning is what it will lead to.

Regardless, Alcohol, Tobacco, and Prescription Pills are the "gateway" drugs, no doubt.

Clarice crews
Sorry but there are a lot of people who smoke more than a little weed and it can be addictive.

ANYTHING can be psychologically addictive, from biting your fingernails to hoarding junk to tattoos. Anything. But not everything that is psychologically addictive is PHYSICALLY addictive, and that makes a world of difference.

Marijuana is NOT physically addictive.

Sugar is physically addictive. Caffeine is physically addictive. Alcohol and tobacco are both physically addictive. Many prescription pills, especially painkillers, are physically addictive.

Get it?

I find it fasinating that the biggest pro people for marijuana are often its biggest users. --Clarice

It fascinates you that the largest group of people against the persecution of those who smoke pot are people who smoke pot? It must not take much...Would it shock you to find out that most gay rights activists are... you guessed it.

It fascinates me why more people don't care that we are locking people up at alarming rates and sacrificing vital civil liberties such as freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, all because we are so scared of drugs. The government spends millions generating ads and other propaganda to feed the fear, all while blaming issues primarily caused by drug prohibition on the drugs themselves.

Guess what, alcohol did not commit the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre and cocaine and opiates do not fire high powered weapons or commit robberies. We could provide help and support to addicts along with a controlled supply that would drastically reduce things like shootings and robberies in communities, but we won't because "drugs are bad" and we have to keep fighting some noble war. There is nothing noble in what we do and those who continue to call for persecution of drug users should have to answer to the selfishness and immorality in the position they back instead of the "pro drug" crowd always having to answer for "just wanting to get high."

Well maybe a lot of us do, and maybe a lot of you bloodthirsty bigots who insist upon the continuation of the drug war should interrupt the self-righteous internal dialogue and maybe replace it with some introspection.

Why do you have a problem with someone else enjoying pot?

Do you think it is too dangerous and want to protect them? --well the facts say it is not so dangerous as to demand criminalization: every major study done on it has come to the same conclusion. The Shaffer report and the LaGuardia report are two examples, but there are others.

Do you want to protect the kids and send the right message? --Then regulate the drug. Right now it is easier for them to get than beer. Additionally, what kind of message do we send to kids when we lock people up for years for growing a plant for people who want it in a society who is mostly apathetic about ts use. Nobody wants to lock up people and throw away the key for pot, and i don't think anyone seriously believes its use will be eliminated.

Or do you really just want to punish bad people? This has not changed from the days of throwing tomatoes at criminals who were paraded through the streets for people to boo and hiss. It is no different than the parties communities used to throw for hangings. Same thing, different day.

Those who truly care rarely seek to catch and punish, which is pretty much what ALL our drug laws do. They catch people. They punish people. Very few people are actually helped.

What is your motivation, Clarice.

Tom88....Excellent Post! I love it when valid logical arguments are used against Prohibitionists. The people that support unjust laws are the ones that are responsible for the attendant problems the law causes.

@ Midnight Toker

The gateway theory is not an invalid one in my opinion, think about it in this light. As it stands now we lump MJ right in there with coke and the other hard drugs. I think this very misclassification is what makes it a gateway. You hear growing up that drugs are bad and evil, this includes MJ. One day Johhny J decides he is going to try some MJ, he does and finds that he isn't left craving more and that it really didn't negatively impact him. Having that knowledge he may question whether or not coke is really as bad as he has been lead to believe and tries it too.... remember lots of people are naive.

^By your argument, it makes perfect sense to decriminalize or legalize marijuana. By doing this, people will no longer hold it up as a serious drug like hard ones. Then it will no longer be a gateway drug. Problem solved.

You're right. Ask any college freshman what's easier to get a hold of, beer or pot. Every one of them will say pot. Drug dealers don't card.

Public awareness of the drug has risen 95-100% since it's prohibition in 1937.

@scubasteve...

College freshmen? Hell ask my son and his high school friends. It's readily available at a moments notice.

which safely increases psychological well-being like nothing else can.

