Should U.S legalize Marijuana??

[stayhigh 2]

Have fun people....

Emancipate yourself from metal slavery none but ourselves can free our mind. Have no fear for atomic energy cause none of them can stop the time.

Bernie Sanders for President 2016

[kenz 0]

IMO

yup - i think they should - there seem to be a lot more weed smokers doing time, than rapists and other violent criminals that deserve to be there - not to mention the government can make a shit ton of $ on the taxation of weed

edited to add - i do NOT smoke - nor do i really have any desire - but i don't think people who do should be penalized so harshly

"life does throw curveballs sometimes but it doesn't mean we shouldn't still swing for the homerun" ~ me

[Nightingale 0]

Yes.

The job of the government is to protect people from outside threats. It is not to regulate what we do with our own bodies. Plus, the only thing a pothead is a danger to is a bag of cheetoes. Regulating marijuana is a waste of law enforcement time and resources.

[micro 0]

Quote

Yes.

The job of the government is to protect people from outside threats. It is not to regulate what we do with our own bodies. Plus, the only thing a pothead is a danger to is a bag of cheetoes. Regulating marijuana is a waste of law enforcement time and resources.

Under that line of reasoning then, should the govt. legalize ALL drugs? Heroin, crack, meth?

While I tend to agree that pot is one of the more benign of drugs, I worry about the "slippery slope" effect of legalizing this, then.... what comes next?

However, I don't like the apparent duplicity that alcohol is ok but pot is not. Still sorting that one out in my head.

Also, my wife's medical condition might improve w/ medicinal access to cannabis. So I guess I'm torn...

edited to add... can you believe it, I'm torn on an issue and not stark raving mad like a lunatic catholic boy?

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[nathaniel 0]

Yes.

A tax on pot could pay for more terror warriors, and the pot would make everybody chill out or get really paranoid.

Providing hours of entertainment worthy of the evening news.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[Nightingale 0]

I wouldn't have a problem if the government legalized all drugs. After all, it's not the job of the government to protect us from our own stupidity.

As for the concerns about potential increased crime rates related to drugs, well, burglary and theft are already illegal. If they steal for drug money, do what they do now... charge them with theft.

The "war on drugs" simply hasn't worked. I'd like to see the money that is currently being spent on enforcement to instead be spent on education. People are going to use drugs until they understand why they shouldn't. "Drugs are bad" isn't a reason. I doubt I could find many high school students who could explain to me the physical effects of ecstasy on the human body. Now, most high schoolers can tell you that smoking causes bad breath, bad skin, and cancer. That's why the rate of teen smoking has been dropping. We need to approach drug use the same way.

In Florida, beginning in 1999, the state began a "comprehensive tobacco control program, which helped prove that an all-encompassing approach was needed to reduce teen smoking. It included in-school and after-school education at every grade level, programs to help teens quit smoking, enforcing the laws against shopkeepers selling tobacco to teens, and much more.

After four years, smoking rates among Florida middle school students dropped by 47%, and there was a 30% decline among high school students." -cancer.org

Education is the key to reducing drug use. Making drugs illegal simply adds in the additional problems created by a black market.

[stayhigh 2]

I would have problem if they started to legalize all drugs, because what if someone gets twicked out for 2 weeks straight, they are not only endangering themselves but other people too. Think about it, cocaine and meth addicts searching(aka stealing) for more money to feed their addiction. Paranoid people thinking that trees are coming to kill you..

Bernie Sanders for President 2016

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

I would have problem if they started to legalize all drugs,

Marijuana grows out of the ground. Can God be wrong? Meth doesn't grow out of the ground. Powder cocaine doesn't grow out of the ground (not in that form, at least).

We are all engines of karma

[juanesky 0]

HHmm, by that logic, there are no natural poisons in nature..

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

there are no natural poisons in nature..

Medical students say that poisoning is always a matter of dosage. I don't know, but I expect that the other stuff you had in mind doesn't grow out of the ground (as consumed).

