WAPO Editorial: "Our marijuana laws have been ludicrous for as long as we've been alive."

[kpete]

Phelps Takes a Hit

By Kathleen Parker
Wednesday, February 4, 2009; 12:00 AM

Today's anti-drug campaigns are slightly wonkier than yesterday's "Reefer Madness," but equally likely to become party hits rather than drug deterrents. One recent ad produced by the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy says: "Hey, not trying to be your mom, but there aren't many jobs out there for potheads." Whoa, dude, except maybe, like, president of the United States.

Once a kid realizes that pot doesn't make him insane -- or likely to become a burrito taster, as the ad further asserts -- he might figure other drug information is equally false. That's how marijuana becomes a gateway drug...

Our marijuana laws have been ludicrous for as long as we've been alive. Almost half of us (42 percent) have tried marijuana at least once, according to a report published last year in PLoS Medicine, a journal of the Public Library of Science.

The U.S., in fact, boasts the highest percentage of pot smokers among 17 nations surveyed, including The Netherlands, where cannabis clouds waft from coffeehouse windows. Among them are no small number of high-ranking South Carolina leaders (we knew us when), who surely cringe every time a young person gets fingered for a "crime" they themselves have committed.

more at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/03/AR2009020302645_2.html?hpid=opinionsbox1&sid=ST2009020400170&s_pos=

[aquart]

1. Yes.

ALL our drug laws are ludicrous.

[fascisthunter]

2. conservatives need to smoke weed

but then again they are so tightly wound up that when they do, they can't handle it.

[Resuscitated Ethics]

4. They do. That's part of the hypocritical insanity

The lawyers and judges all do it too. Frankly impossible to pass law school without it--

One argument from a history teacher a million years ago still doesn't hold up: he didn't want one more thing to endanger his young daughter, and legal stoned drivers worried him too much.

I have reasons to believe that the draconian pot laws (used to be worse) are racist in origin and in current practice. Our cities are full of "felons" unable to vote because of some seeds.

And "twenty grams or less and white you walk" is a myth.

[Greyhound]

20. Racism is absolutely one of the keys to making it illegal in the first place.

The very fact that we call it marijuana is a holdover of the use of racism to garner popular support. The anti-hemp forces adopted the name during it's campaign of lies so they could successfully tie it to the "Mexicans and Negroes" in the public eye.

The real reasons, protecting promoting the paper, pulp, and chemical industries, would not fly, so the Hispanic word was used in the campaign and through that entered the American Lexicon.

[NOLALady]

25. True that.

http://www.drugpolicy.org/about/position/race_paper_history.cfm

"However public attitudes about drug use began to change as perceptions about drug users shifted. Opposition to opium smoking grew as it was increasingly linked to Chinese immigrants in the western United States. Strong anti-Chinese sentiment, exacerbated by a growing fear of competitive cheap Chinese labor, led to the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which forbade further immigration. Reports that the upper classes were taking up opium smoking in New York and other cities led to heightened alarm. Fears that respectable white women were being seduced into a life of prostitution and debauchery in opium dens were inflamed by vivid reports. In 1902, the Committee on the Acquirement of the Drug Habit of the American Pharmaceutical Association declared: "If the 'Chinaman' cannot get along without his 'dope,' we can get along without him." In 1909 the United States' international "war on drugs" began when California prohibited the importation of smoking opium.

In 1910 Dr. Hamilton Wright, considered by some the father of U.S. anti-narcotics laws, reported that U.S. contractors were giving cocaine to their Black employees to get more work out of them.(3) A few years later, stories began to proliferate about "cocaine-crazed Negroes" in the South who had run amuck. The New York Times published a story that alleged "most of the attacks upon white women of the South are the direct result of the 'cocaine-crazed' Negro brain." The story asserted that "Negro cocaine fiends are now a known Southern menace." Some southern police departments switched to .38 caliber revolvers, because they thought cocaine made Blacks impervious to .32 caliber bullets.(4) These stories were in part motivated by a desire to persuade Southern members of Congress to support the proposed Harrison Narcotics Act, which would greatly expand the federal government's power to control drugs.(5) This lie was also necessary since, even though drugs were widely used in America, very little crime was associated with the users.(6)

When marijuana was popularized in the 20s and 30s in the American jazz scene, Blacks and Whites sat down as equals and smoked together. The racist anti-marijuana propaganda of the time used this crumbling of racial barriers as an example of the degradation caused by marijuana. Harry Anslinger, head of the newly formed federal narcotics division, warned middle-class leaders about Blacks and Whites dancing together in "teahouses," using blatant prejudice to sell prohibition.(7) In 1931 New Orleans officials attributed many of the region's crimes to marijuana, which they believed was also a dangerous sexual stimulant.

[Sequoia]

73. You sure know your history.

And that Hearst fellow and his brand of yellow journalism helped spurn the furor. And of course Dow Chemical.

[Greyhound]

93. Yes Dow, I always go to DuPont but you're right it was Dow. n/t

[defendandprotect]

84. ... and now also health industry --- ????

[Greyhound]

92. Of course, the pharmaceutical and health-care denial industries will do anything

to keep a cheap, easy, un-patentable, substance off the market.

[defendandprotect]

122. Don't forget pleasurable . . . . !!!

[PerpetuallyDazed]

112. Brilliant insight!

I hadn't thought of that before...