I also found that divorce does this as well.

Hot tub, Doobie, Doobie Brothers=No divorce.

You're right, as long as you dont get caught.

Simple Rhonda, put the kids to bed first!

Oh, my bad, I was assuming he meant being in the hot tub with someone other than his wife. Kinda like, if hes happy then the wife will be happy=no divorce. Yes, yes, definitely, kids in the bed, uh huh.

Hey wait, are we talking about that meteorologist from KRAK or something?

Cuz he got caught!

Now you got me wondering..... Yeah, I read that today. That story should unfold interestingly enough.

I want to expand a little on what Yank said. I know someone will come back to him and say "Well you can't test if marijuana is active in the system thanks to cannabinoids in the bloodstream for days to months after use".

Once marijuana is legalised (or research on it legalised, in any case) I have no doubt a method could be devised to test if a driver is actually stoned at the time. I support legalisation AND drugged driving laws. Yes, it is possible to do both.

Driving under the influence of pot is A NON ISSUE.

I TOOK MY ROAD TEST STONED IN 1977.

It makes one a BETTER, SAFER driver.

driving stoned is as dangerous as driving sober...stoners have no higher incidents of accidents than the non drug using population...it's a fact and...well...the more you know...:

"[In] cases in which THC was the only drug present were analyzed, the culpability ratio was found to be not significantly different from the no-drug group."

REFERENCE: G. Chesher and M. Longo. 2002. Cannabis and alcohol in motor vehicle accidents. In: F. Grotenhermen and E. Russo (Eds.) Cannabis and Cannabinoids: Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Therapeutic Potential. New York: Haworth Press. Pp. 313-323.

"Cannabis leads to a more cautious style of driving, [but] it has a negative impact on decision time and trajectory. [However,] this in itself does not mean that drivers under the influence of cannabis represent a traffic safety risk. … Cannabis alone, particularly in low doses, has little effect on the skills involved in automobile driving."

REFERENCE: Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs. 2002. Cannabis: Summary Report: Our Position for a Canadian Public Policy. Ottawa. Chapter 8: Driving Under the Influence of Cannabis.

"This report has summarized available research on cannabis and driving.
… Evidence of impairment from the consumption of cannabis has been reported by studies using laboratory tests, driving simulators and on-road observation. ... Both simulation and road trials generally find that driving behavior shortly after consumption of larger doses of cannabis results in (i) a more cautious driving style; (ii) increased variability in lane position (and headway); and (iii) longer decision times. Whereas these results indicate a 'change' from normal conditions, they do not necessarily reflect 'impairment' in terms of performance effectiveness since few studies report increased accident risk."

REFERENCE: UK Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (Road Safety Division). 2000. Cannabis and Driving: A Review of the Literature and Commentary. Crowthorne, Berks: TRL Limited.

"Overall, we conclude that the weight of the evidence indicates that:
1) There is no evidence that consumption of cannabis alone increases the risk of culpability for traffic crash fatalities or injuries for which hospitalization occurs, and may reduce those risks.
2) The evidence concerning the combined effect of cannabis and alcohol on the risk of traffic fatalities and injuries, relative to the risk of alcohol alone, is unclear.
3) It is not possible to exclude the possibility that the use of cannabis (with or without alcohol) leads to an increased risk of road traffic crashes causing less serious injuries and vehicle damage."

REFERENCE: M. Bates and T. Blakely. 1999. "Role of cannabis in motor vehicle crashes." Epidemiologic Reviews 21: 222-232.

"In conclusion, marijuana impairs driving behavior. However, this impairment is mitigated in that subjects under marijuana treatment appear to perceive that they are indeed impaired. Where they can compensate, they do, for example by not overtaking, by slowing down and by focusing their attention when they know a response will be required. … Effects on driving behavior are present up to an hour after smoking but do not continue for extended periods.
With respect to comparisons between alcohol and marijuana effects, these substances tend to differ in their effects. In contrast to the compensatory behavior exhibited by subjects under marijuana treatment, subjects who have received alcohol tend to drive in a more risky manner. Both substances impair performance; however, the more cautious behavior of subjects who have received marijuana decreases the impact of the drug on performance, whereas the opposite holds true for alcohol."