We are all engines of karma

[Royd 0]

Quote

I wouldn't have a problem if the government legalized all drugs. After all, it's not the job of the government to protect us from our own stupidity.

As for the concerns about potential increased crime rates related to drugs, well, burglary and theft are already illegal. If they steal for drug money, do what they do now... charge them with theft.

The problem with most drugs, including alcohol , is that once a person starts using them, they don't just use it lightly on a Fri night. It becomes a daily thing, and there are very few drugs that do not cause a change in brain chemistry and personality.
As for drugs like meth and coke, I've seen people on these, and I don't want to be anywhere in the vicinity. Something stupid is bound to happen.

As for pot, a person may have grandiose dreams for life, but the physical motivation is simply not there.
I hate to say it, but the recent ads on tv about smoking pot are pretty true to life.

And I would know this, how?

[kallend 1,621]

Quote

Quote

Yes.

The job of the government is to protect people from outside threats. It is not to regulate what we do with our own bodies. Plus, the only thing a pothead is a danger to is a bag of cheetoes. Regulating marijuana is a waste of law enforcement time and resources.

Under that line of reasoning then, should the govt. legalize ALL drugs? Heroin, crack, meth?

While I tend to agree that pot is one of the more benign of drugs, I worry about the "slippery slope" effect of legalizing this, then.... what comes next?

However, I don't like the apparent duplicity that alcohol is ok but pot is not. Still sorting that one out in my head.

Also, my wife's medical condition might improve w/ medicinal access to cannabis. So I guess I'm torn...

edited to add... can you believe it, I'm torn on an issue and not stark raving mad like a lunatic catholic boy?

The government is not supposed to be our nanny.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[gordy 0]

Quote

The problem with most drugs, including alcohol , is that once a person starts using them, they don't just use it lightly on a Fri night.

Bit of a generalization there.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Plus, the only thing a pothead is a danger to is a bag of cheetoes. Regulating marijuana is a waste of law enforcement time and resources.

I understand the premise of your statement, but to say that marijuana usage does not pose a danger in the broader scheme is incorrect in my view.

Lung cancer cases would increase by an order of magnitude which would cripple treatment systems. Users would eventually file a suit mirroring the tobacco lawsuits, posing even more government oversight. It's much simpler to try and keep it out, versus regulate monitoring systems tracking nicotine, THC, and other carcinogen content (much like cigarette industry requirements).

It would create a layer of bureaucracy unknown today, plus create a massive burden on healthcare as we know it. I won't even get into the issue of having half the country getting stoned then getting behind the wheel of an automobile.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kallend 1,621]

Quote

Quote

Plus, the only thing a pothead is a danger to is a bag of cheetoes. Regulating marijuana is a waste of law enforcement time and resources.

I understand the premise of your statement, but to say that marijuana usage does not pose a danger in the broader scheme is incorrect in my view.

Lung cancer cases would increase by an order of magnitude which would cripple treatment systems. Users would eventually file a suit mirroring the tobacco lawsuits, posing even more government oversight. It's much simpler to try and keep it out, versus regulate monitoring systems tracking nicotine, THC, and other carcinogen content (much like cigarette industry requirements).

It would create a layer of bureaucracy unknown today, plus create a massive burden on healthcare as we know it. I won't even get into the issue of having half the country getting stoned then getting behind the wheel of an automobile.

That is different from alcohol?

The government is not supposed to be our nanny.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Royd 0]

The problem with most drugs, including alcohol , is that once a person starts using them, they don't just use it lightly on a Fri night.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote

Bit of a generalization there.

Are you telling me that a lifetime of observation doesn't count for anything?

[Gawain 0]

Quote

That is different from alcohol?
The government is not supposed to be our nanny.

I wasn't comparing the two. But since you brought it up: Long casual use of alcohol does not promise the health problems that smoking *anything* on a casual basis does.