[Greyhound]

120. Thank you, but it wasn't mine, I just did some research. n/t

:kick:

[Warpy]

11. Likely they did

and it just made them paranoid.

Weed and rigid personalities don't mix.

[acmavm]

14. They're too uptight. They wouldn't know what to do with a good

high. It's just something else they'd screw up.

[bertman]

80. Excuse me, fascisthunter, but you know not of what you speak on this subject.

I know many conservatives who know exactly what to do with the weed and can handle it as well as any liberal or hippie I have ever known--and believe me, I've known and still know MANY.

Most of the conservatives I know, who voted for McCain/Palin, would favor immediate repeal of all laws against smoking, growing, possessing, selling pot. They'd love to see it legalized.

You may be confusing them with the fundie/corporatists who want to control everything we do that gives pleasure.

[EC]

91. Kathleen Parker is a conservative...

But lately it looks as though she's had it with their hypocracy...I think Palin scared her smart...

[Left Coast2020]

97. I predict before Obama leaves office, we will have

LEGAL POT!! In some form. I sense it. I feel the force is with us. :smoke:

[misanthrope]

98. Don't hold your breath...or that hit**nm

**

[ProfessorGAC]

102. Her Stance Against Palin Resulted in DEATH THREATS

So, i think she may be seeing the light. She has been on the side of folks who willfully recruited radicals and lunatics into their ranks. As soon as she refused to be enthusiastic about catering to those very same nutjobs, she got threatening letters and emails, including one that threatened her whole family.

She actually talked about it in a column back in November.

I used to loathe her. (She's been printed in the Chicago Trib for years.) But, she has turned a corner in a big way since shortly before the election.
GAC

[struggle4progress]

107. She won't come around: she's a serious rightwinger. She's been bashing Obama for

picking on Rush recently. Her specific mission is to be the friendly face of the rightwing America

[ProfessorGAC]

108. Don't Agree

She's been doing what you're saying for a long time. Her tone has been decidedly different for the last 4 or 5 months. If you haven't noticed, you haven't been paying attention.

I'm no fan. But, there is no possible way she can be termed as a hard core right winger any longer.
GAC

[struggle4progress]

110. I admit I don't followed her closely, but her latest effort doesn't suggest to me she's changed:

Commentary: Obama has eager foe in Rush Limbaugh
Kathleen Parker • February 5, 2009

Two impressions emerge from President Barack Obama's first week in office: Partisanship has reached a tipping point when the new president is circling the fire hydrant with a conservative talk-radio personality. And, the new president is sounding an awful lot like the old one ... http://www.theadvertiser.com/article/20090205/OPINION/902050305

[ProfessorGAC]

113. I Understand

That column would make me think the same as you, had i not been reading her conservative fire-breathing for the last several years.

You'll have to trust me on this: She's much less radical than she once was.
GAC

[earcandle]

99. They could use the smoke screen to air the fuck out!

Pot is really probably the best medicine for stress, glacoma,
nausea, pain, lots of things.  I think Nixon did a study and
then didn't release it because they found pot was actually
good for folks when compared to pharmaceuticals and other
forms of stress release, emotional dwarfing, and psychological
distress.  Anybody remember that report? Locate a copy of that
report?  I think it was featured in a movie made about
marijuana, but it wasn't reefer madness, but a documentary.  I
will have to get back and locate it tomorrow.  I am too beat
just now.

goodnight. 

[rucognizant]

104. WHen my Father was in cancer treatment.................

in 1979 in Albany NY, the HOSPITAL GAVE him marijuana cigarettes to smoke! He didn't lose his hair! AND he didn't suffer nausea.
In the end it wasn't the cancer that killed him but his heart!Age 68
He did MUCH BETTER than my son, who lasted only 4 months after diagnosis with lung cancer,AGE 46, ( which my Father had also, even tho he had given up smoking 10 YEARS before he got sick! So my much for the propaganda about lungs restoring themselves!)
My son had only oxycontin..............and I think he gave up the fight!

[bananas]

3. They divide people into two groups

The kids who learn to question authority, and the kids who don't:

"Once a kid realizes that pot doesn't make him insane -- or likely to become a burrito taster, as the ad further asserts -- he might figure other drug information is equally false. That's how marijuana becomes a gateway drug..."

[OnionPatch]

8. Personal experience on that one.

I was told if you smoked pot at 16, you would be dead by 18. When I noticed my sister did not jump out any windows and was not only alive at 18, but doing great and excelling in college, I realized I had been lied to. After that, it was really hard to trust what the "authorities" had to say about any of it. Especially after comparing my sister to my father, the alcoholic who was doing the legal drug. He ruined his life and screwed up the lives of many others. Many years later, my sister is just fine, thanks.

[MindPilot]

9. They told us (boys) it would reduce sperm count and give us breasts

Cool! I won't be a daddy and I'll have a pair of my own. How much of this shit do I have to smoke?

For the record, despite decades of trying, I still had a kid and I still have manly pecs.

[L0oniX]

5. It is still a hippies verses the establishment thing.

I would say that it is the establishment that has fucked up this country with war and corporate robbers, not the hippies.

[Romulox]

13. The Hippies ARE the establishment now; the Drug War still continues. nt

[Warpy]

15. No we're not

Trust me, no hippie has ever been put into a responsible position in government.

We're the people they most fear.