REFERENCE: A. Smiley. 1999. Marijuana: On-Road and Driving-Simulator Studies. In: H. Kalant et al. (Eds) The Health Effects of Cannabis. Toronto: Center for Addiction and Mental Health. Pp. 173-191.

CRASH CULPABILITY STUDIES

“For each of 2,500 injured drivers presenting to a hospital, a blood sample was collected for later analysis.

There was a clear relationship between alcohol and culpability. … In contrast, there was no significant increase in culpability for cannabinoids alone. While a relatively large number of injured drivers tested positive for cannabinoids, culpability rates were no higher than those for the drug free group. This is consistent with other findings.”

REFERENCE: Logan, M.C., Hunter, C.E., Lokan, R.J., White, J.M., & White, M.A. (2000). The Prevalence of Alcohol, Cannabinoids, Benzodiazepines and Stimulants Amongst Injured Drivers and Their Role in Driver Culpability: Part II: The Relationship Between Drug Prevalence and Drug Concentration, and Driver Culpability. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 32, 623-32.

“Blood samples from 894 patients presenting to two Emergency Departments for treatment of motor vehicle injur[ies] … were tested for alcohol and other drugs.

… Based on alcohol and drug testing of the full range of patients … alcohol is clearly the major drug associated with serious crashes and greater injury. Patients testing positive for illicit drugs (marijuana, opiates, and cocaine), in the absence of alcohol, were in crashes very similar to those of patients with neither alcohol nor drugs. When other relevant variables were considered, these drugs were not associated with more severe crashes or greater injury.”

REFERENCE: P. Waller et al. 1997. Crash characteristics and injuries of victims impaired by alcohol versus illicit drugs. Accident Analysis and Prevention 29: 817-827.

“Blood specimens were collected from a sample of 1,882 drivers from 7 states, during 14 months in the years 1990 and 1991. The sample comprised operators of passenger cars, trucks, and motorcycles who died within 4 hours of their crash.

… While cannabinoids were detected in 7 percent of the drivers, the psychoactive agent THC was found in only 4 percent. … The THC-only drivers had a responsibility rate below that of the drugfree drivers. … While the difference was not statistically significant, there was no indication that cannabis by itself was a cause of fatal crashes.”

REFERENCE: K. Terhune. 1992. The incidence and role of drugs in fatally injured drivers. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Report No. DOT HS 808 065.

ON-ROAD PERFORMANCE STUDIES

“Marijuana's effects on actual driving performance were assessed in a series of three studies wherein dose-effect relationships were measured in actual driving situations that progressively approached reality.

… THC's effects on road-tracking after doses up to 300 µg/kg never exceeded alcohol's at bacs of 0.08%; and, were in no way unusual compared to many medicinal drugs. Yet, THC's effects differ qualitatively from many other drugs, especially alcohol. Evidence from the present and previous studies strongly suggests that alcohol encourages risky driving whereas THC encourages greater caution, at least in experiments. Another way THC seems to differ qualitatively from many other drugs is that the formers users seem better able to compensate for its adverse effects while driving under the influence.”

REFERENCE: H. Robbe. 1995. Marijuana’s effects on actual driving performance. In: C. Kloeden and A. McLean (Eds) Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety T-95. Adelaide: Australia: HHMRC Road Research Unit, University of Adelaide. Pp. 11-20.

“This report concerns the effects of marijuana smoking on actual driving performance. … This program of research has shown that marijuana, when taken alone, produces a moderate degree of driving impairment which is related to consumed THC dose. The impairment manifests itself mainly in the ability to maintain a lateral position on the road, but its magnitude is not exceptional in comparison with changes produced by many medicinal drugs and alcohol. Drivers under the influence of marijuana retain insight in their performance and will compensate when they can, for example, by slowing down or increasing effort. As a consequence, THC’s adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small.”