When abused, the differences in health impact narrow, and indeed, detoxing from alcohol is more dangerous than from heroin.

Government is not supposed to be our nanny, yet that is what we have allowed: seatbelt laws, welfare, ad infinitum...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[freethefly 6]

Have a look at ASA, Americans for Safe Access
http://www.safeaccessnow.org/

As for information concerning the medical use
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3376

To date there is not one documented case of cancer associated with marijuana. It is fact that biggest danger of using marijuana is the government itself. The governments "War on Drugs" has caused more harm than all drugs combined.

Cannabis May Help Reduce Brain Tumors

A research study, published in the September 2004 issue of the journal Neuropharmcology (Vol. 47, Issue 3, p. 315-323) reports:

"Gliomas, in particular glioblastoma multiforme or grade IV astrocytoma, are the most frequent class of malignant primary brain tumours and one of the most aggressive forms of cancer. Current therapeutic strategies for the treatment of glioblastoma multiforme are usually ineffective or just palliative. During the last few years, several studies have shown that cannabinoids—the active components of the plant Cannabis sativa and their derivatives—slow the growth of different types of tumours, including gliomas, in laboratory animals.

Cannabinoids induce apoptosis of glioma cells in culture via sustained ceramide accumulation, extracellular signal-regulated kinase activation and Akt inhibition. In addition, cannabinoid treatment inhibits angiogenesis of gliomas in vivo."

The study's abstract concluded:
"Remarkably, cannabinoids kill glioma cells selectively and can protect non-transformed glial cells from death. These and other findings reviewed here might set the basis for a potential use of cannabinoids in the management of gliomas."
9/04 Neuropharmacology


Cannabis does not cause cancer, lung disease, or ill health. Recent reports confirm this.

CANNABIS AND CANCER
Go back to the contents page

CANADA: Pot Doesn't Cause Lung Cancer, Researcher Says: Toronto Star, 12 June 2001

New 126-Page Study, 'NTP Technical Report On The Toxicology And Carcinogenesis Studies Of 1-Trans-Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol, CAS No. 1972-08-3, In F344/N Rats And B6C3F(1) Mice, Gavage Studies': February 1999 from AIDSNEWS

BOSTON, Jan. 30, 1997 (UPI) - The U.S. federal government has failed to make public its own 1994 study that undercuts its position that marijuana is carcinogenic - a $2 million study by the National Toxicology Program. The program's deputy director, John Bucher says the study found absolutely no evidence of cancer. In fact, animals that received THC had fewer cancers. Bucher denies his agency had been pressured to shelve the report, saying the delay in making it public was due to a personnel shortage.

The Boston Globe reported on Thursday 30th January 1997 that the study indicates not only that the main ingredient in marijuana, THC, does not cause cancer, but also that it may even protect against malignancies, laboratory tests on animals show.

The report comes on the heels of an editorial in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine that favors the controlled medical use of marijuana, and calls current federal policy misguided, heavy-handed and inhumane.

SO, YOU THOUGHT IT WAS THE TAR THAT CAUSED CANCER

The KAISER PERMANENTE. Prohibition is unhealthy. 1997
Kaiser-Permanente is a large US health-care provider. This study into the effects of long-term smoking of cannabis took 10 years and involved 65,000 people who had received check-ups between 1979 and 1985. The patients were divided into those who had, and those who had not, used cannabis regularly or currently. It was reported that risks associated with cannabis smoking were lower than for tobacco smoking. It also noted that smokers with AIDS had no higher death-rate than non-smokers with AIDS.

The report stated
"Relatively few adverse clinical effects from the chronic use of marijuana have been documented in humans. However, the criminalization of marijuana use may itself be a health hazard, since it may expose the users to violence and criminal activity."
The Kaiser Permanente study - "Marijuana Use and Mortality" April 1997 American Journal of Public Health".