[Romulox]

16. Without getting into a debate about was or was not a "true" hippy

Let's just say the "peace and love" generation has been in control of the government for the past couple of decades.

[eShirl]

18. can you list a few examples?

[Romulox]

19. Bill and Hillary Clinton, George W. Bush, e.g. nt

[endarkenment]

40. fucknutz? not at all.

Bill and Hillary had the hair and jeans thing going and smoked some pot but neither of them were remotely hippies.

How old are you?

[Romulox]

47. I don't care about the "they weren't REALLY hippies" argument

Perhaps no one was. I don't know. :shrug:

All I know is that the baby boomer generation is as greedy, as warmaking, and as authoritarian as any American generation that preceded it.

[rucognizant]

105. More so..............

Because they are control freaks and a LARGE number of them sold out. Instead of getting shot at they did a hostile financial takeover in the late 80's!
The true hippies, are still poor, still doing organic farming, and voting for the likes of Nadar, Dean & Kucinich, McKinney..........as you can see there aren't enough of us!

[Greyhound]

21. You can't discuss your assertion without getting into it, that's the point.

The "Hippies" were never more than a tiny minority of their generation.

[hvn_nbr_2]

23. Exactly.

Anybody who thinks George Bush was a hippie is completely delusional. Bill and Hill were not either, although I can at least see how somebody might wrongly imagine that they were.

[Romulox]

31. Who claimed W. Bush was a hippie? I claimed he was a member of the "Me (first!) generation".

And he is.

[endarkenment]

41. No you didn't.

"Let's just say the "peace and love" generation"

make up your mind. What the heck point are you trying to make?

[Romulox]

48. Pssst. They're all euphemisms for the same group of people.

Funny how that works. :hi:

[endarkenment]

58. uh - bullshit

you now seem to be equating 'the boomer generation' with 'hippies', 'the peace and love crowd', and 'the Me generation'.

Bill Clinton, Hillary Rodham, and George W Bush were not hippies, which was your original statement. Bill and Hillary were part of the antiwar "peace and love" movement and did smoke pot. George W Bush was then and is now exactly what he always has been: a rich kid spoiled brat fucking asshole, and was never a hippy, never part of the antiwar movement, is a boomer and probably qualifies as part of 'the Me generation' whatever that is.

[Romulox]

62. Actually, if you follow this trail of inanities back to its source

You'll find that I never did call Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, or W. Bush "hippies". But who cares, right? Your job is to school me on "the 60s!" and how they "changed everything!" (despite the fact that they didn't. :eyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKDk-mg1J9Q

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

66. OK, I followed the trail of innanities.

Innanity #1: "The hippies are the establishment now."

Reasonable reply #1: "Who are these hippies?"

Innanity #2: "Bill and Hillary and George Bush."

[Romulox]

67. I sense someone posting under two monikers who's lost track of which id is which! nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

68. Really?

Because I'm not the one running around describing boomers as the "me first generation" and then getting all bent out of shape with the use of "slacker generation."

That's a wonderfully ironic "me first" sentiment, isn't it?

[endarkenment]

70. You sense wrong

but keep it up. At least you are consistent.

[Raksha]

78. No, they weren't the same group of people AT ALL!!!

What the young 'uns here fail to appreciate is that the Baby Boomer generation was the most polarized in history. You were either "hip" or you were "straight," and believe me, "straight" didn't mean heterosexual in that context. It meant your allegiance was to the hated Establishment rather than the counterculture.

Now it was NOT cool to be identified with the Establishment, so a lot of the "straight" types adapted a kind of protective hippie coloration, or superficial aspects of the lifestyle like smoking pot. But they weren't hippies in the sense that they didn't share the nonmaterialistic values of the counterculture.

The real hippies despised these wannabes as phonies and/or sellouts. But it's difficult to make a judgment call about some of them--like the Clintons. I have never had any reason to think Bill Clinton wasn't totally sincere in his opposition to the Vietnam War, and I have NEVER condemned him for the famous "draft dodging" the Right tried to smear him with. I knew a lot of guys who did the same thing, or would have under the same circumstances. I never condemned them either.

OTOH it's clear that the Clintons have sold out their earlier idealism many times over. Maybe they only talked the talk when they were younger, but more likely they changed as they became more successful and the Establishment began heaping its rewards on them.

Whatever, it had nothing to do with whether they did or didn't smoke pot.

[Ticonderoga]

114. I think the term for straight back then was "Square".

[defendandprotect]

85. I think they've tried to give that impression . . .

Hillary was GOP for gawd sakes!

[Romulox]

28. THAT'S why I try'd to avoid the subject: I don't know how to define "true" Hippies

It becomes a variation of the "Well, true Communism has never been tried!"--this may well be a true statement, but when people are talking about "communism", they mean the style of government practiced in the Soviet bloc.

So I don't know how to define a "true" hippy. But those who wore flowers in their hair and professed "peace and love" have never come close to living up to their stated ideals. For example, perhaps WJ Clinton wasn't a "true" hippie. But he was one of the "peace and love" generation who turned his back on much of what the movements of the 60s stood for.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

46. Why don't you just use the word "boomer?"

:shrug:

[Romulox]

49. Same difference. I like the "Me (first!) generation" myself. nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

52. So... you're a member of the slacker generation then?

[Romulox]

53. No offense, but I have you on what I like to "selective ignore"

While I don't believe in using the ignore function, I reserve the right to ignore you, as I know you mostly are a bomb thrower/name-caller/attention-seeker (what a shock that you changed your name, btw! :hi: )

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

54. What's the matter?

Don't like the taste of your own medicine?