REFERENCE: W. Hindrik and J. Robbe and J. O’Hanlon. 1993. Marijuana and actual driving performance. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Report No. DOT HS 808 078.

TABULATED SUMMARY OF ROAD TRIALS OF CANNABIS AND DRIVING
Table compiled by the UK Department of Transport (2000)

DRIVING SIMULATOR STUDIES

“Overall, it is possible to conclude that cannabis has a measurable effect on psychomotor performance, particularly tracking ability. Its effect on higher cognitive functions, for example divided attention tasks associated with driving, appear not to be as critical. Drivers under the influence of cannabis seem aware that they are impaired, and attempt to compensate for this impairment by reducing the difficulty of the driving task, for example by driving more slowly.

In terms of road safety, it cannot be concluded that driving under the influence of cannabis is not a hazard, as the effects of various aspects of driver performance are unpredictable. However, in comparison with alcohol, the severe effects of alcohol on the higher cognitive processes of driving are likely to make this more of a hazard, particularly at higher blood alcohol levels.”

REFERENCE: B. Sexton et al. 2000. The influence of cannabis on driving: A report prepared for the UK Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Road Safety Division). Crowthorne, Berks: TRL Limited.

Worst thing to ever happen to me while high was getting clumsy and bending the stylus on a brand-new Shure V15. That sucked. Big time.

And let's not forget that once somebody has been busted for pot they can never vote again. How stupid is that? Just makes it easier for the legislators to keep it illegal.

Single Dad,

I've been busted. Got a conditional discharge. I'm still allowed to vote.

It depends on the state. In PA, for instance, even a convicted murderer can still vote when and if he gets out of prison.

And how are those high IQ people doing with the world so far? Seems they might do well to mellow out dude. (136 IQ . High enough for you?)

That's bologna! First of all, the research that has been done on marijuana does not support your statement. Short term memory loss can occur but there is no permanent decrease in cognitive abilities, even over time.

Secondly, I know many "normal", decent, intelligent, professional people that smoke pot...stop stereotyping.

131 Here.

Marijuana has been blamed for causing chromosome damage, drug psychosis, endocrine abnormalities and heart attacks. The substance has long been considered a "gateway drug"--one that leads users to stronger substance abuse. Marijuana is a mildly addicting drug capable of causing impaired driving but with less overall health and social consequences than alcohol or tobacco. Tolerance develops and is dose-dependent over time. Side effects of marijuana use have been studied and linked to mostly cognitive effects and lung irritation. Generally, lifestyles associated with marijuana use may also have health risks.

Lower Antioxidant Levels

Researchers from the SUNY School of Medicine, University of Buffalo, New York, examined data from a health and nutritionsurvey and found marijuana users between the ages of 20 and 59 had lower blood levels of carotenoids, an important class of antioxidants found in brightly colored fruits and vegetables. The 2001 report explained that the subjects had poor nutrition compared to non-users, consuming more calories, salty snacks, pork, cheese, beer and soda. Antioxidant deficiencies were independent of tobacco use. Antioxidants are needed for cellular protection and repair, and play a key role in slowing aging and immune response.

Lower IQ

Canadian scientists from Carlton University in Ontario published a study in 2002 that followed 70 subjects since birth. IQ scores were assessed at ages 9 to 12 and compared with current scores of 17- to 20-year-old marijuana users, identified by urine drug screens and interviews. Heavy smokers, defined as those using marijuana at least five times a week, had an average decrease of 4.1 points in IQ score. IQ scores increased an average of 3.5 points for formerly heavy users who had been abstinent for at least three months, showing the loss was temporary. However, current light users (less than five times per week), had the largest gains, adding an average of 5.8 points.

Respiratory Tract Damage

"Regular marijuana use can lead to extensive airway injury and alterations in the structure and function of alveolar macrophages, potentially predisposing to pulmonary infection and respiratory cancer." These are the findings of D.P. Tashkin, of the UCLA School of Medicine and published in the March, 2001 issue of "Current Opinion in Pulmonary Medicine." Avleolar macrophages are tiny hairs that sweep mucus and debris out of the lungs. Marijuana smoke contains substances known to cause cancer, according to the American Cancer Society, and chronic use can lead to laryngitis and bronchitis.