See also: Radioactivity in Tobacco

UCLA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE
An 8-year study at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) School of Medicine, concluded that long-term smokers of cannabis do not experience a greater annual decline in lung functions than non-smokers.
Researchers said:
"Findings from the present long-term follow-up study of heavy, habitual marijuana smokers argue against the concept that the continuing heavy use of marijuana is a significant factor for the development of [chronic lung disease]"
"No difference were noted between even quite heavy marijuana smoking and nonsmoking of marijuana."
Volume 155 of the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 1997

NATIONAL DRUG AND ALCOHOL RESEARCH CENTRE, AUSTRALIA, January 1997

A study of 268 cannabis smokers who, on average, had smoked for 19 years and 31 non-using partners and family members, concluded that the health of the long-term smokers is virtually no different to that of the general population.
Chief researcher Richard Reilly said "The results seem unremarkable...The exceptional thing was that the respondents were unexceptional."
For more information e-mail Jamnes Danenberg

Source: New Scientist (UK)
Website: http://www.newscientist.com/
Pubdate: Sat, 15 Aug 1998
Author: Redford Givens

DOPE VERSUS CANCER

Michael Roth's "preliminary evidence" suggesting that the THC in marijuana may promote a carcinogenic effect (This week, 25 July, p 16) flies in the face of Louis S. Harris's findings in Analgesic and Anti-Tumor Potential of The Cannabinoids (Medical College of Virginia, 1972) that delta-8 THC, delta-9 THC and cannabinol are quite active as anticancer agents.

At the time of Harris's research, no anticancer agent that was much more potent than delta-9 THC existed and no compounds differentiated between tumour and normal cells the way delta-9 THC does. Considering that delta-9 THC alone increased survival in cancerous rats by 36 per cent, it seems very unlikely that THC promotes carcinogenic effects.

THC's known anticarcinogenic properties are probably the reason the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia, has never been able to trace any cancers to marijuana use.

Redford Givens San Francisco

Checked-by: (Joel W. Johnson)

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[micro 0]

thanks for all that!! good reading!!

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[pirana 0]

Chatting with a criminal defense attorney this weekend. He commented that alcohol and hard drugs are his stock in trade - explaining that almost all his clients had either been under the influence or were acting out in their quest for said goodies. He said if it weren't for alcohol, he would not be in business.

Marijuana on the other hand provides him with almost no clients at all.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[SkyDekker 1,121]

I think it should be, I think many things should be legalized.

The question that I always have trouble with though is:

At what age should it be legal?

[juanesky 0]

Sure, whatever, try eating any mushrooms you come accross. Just eat few of them!....and maybe you can chew on some thallium, or drink some arsenic, pickup some nutmegs, and wild berries!!!. and good luck.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[Nightingale 0]

Gawain, if trying to keep drugs out was actually working, I'd agree with you. However, it's not working. People are still using, still going on week long meth binges, and still extraordinarily uneducated about why that's a bad idea.

Education has had more of an impact on smoking than all the taxes, laws, and underage-smoker stings. There's no reason to think it would be different with drugs.

As a personal example, I don't use drugs. None of my friends use drugs. None of us avoid drugs because they're illegal or because we can't get them. All of us avoid them because they do dangerous and scary things to your body and the risks aren't worth the benefits.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

I would have problem if they started to legalize all drugs, because what if someone gets twicked out for 2 weeks straight, they are not only endangering themselves but other people too.

They're not endangering anyone until they get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle which is already illegal, especially when it means transporting passengers or hazardous materials.

Quote

Think about it, cocaine and meth addicts searching(aka stealing) for more money to feed their addiction. Paranoid people thinking that trees are coming to kill you..

Cocaine and methamphetamine currently cost more than gold because they're illegal and only available on the black market.

If they were cheaper than beer, we'd probably have more addicts begging like alchoholics than stealing.

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

I hate to say it, but the recent ads on tv about smoking pot are pretty true to life.

Indeed. I knew a girl in high school once that was like totally shrunken somehow.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.