[Romulox]

55. I've just never found an exchange with you to be fruitful.

I am being as honest as I can when I say that.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

56. Not from your perspective, no.

For some reason, I always come out just fine and dandy.

[Greyhound]

72. I really, really, really

and I do mean really hate to agree with HiFructosePronSyrup, a dedicated disruptor of the worst sort, but perhaps it would be better to not use the term if you can't define it.

I believe the Hippies come in two flavors. The dedicated and enlightened flavor that heard, understood, and agreed with the philosophy of not playing http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4974672&mesg_id=4974672">The Game, and the followers of fashion flavor (my parents called them Day Trippers) That constituted the bulk of the movement. Combined these two groups were always a small minority as conformity has become the bedrock of America since WWII, so let's call them baby boomers or something as inclusive.

[Warpy]

24. Nobody but YAF and Ripon Society need apply

and since the government has been in the hands of conservatives in both parties for the past 40 years, you can take that to the bank.

Oh, and it's "hippie." "Hippy" means somebody's got a fat arse.

[Romulox]

30. So fine. The "peace and love generation" has been in control for a couple decades;

"peace and love" has not increased appreciably during their reign. :hi:

[Warpy]

35. What part of "YAF" and "Ripon Society" didn't you understand?

Perhaps if you'd been there to see the Ban-Lon golf shirts heading into the student union for lectures from Nixon wonks about how great the war was you might have a slight glimmer of understanding that only a minority of us was ever permitted to enter government and succeed.

[Romulox]

36. "YAF" and "Ripon Society". nt

[endarkenment]

42. again - how old are you?

you seem to be clueless about the 60's.

[Romulox]

51. LOL. Yeah, I'm clueless how the 60s "changed everything"

Because it didn't. :hi:

[endarkenment]

57. No you are clueless about the 60s

and that has been amply demonstrated in this thread. So, again, how old are you?

[Romulox]

59. I think you should take this up with bornagainhooligan

I don't give out personal info over the internets, nor does my age have a thing to do with Marijuana prohibition.

[endarkenment]

63. it has a lot to do with your documented cluelessness re the 60's.

[Romulox]

64. "Clueless" = anyone who DARES criticize the boomers.

yawn.

[endarkenment]

69. oh not at all - but keep making shit up and calling it an argument

as a generation we are generally one sorry lot of self-deceived idiots. Calling all boomers 'hippies' and describing them all as 'the peace and love generation' and then including W. and boomers like him in that is just ignorant.

The hippies and the peace movement were right about just about everything. We were however, a very small subset of the boomer generation.

[Occulus]

77. Just an observation here

I'm in my early 30s, and what I have been told about that entire generation- hippies, boomers, the pace-and-love crowd- does not match the people they are today.

In fact, the people they are today always seems to me to be a nearly 180-degree opposition to what I am taught they were like back then.

Like I said, it's just an observation, but from where I sit and from what I can see of them, very, very few ever held to what they supposedly believed in.

[Greyhound]

94. You're right, please see #72. n/t

[rucognizant]

106. Don't leave out the PRE boomer GEN.

Actually.,we were the first wave...........including people like Arlo Guthrie, Joan Baez, Bob Dylan........etc. People who were born in the 30's NOT Boomers!
Boomers started in'46 with the end of the war. We were a small, ( but thoughtful) group due to the depression and WWII.
WHen they were yelling "Never trust anyone over 30." I was 31! I am 70 now but you know, THEY still don't trust or include me!
I didn't wear flowers in my hair, being a married Mother of 2, just missed Woodstock.............being 2 hours away in Albany and almost packed up the kids and my baby Brother (a true Boomer) but we decided NOT to go. Thank God. I can't imagine trying to care for 2 children in that setting!
Non-the less, both my Brother and I have remained true to principles, walked the walk, and talked the talk, doing good and spreading the arts to children and others........without much material reward.
Still trying to enlighten others and spread information...........

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

65. So...

it's other people's ages that have to do with marijuana prohibition?

[bread_and_roses]

76. Right On, Warpy!

from a member of "that" generation. Sometimes I too fall into the "how did WE get here from there" blues, but then I remind myself of exactly your point.
edit for typo

[MagickMuffin]

88. Yeah Dick Cheney and George Bush "peace and love" generation

:rofl:

I would have to label you as being in the "confused generation"

[quaker bill]

103. Speak for yourself n/t

[pleah]

6. K&R Warehousing pot smokers in prison is one of the most stupid things

our country has done.

[Grinchie]

45. It sure is, but it's Soooo Profitable for the Private Prison Corporations.

Americans are the most foolish, unintelligent people on Earth to allow the Government to dictate what they choose to ingest, smoke or eat.

Cannabis has been used for Milliennia as an Herbal treatment for any number of diseases, provides food and nourishment, and is a great source of extremely durable fiber.

It also will grow just about anywhere, is an attractive ornamental plant, and is cheap and easily available.

The U.S. Government, in order to squeeze the most profit out of this common herb, criminalizes it to generate an illusion of scarcity, driving prices up. The police, arrest a random dealer now and then to reinforce the illusion of risk, but ultimately drive up the prices further by reducing availability and creating scarcity.