Yep lets legalize it an make Americans Dummer and more at risk for Heart Attacks and Stroks. GOOD IDEA......................NOT

NO! the IQ of this country is dropping because the government is no longer funding schools the way they should be!!! not because of pot you dumb ass. the government is too worried about their wars, and oil and Lybia, so they neglect the school systems and than the younger generations are screwed. I graduated high school in Nevada, where you only need a "D" average to pass.. thats saying A LOT. when a child only is required to commit to a D average, you think he's gonna have a high IQ? naww, just keep blaming pot for the GOVERNMENTS SCREW UPS. thats gonna get you far in life.

@Leatherneck. You spelled "Dumber" wrong lol. Not making a very convincing argument.

Scubasteve58001: HMM well I'll be a monkeys uncle a typo....

joe s-2638648: We been giving schools way more money then in the past. Instead of the education levels going up and up. What happened they went down and down.
So your argument about government is no longer funding schools the way they should be=BS and idiocy.
Might want to read this on the education part:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2008/09/Does-Spending-More-on-Education-Improve-Academic-Achievement

@ Leatherneck: You wouldn't sound quite so hypocritical if Alcohol and Tobacco, which kill hundreds of thousands a year, weren't legal. But, I guess because they helped build America, they're innocent, right?

Besides, the only reason the prohibition exists was to safeguard William Randolph Hearst's monopoly on the wood pulp industry, for making paper. And DoW chemicals monopoly on synthetic fibers. Or do you think they bankrolled Reefer Madness, completely by coincidence.

leatherneck918, you stated that pot was to blame for an IQ drop. Yet the study you pasted on comment 19.4 CLEARLY states " current light users (less than five times per week), had the largest gains, adding an average of 5.8 points." So how do you see a gain as a drop?

I think you need a big doobie, mellow you out a bit and add a bit to your IQ : )

Leatherdick quotes the Heritage Foundation as a factual source? hahaha Now that's funny. The rest of this blurb doesn't have a source? Hmmmmm No one is saying it safe for kids.

@Leatherneck,

Do you work for the Feds? Your big long copy & paste article is an old scare tactic study that was funded by... wait for it... The feds. And If I recall this article your quoting is a few decades old. There has been numerous recent studies that have debunked ALL that information. Hell even LEO's are beginning to see that prohibition does not work. Check out their website. They call the group "Law Enforcement Against Prohibition" or LEAP. It's time to end the war on drugs. PERIOD

website: http://www.leap.cc/

Leatherneck, first,do you care to site your sources? Second, the results regarding lower anti-oxidants in semi-erroneous. The cause of the lower anti-oxidants is the diets of the users, not the use of the marijuana itself.

The 2001 report explained that the subjects had poor nutrition compared to non-users, consuming more calories, salty snacks, pork, cheese, beer and soda. Antioxidant deficiencies were independent of tobacco use.

This may be true, but there is no mention as to the overall health of the subjects studied. It is likely, that the researchers did not get an accurate sample of users as there are many people that use that will not readily admit to it. My wife and myself are regular users, yet, we both work out daily, eat a very clean and health diet, very little carbs and very high in fruits and vegetables. The study may have been skewed because more prominant users would not readily disclose the use due to its illegality and possible repercussions that fact alone could have.

Also, the research regarding the IQ scores is really inconclusive as light users showed and increase in IQ while heavy users showed a decrease in IQ. Defining a heavy user as using 5 times a week or more and a light users as less than 5 times a week is also flawed. I can use a lot in one night and exceed the amount that someone who uses a little every day does in a week.

Lastly, while smoking pot will undoubtely lead to some respiratory damage, smoking is not the only way to ingest. Look at many of the dispenseries in California and Colarado, or even in Amsterdam. There are candies, baked goods, and other items that can be eaten, to get high while avoiding the harmful side affects of smoking. Also, there are vaporizors on the market that will also reduce this damage as the user essentially is inhaling water vapor laced with THC and no carcinogens.