This scam finances many organizations, both criminal, government and clandestine. It also provides a back door avenue to fund an increasingly militarized police force right under our noses.

At this point in time, the Marijuana industry is big business that employs hundreds of thousands of people, from Government, to police, to individuals and pharmaceuticals attempting to fill the void, including organized crime lured by the profit available from the illusion of scarcity.

If Cannabis were made legal, overnight a huge sector of the Economy would collapse. It's time to do this and bring it out into the open and let us decide whether we want to grow it in our Front yards or not.

[pleah]

60. I say let that part of the economy collapse.

:smoke:

[defendandprotect]

82. $50,000 per year, per prisoner . . .

and mixing marijuana smokers with violent criminals !!!

[Fly by night]

7. Fah owt!!

Thanks kindly for posting.

Big K and a bigger R.

[ismnotwasm]

10. What bug me the most

(Aside from the people rotting away in prison because of insane pot laws, the bullshit burden on our prison system is part of the insanity of pot laws)

Is that people are suffering because marijuana has been proven to help with a variety of illnesses. I don't smoke pot. Used too. A lot. I don't think it's a panacea, and I don't think it's necessarily harmless. It's a drug, and drugs have side effects and those side effects are worse for some people than others.

Then again, I don't think American football is harmless either, but not all football player end their careers with a life changing spinal injury, now do they?

It should be completely legal. We give give harsh drugs to people with Chrons, Multiple sclerosis, HIV--many diseases especially in the autoimmune categories, marijuana would help with symptoms and side effects from these drugs, might even be able to take the place of some of them, and is much gentler on the body. For those predisposed to addictive behaviors, I'd put marijuana up against oxycodone any day. We hand out narcotics like candy, and can't consider alternatives like pot. Total bullshit.

I work in transplant, and let me say first the reason you can't get listed for transplant when you smoke pot, is that pot can carry certain fungus or mold. I've seem some horrid outcome from immunosuppressed people who developed uncontrollable mold or fungus in there systems, such as the loss of a arm and finally the entire arm and shoulder (it happened in a series of several surgeries trying to control the fungus and save part of the arm) AND the transplanted graft, up to just plain death because the fungus gets in the lungs and brain. Sick people need very clean weed.


But there is a way to certify pot, to clean it up. I'm not thinking pre-transplant as much as post transplant when we have patients with what we call "failure to thrive" No appetite. No energy. Already immuno-suppressed, they need optimum nutrition to survive. The meds they take all have side effects including anorexia, loss of appetite, diarrhea.

They shouldn't smoke the stuff, but a nice appetite stimulating spaghetti with pot-- or whatever else to start with-- can be done. We don't do this because of ridiculous laws. It's to the point were it's very painful to me, to hear patients say "Nothing tastes good, I get sick smelling food" watching them melt away when I know there is a solution we are forbidden to try, that MD's are forbidden to offer.

Oh, and What the US offers, the synthetic pot, Marinol? It's crap. Very few of my patients have good results. Canada has a much better product, but the US is just weird when it comes to THC.

[Lilith Velkor]

79. They should vaporize it if they can't eat.

Smoking it with a water pipe is second best. I've been around patients (AIDS and Gulf War sickness) who in no way could gulp down anything until after the THC had kicked in.

Otherwise, your post is right on. :thumbsup:

[Royal Sloan 09]

12. Simple solution

Use the KISS principle, Keep It Simple Stupids, LEGALIZE DRUGS and stop the costly War on Drugs. The failure is costing this country way too much in people's lives and their families future, for a plant! Yet the government ignores the people's voice on this matter, #1 and #3 issue on Change.org and Change.gov websites, according to the NORML group. Please consider visiting those websites and voting, to have this issue moved forward into the light.

[Romulox]

17. Obama wouldn't have nominated a pro Drug War VP and AG if he had ANY

intention of ending the Drug War.

Also, the raids on medicinal marijuana dispensaries have continued under President Obama. :hi:

[jhrobbins]

38. He's been president for two weeks! Maybe it's on his agenda, maybe not,

but let's give him just a little time. He's 'dancing as fast as he can'.

[struggle4progress]

22. If Parker's for this, it can only mean -- the Rs might try to legalize pot before the Ds do

[wroberts189]

26. Sane words at last k&r

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

27. Arresting or fining pot smokers is a big buck enterprise and that's probably one of the reasons it

hasn't been legalized. Imagine all of the lost profits if everyone could just grow their own.

[defendandprotect]

86. BUT ... drug trade can't go on without cooperation/corruption of high government officials. . .

and law enforcement . . . .

This has always been highly valuable trade/profits -- like gold!

In fact, Thailand -- "Golden Triangle" -- before we were in Vietnam . . .

Obviously high government officials are involved --

We need a Markopolous on this --- !!!

[JerseygirlCT]

118. I don't know that that's true

the impetus for making pot a ticketable offense only here in CT is financial. Spending too much money (and time) catching and prosecuting and even incarcerating pot smokers.

[spanone]

29. Kathleen Parker?????? really???????

[devilgrrl]

32. That's what I said!

:wtf:

[fishwax]

44. no kidding!

:rofl:
:wtf:

[progressoid]

111. Weird huh?

I'm beginning to think she is schizophrenic.

[20score]

33. K&R

[juno jones]

34. Out of my friends,

The one with the highest income (probably close to half a mil gross a year, totally legit) smokes an OZ a week to his head. CA green bud, finest kind.

Burrito taster, my effing ass.

[killbotfactory]

37. We need to stop pretending the drug war is for fighting drugs

The war on drugs has about as much to do with reducing drug use as the War in Iraq has to do with "fighting terror".

Many people assume that marijuana was made illegal through some kind of process involving scientific, medical, and government hearings; that it was to protect the citizens from what was determined to be a dangerous drug.

The actual story shows a much different picture. Those who voted on the legal fate of this plant never had the facts, but were dependent on information supplied by those who had a specific agenda to deceive lawmakers. You'll see below that the very first federal vote to prohibit marijuana was based entirely on a documented lie on the floor of the Senate.

You'll also see that the history of marijuana's criminalization is filled with:

* Racism
* Fear
* Protection of Corporate Profits
* Yellow Journalism
* Ignorant, Incompetent, and/or Corrupt Legislators
* Personal Career Advancement and Greed

These are the actual reasons marijuana is illegal.

http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/12/22/whyIsMarijuanaIllegal.html

We will never change these laws so long as people continue to pretend our drug laws are only an inconvenience to lazy potheads, instead of the massive infringement of our rights and corrupt money hole that encourages further and more horrible crime. As long as (non-prescription) drug users can be dismissed as junkies, or stoners, or methheads, or regarded generally as someone who has "broken the law" and isn't a normal human worthy of freedom over their own bodies and respect as a human beings, these laws will not change.

[jhrobbins]

39. Maybe that movement could start right here in DU. I'm not being flip, I'm serious.

[handmade34]

61. corporate greed

is one of major factors of why marijuana is illegal... The history is very interesting and so many people got duped

[BlueJac]

43. Prisons for profit is one of the problems n/t

[defendandprotect]

87. It's another profitable industry now . . .

[mdmc]

50. The GOP is gonna get behind the leaf

They need a new image..

[Fly by night]

71. Two more excellent columns in the same vein

I would post the links but my friend, Allen St. Pierre, NORML's Executive Director, didn't send them to me. So here are the whole enchiladas.

---
Phelps a toke-ing of pot legalizers' affection
By Jill Porter, Philadelphia Daily News

THE PHOTOGRAPH of Michael Phelps smoking pot through a bong might indeed change attitudes. Not toward Phelps - who'll survive this controversy swimmingly - but toward marijuana. Instead of forcing him from his pedestal, Phelps' recreational use of marijuana will no doubt push the pendulum further along the road to liberalization of pot laws.

As well it should.

The very fact that the Olympian athlete hasn't been deep-sixed by some of his sponsors shows how tolerant our society has become of the recreational use of weed. If this were 10 years ago, "I'm sure most of his commercial supporters would drop him like his hair was on fire," said an official of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.

While some major sponsors remained silent as of yesterday afternoon - including Kellogg's, which put Phelps on Corn Flakes boxes - so far, Speedo, luxury watchmaker Omega, Hilton Hotels Corp. and the makers of the sports drink Pure Sport have issued statements of support. Corporations are anything but altruistic. If they thought that the Phelps incident would cost them customers and cash, they'd abandon the Olympic swimmer in a heartbeat.

They didn't.

"The baby boomers who run corporations do not see cannabis use as demonstration of turpitude," said Allen St. Pierre, NORML executive director.

(By way of disclosure, I haven't smoked marijuana in 30 years - not that I disapprove. It's just that wine is my drug of choice.)

The fact is that 75 percent of the public favors decriminalization and the medical use of marijuana, St. Pierre said. And 46 of 50 states have reduced possession from a felony to a misdemeanor, including Pennsylvania.

It's a long way from the demonization of "reefer" to the popular Showtime series "Weeds," about a suburban mom who sells pot. It's a long way from Bill Clinton supposedly declining to inhale to Barack Obama openly asserting that he had: "That was the point," he said.

And marijuana use by likable, wholesome athletes such as Michael Phelps can only advance the evolution of attitudes. It helps that Phelps reacted perfectly when the photo of him inhaling through a bong at a private party got international exposure last week. He gave the mandatory mea culpa while pointing out that he's still young and susceptible to the missteps of youth. Frankly, if my sports heroes have to fall from grace, I'd rather they do it with a bong than with a bullet or a blow to a spouse's face.

If Phelps screwed up, good for him. All of us ought to give ourselves the opportunity to screw up. And if we don't do it while we're young, we might do it when we're older and have a lot more to lose. But increasingly our society doesn't view what Phelps did as screwing up - unless you have hero worship and millions of dollars in endorsements to lose. The evolving opinions about marijuana, based on evidence of its relative harmlessness, are reflected in generational attitudes, NORML's St. Pierre said, using his own family as the example.

His 88-year-old grandmother thinks pot is a corrupting, evil substance; his 63-year-old mother favors decriminalization and medical access but not legalization; he's 43 and "totally keen on taxation and control."

"Sad as it's going to be to watch my grandmom's generation attritiate, with her goes the 'reefer madness' mentality," St. Pierre said. And with the world's economy in the tank, the $7.7 billion spent on prohibition enforcement - according to a Harvard economist - surely could be put to better use.