"Stoned" by Smash Mouth

I'm getting stoned... and what's wrong with that? The President seems to be just fine.

average decrease of 4.1 points in IQ score

Thats insignificant, if you`re already stupid than a 4 point decrease isn`t going to matter that much, and if you`re already smart a 4 point decrease isn`t going to make you stupid.

potentially predisposing to

Have you ever read the "potential" side effects of a lot of legal "Medications"? The potential side effects are far more serious and deadly then the condition that the medications are suppose to treat.

Pot isn`t being kept illegal by the government to protect our health, if the government cared so much about our health they would have made cigarettes illegal a long time ago. cigarettes have no redeeming values they are addictive cancer causing products.

I bet I could find a study that says children who live in poverty have lower I.Q.`s because of poor nutrition. if the government really cared about improving people`s I.Q.`s they would make poverty illegal.

keeping pot illegal has nothing to do with the government caring about us and wanting to keep us safer, it is completely motivated by money.

@STLMike

My comment didnt post, so i'll post it again...

I have been working out for about 8 months now and went from 244 to 205. I have gained muscle and am feeling all around better with myself! I have also been smoking for many years.

The hardest part of course... is the munchies. But it's seriously all in your head. I may have the munchies but with discipline and self control, I am proud to say that I eat right, feel great and will continue to smoke.

We been giving schools way more money then in the past.

We been

then in the past

Three grammatical/spelling errors in two posts, your track record isn't getting any better.

"We have been" or "We've been" and "than" not "then". I know they sound the same when you speak them out loud but they're not. It's difficult to take anything you post seriously if you don't know basic English and grammar.

Decriminalize/legalize it!

Leatherneck-

You know who else doesn't want it to be legalized? Drug dealers.

Leatherneck: IQ rates may have dropped in America but it isn't because of pot.

America is this : Los Angeles, New York and a vast spread of land inhabited by mostly dumbass rednecks like yourself.

Rednecks like you fear education so you chose to stay stupid, making you a burden on society.

Education is only for the rich. And the rich want to make sure you dont get rich, thus they make the cost of education prohibitive.

Leatherneck...Thank you for your service. I tested at a 135GT score for the Army. I have 210 college credit hours. I was the best student in plenty of my classes. I have smoked marijuana for 38 years. I will admit I waited to smoke until after my classes and or tests. Do I have a point? IQ is relative to the individual. Marijuana does not dumb down society. I believe it makes people more creative and their thinking may become a little more non linear. If you really want to attack a drug not a herb go after alcohol. Alcohol KILLS brain cells. One of the smartest things I ever did was stop drinking alcohol. I do drink less than a six pack a year but it is only on very special occassions.

the government is too worried about their wars, and oil and Lybia, so they neglect the school systems and than the younger generations are screwed

It's "Libya", Joe. However, you can still spell the late Qaddafi in any of several ways.

I couldn't agree with you more, categorizing marijuana as a hard drug is ridiculous and it bothers on insanity. I smoked pot for many years, quit cold turkey after my job started a random drug test, I had no withdrawals, no jitters either didn't need a rehab either. Try that with other legal drugs Alcohol, tobacco Oxycontin e.t.c you will need

As with any intoxicant - USE RESPONSIBLY !!

.

Indeed! I encourage everyone to smoke 5 blunts a day if they like, but to call a cab afterward. Hey, you can ask him to stop at Micky D's and it'll be much easier to eat while somebody else drives!

Don't smoke blunts. Don't EVER mix tobacco and cannabis.

why?

Because tobbaco is poison and gives you cancer, fool.

mix 1/4 oz with a stick of butter on simmer for an hour and make brownies with it

I know brownies are bad too but this way you don't have to take in ANY smoke.

Tobacco is fine in moderation in my opinion, same as everything else. I like the occasional cigarette or fine cigar (Had a Cuban once, oh jeez I can't wait for that embargo to end!). Every now and then I'll roll a spliff or blunt for the mix. I try to stay away from cigarettes except for the additive-free ones, at least until there's an ingredient label on them.

@ Kyle: Befriend someone in the military, they have free shipping, and can get things from Cuba quite readily. I know a few who regularly get Cubans shipped to them.

First time I smoked a Blunt in Amsterdam I about gagged. I didn't realize they mix marijuana with tobacco. I believe that they called what I prefer as a PURE. Anyway, I don't recomend tobacco for any man, woman, or child. One of my best friends just died after a long and painful battle from the effects of cigarettes. He cursed the day he first lit up.

Tobacco is fine in moderation in my opinion, same as everything else.

A friend of mine thought it was okay to smoke tobacco in a Turkish water pipe "on occasion". She had a fatal cardiac arrest when she was 35 years old. I cannot prove cause and effect here, but what is "occasional" tobacco use and how many people can really do that? Malcolm X said that from his observations dealing with addicts, nicotine was the most addicting substance of all.

Well OomYaaqub, the question of what is "occasonal" is a good one. I expect it varies person to person as we all know that drugs of any kind affect every person in different ways. Some smokers always love to tout how they/their grandfather/someone they know smoked all their life every day and lived just as long and healthy as a non-smoker. Of course, there are also people such as your friend who smoke much less often or for a shorter time and develop serious health problems (my condolences for your loss).

It is all up for each person to decide what is best for their health and to decide what risks they want to take. For me, I smoke a pack of cigarettes over the course of 2-3 months, so maybe a cigarette a week although sometimes I will smoke a few in a day or maybe once a day for a few days. I don't like the "high" (let's not fool ourselves, that's what it is) enough to do it often, or the smell and ash-mouth taste afterward, or the way it makes my lungs feel, but that's just me. Not to mention the fact that I seem to be more in-tune with my body than most, and I can feel the physical addiction if I smoke too often, which is a very uncomfortable feeling despite me being able to resist it. Even despite all that, I like a smoke once in a while. I just wish there was a full list of ingredients. Also please make no mistake, I consider big tobacco on the same moral level as big pharma and big telecom as far as corruption and willingness to engage in unethical behavior to further their own interests.

You're right nicotine though is a very addictive, dangerous drug and should be regarded with the same level of caution as alcohol. You are also correct when you imply that most people do not have the willpower for "occasional" use. Sorry for the dissertation, it didn't seem that long as I was typing it!

Kyle you hit the nail on the head in your #22.11 when you said " It is all up for each person to decide what is best for their health and to decide what risks they want to take." That is precisely what is wrong with this whole issue regarding marijuana or any drugs for that matter. Governmental regulatory agencies are telling us just what we can or cannot consume in our personal lives and I see that as a violation of our rights of self determination.

Most people clearly understand that those regulatory agencies 'cherry pick' which products are declared illegal. Alcohol and tobacco are permitted while marijuana is not. The reasons for that discrimination is and always will be economic and not for any reasons of public health. Our ban on alcohol failed miserably.

The recent persecution of the tobacco industry has caused most producers to leave our country taking those jobs with them but public health was not what prompted it. No, it was the heavy pressure from the insurance industry who got tired of paying claims for tobacco related illnesses. The fall out just happens to be that fewer people are picking up the smoking habit and more are quitting than ever before. It is actually succeeding in the goal of getting people to chose to quit because it is not totally prohibited. They still have the choice to ruin their lungs if they so desire.

Then we have the drug war which, like the prohibition of alcohol, is failing miserably. In the case of marijuana there is still heavy pressure from special interest groups to maintain its illegality for various economic reasons. As for the hard drugs including the opiates and amphetamines which are very addictive such prohibition does have a certain rationality to it. However human nature being what it is, telling people that they simply cannot have it gives it a certain panache, makes it expensive and hard to get, and gives using it a sort of status image and actually serves to stimulate demand at all social levels.