As for Phelps, I doubt that his reputation will be seriously tarnished. If anything, it has a warm polish of realism, and the incident just might help propel changes in our drug policies. Not to mention it might help explain Phelps' extraordinary appetite.

"People have wondered how he eats 21,000 calories a day," St. Pierre joked in a reference to the notorious weed-induced "munchies."

"Now we know." *

E-mail [e-mail] or call 215-854-5850.

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

Big Bong Theory

By Sally Jenkins, Austin American-Statesman

So Michael Phelps dove headfirst into the bong water. Is anyone really surprised, after all those laps? There has always been something submerged and escapist about the world's greatest swimmer. When presented with a chamber containing a hazy translucent liquid, he did what's become second nature to him. He buried his face in it.

I'm just sorry I wasn't at that University of South Carolina house party to witness Squid Boy's binge firsthand -- not that I would ever make such a staggering misstep myself.

According to the British tabloid News of the World, which ran a photo of Phelps hunched over a glass tube and torching it up quite proficiently with a lighter, he "was out of control from the moment he got there." Can you imagine how much dew he inhaled, with his world-class lung capacity? I don't know exactly what kind of killer nuggets were stuffed into the bowl of that German-made red Roor bong -- why should I know such a thing, or even how to use a lighter -- but they weren't cloves.

I'm sure some people will be disappointed in Phelps for partaking of a non-government-approved substance for relaxation. But he merely got caught doing what scores of people -- I'm not saying me -- did every weekend in college, and what many residents of Austin still do every day, given the quite liberal sentencing laws, which I only know about secondhand.

According to a study cited in U.S. News & World Report last summer, 42 percent of Americans have at one time or another gotten sweetly baked on hay. No one is condoning illegal activity -- or admitting any. But frankly, it's better than drinking and driving, which is what Phelps did last time. And it's organic!

"I'm 23 years old, and despite the successes I have had in the pool, I acted in a youthful and inappropriate way, not in a manner that people have come to expect from me," Phelps said in a statement. "For this, I am sorry. I promise my fans and the public -- it will not happen again."

Or, as David St. Hubbins says in "This Is Spinal Tap," "I'm sure I would be more upset if I wasn't so heavily sedated."

We already knew that when Phelps breaks training, he means business. After he won six gold medals at the 2004 Athens Games, he was caught driving under the influence after a party in Maryland. When he's in his competitive season, he swims for five hours a day, every day, 50 miles of laps in a week. When he's on vacation -- well. What did we think he was going to binge on this time, after winning an all-time-record eight gold medals in Beijing? Triscuits?

That phrase Phelps used, "people have come to expect from me," is an interesting one. It points to an emerging fact about Phelps, which is that there are two versions of him: the obedient Olympic champion who says and does what's expected of him and the caught-red-handed whiffer, who does the precise opposite, inadvertently countermanding the purist image built by his commercial sponsors. Obviously, Phelps doesn't whiff all the time, or he wouldn't win the way he does. Nevertheless, you get the sense that Phelps periodically needs to bust out of the confines of the pool and of his too-coy image.

There's clearly a more genuine and, um, adventurous Phelps than the one he presents. Like most great athletes, he's a creature of extremes, which is a quality egregiously unhealthy corporate sponsors such as Kellogg's and McDonald's don't really like to admit to in their athlete-pitchmen. But maybe it's one more parents should realize is part of the potential cost when their kid announces they want to be a gold medalist like Michael Phelps. Being a champion is frankly not the most healthful career to aspire to; it's an abnormally stressful one.

Champions tend to develop out of a state of emotional emergency. Winning is a need. Their training methods are extreme, their goals are extreme and their rewards tend to be extreme. Lance Armstrong is driven by a fatherless childhood, and after the Tour de France he consumes quite epic amounts of beer and ice cream, sometimes together. I once watched Andre Agassi drink an entire bottle of Chianti -- at lunch. Pete Sampras rewarded himself for winning the U.S. Open by gorging on steak until he almost vomited.

Phelps is driven partly by a case of boyhood ADHD. One thing we know about him is that his surface opacity, the phlegmatic, almost placid exterior hides a different person beneath the water, a bottomlessly ambitious competitor. As his mother once said, "Under the water there is another level of Michael."

Phelps's public apology won't satisfy those people who insist their champions be superhuman ideals. But it's absurd to expect Phelps to maintain his brand of physical and mental discipline 24-7, while the rest of us privately anesthetize to our hearts' content. Maybe it was those very people Phelps wanted to get off his back when he went to a college house party in South Carolina, while visiting a girlfriend. So he sampled the local product, perhaps it was Spanish Trampoline, or Mexibrick, terms which I only picked up on the Internet, and then he probably indulged a late-night craving for frozen waffles and Skittles.

Fortunately, Phelps won't face official sanctions. If you want to feel stoned, consider the fact that the draconian World Anti-Doping Agency doesn't penalize out-of-competition recreational drug use, but gives years-long bans for accidental ingestion of over-the-counter meds in season. He shouldn't face the loss of endorsements, either. All he did was behave in an unmeasured and uncalculated way and suffer the bad luck to be photographed doing it. He's already enjoying a fitting punishment: public embarrassment for failing to live up to his commercial pretensions. For one thing, he's being made merciless fun of on the Internet. A wit named Gourmet Spud posted this sendup of his autobiography on Deadspin: "From Breaststrokes to Breasts-Tokes: How I Spent My Summer Olympics Vacation" by Michael Phelps.