If drugs were cheap and readily available and their long term detrimental effects were clearly published so that rational people could see what might happen to them I believe that fewer people would pick up the habit and more who are already addicted would make an effort to break their habit. That is what happened in Portugal in the 10 years since they decriminalized drugs in that country. However as long and economics remains the driving factor in our society such changes will be hard to come by because the money and power behind keeping drugs illegal is just too great.

Yes but going to church affects the brain in a negative way in my humble opinion. If that's your crutch of choice though go for it and don't criticize the rest. (not that I'm saying you are criticizing)

Stay straight !! Pot reduces drive, ambition, robs energy and induces a placid state of mind. That is NOT the real world. Too many people use it to escape reality because they can't deal with reality. Thier beliefs are if you are stoned you DO NOT have to exert any energy. When the time comes for us all to be physically and mentally strong do you really think pot will help us?

@ Peter: It's not for you to decide what people should and shouldn't do. Some people don't use it to stay permanently baked out of their gords...some simply enjoy it as a way to come down after a hard days work, ala, drinking a 6-pack...which is capable of causing far, far more harm than smoking a single joint ever could.

I do agree that continued, constant use is bad...but the same could be said of literally everything. Education and Moderation, is they key, not farcical scare tactics.

If the Government is unwilling to be truthful about it, while keeping Marijuana ranked in the same category as HEROIN. People will seek actual answers online, and guess what they find? That big brother is more full of $hit than a whale without an a$$hole.

Robert Anton Wilson (just an easy example) smoked marijuana every day for decades. He published 32 books... Should he have published 64? Would that have been sufficient drive and ambition? And, if not, how much would be?

...waiting patiently for your reply...

economykiller

I know many People that were straight A students in high school an college (as you put it) and they smoked. I know doctors,nurses and other professional people that smoke it still. So staying Clean as you put it really means nothing. but congrats to you an yours for your accomplishment.

Pot reduces drive, ambition, robs energy and induces a placid state of mind.

It must be just intensifying these actions in the person that had already succumbed to them in their "non pot smoking life." If you don't see this as being the case then those you know who this is happening to,might want to change suppliers. Sounds like a placebo to me. They are getting ripped off even if it's free. Marijuana will do just about whatever you need it to do, imo.

Pot reduces drive, ambition, robs energy and induces a placid state of mind

As opposed to good old alcohol, which turns you into a huge success. /s

OMG! So that explains our Congress. LOL It's not the lobbyists, PAC groups, and special interests that has turned them into a bunch of do nothings its the s*&%t they are smokin. HEH HEH HEH HEH

Yes but going to church affects the brain in a negative way in my humble opinion.

That's just as intolerant as wanting marijuana to remain illegal. Obviously billions of people do get something profound from religion, and some even get high from it. I'm not a huge fan of organized religion myself, but anyone who has ever had a genuine religious experience will tell you it was the most meaningful thing that ever happened to them and that it changed their life.

You say $15 is 3x the price of a pack of smokes- in NY City because of all the taxes it is the cost of one pack of cancer sticks! One thing to note. You never read about someone using pot and beating his girlfriend or starting a fight. These are common occurances when drinking, which is legal. Go figure.

@Rebel: I saw a story on the news the other night that hijacking cigarette shipments is becoming more of a problem because of the high taxes on them. In fact, organized crime makes more money now on "bootlegged" cigarettes than they do on their drug sales.

What's astonishing, is the DEA just came out with another position paper, in which they re-affirmed their claim that cannabis has NO MEDICAL USE. Despite there being what, 20 states that have legalized it FOR MEDICAL USE?!

Why? Because in order for it to remain a Class I drug, it cannot have accepted medical uses. So the DEA ignores medicine, to maintain their illicit control.

Makes me wish Huntsman was a serious contender, he at least seems to take science seriously! (and as much as I want to like Paul, he goes off on weird tangents, still!)

Pot is a class 1 drug for one reason.during the viet

nam war Nixson saw many protesters were smoking pot .a great way to shut them up .pot has been used forever ,time to get over the crap let us smoke if we want to,lets use our govt resourses for more important things