Another suggested he get a Grateful Dead tattoo on his thigh. And perhaps sign up some new endorsements more in line with his recreational side. Like Doritos, and Taco Bell. Not that I've tasted them late at night after a party.

[Warren DeMontague]

74. $40 Billion of our tax dollars a year. Not incuding costs of incarceration, mind you.

That's what the drug war anti-pot smoking gravy train amounts to.

[Warren DeMontague]

75. Everyone knows pot smokers are stupid, and never contribute anything to society.

Case in point:

[killbotfactory]

96. Dig him up and cuff his bones!

Rules are rules.

[defendandprotect]

81. Looks like state by state will be answer as long as corporations

have control of government ---

Unfortunately like "Homeland Security" they offer financial reward for

states jumping on their bandwagon --

Rather, they should be chased out of town!

[ooglymoogly]

83. Pukes need to smoke a little grass and stop trying to blow smoke up peoples ass.

just one of those poet and don't know it moments. kr

[ShadowLiberal]

89. Worst yet, according to AMW use of it is up despite 'success' stopping it in the US

A few weeks ago America's Most Wanted mentioned something interesting on marijuana. They said that in recent years cops have had a lot of success of taking down people who are growing it in the US. So it looks like we're 'winning' the drug war in that case, right?

Wrong. After the cops stopped most of the dealers from growing it in the US, the use of marijuana actually went up, by quite a bit. The reason? drug dealers from Mexico started to import more marijuana then ever before.

In market terms that conservatives like to use to explain the way the economy works, the reason why the government fails to stop people from using marijuana is because they aren't killing the demand, as long as there's demand people are going to risk their lives to sell it to people who want it. That's the whole reason why prohibation failed and only caused lots of organized crime.

[NM Independent]

90. In the Washington Post?

Kathleen Parker??

Seriously??

[Oldenuff]

95. k&r

Great article.

[jeff30997]

100. K&R

This "war on drug" is totally absurd.

[TWiley]

101. It is in the best interest of society that most folks are sober.

Things can get out of hand when a majority are blasted. I strongly feel that the youngsters need to learn how to socialize soberly, and not while under the influence of anything. The ones who learn how to date and interact with others while stoned or drunk are the ones who turn out to be the statistically negative influences on society. Their lives read like sad novels.

Give them something to do while sober. Dancing, music, art, science or math clubs, anything but militaristic organizations like the boy scouts. The world will become a better place for it.

Increasing pot or alcohol use will result in nothing but tears.

[ooglymoogly]

119. And what dumbass did you pull these "studies" and "facts" from.

You think maybe Ritalin's cocaine effect is better for kids; More kids are on this drug than any other. Oh and by the way did you know that "studies" have shown that one can get pregnant dancing while on pot, to say nothing of going totally mad.

I don't think anyone here or anywhere else is advocating legalization of dope for kids.

Like booze, causing huge damage to this country, it is meant to be a health and relaxation type of thing in place of boose and tobacco, whilst causing no damage to the country. A majority of our population is not going to "always be blasted" as you imply, in the same way folks are not "always blasted" on booze; That is a scare tactic from the ass of big tobacco and big alcohol and big pharma (who make billions off their products) who are scared to death of legalization because for the most part, it would eliminate the need for the products pot would supplant and the loss of those billions of dollars.

[TWiley]

121. Good Lord ! Have you been smoking pot?

I must say that your argument is bizarre, but I will do my best to address your thoughts. First of all, I must say that I am not citing any “studies”, and I haven’t got a clue where you got that from.

1) QUOTE: “You think maybe Ritalin's cocaine effect is better for kids; More kids are on this drug than any other. END QUOTE

Who is talking about “Ritalin”, and what does this have to do with marijuana? This is a “Strawman Argument” You should google that sometime.

2) QUOTE: Oh and by the way did you know that "studies" have shown that one can get pregnant dancing while on pot, to say nothing of going totally mad.” END QUOTE

Where on earth did this thought come from? I have no idea who would author a study that would show that pregnancy could be induced by dancing while on pot. Pregnancy is usually the direct result of either sexual activity, or a medical procedure. About going “totally mad” due to marijuana use, I would humbly submit that you are well on your way there, if not clinically insane already.

3) QUOTE: “I don't think anyone here or anywhere else is advocating legalization of dope for kids.” END QUOTE.

Well that’s good. I am not either. However I was concerned about your comment about “Ritalin”. You seemed to be suggesting that pot was better than Ritalin for children.

4) QUOTE: Like booze, causing huge damage to this country, it is meant to be a health and relaxation type of thing in place of boose and tobacco, whilst causing no damage to the country” END QUOTE

This argument is incoherent as written.

5) QUOTE: “. A majority of our population is not going to "always be blasted" as you imply, in the same way folks are not "always blasted" on booze;.” END QUOTE

The problem here is that people can drink one beer and not get drunk, but they cannot smoke one joint and not get stoned. There is a potency difference between beer and marijuana. The average user will be pretty well stoned on a toke or two of most modern varieties of pot. The “Recreational use” of pot for this reason is a myth. To properly equate the two, a drinker would have to be drunk on one or two sips of beer. We both know that this is not the case.

6) QUOTE: “That is a scare tactic from the ass of big tobacco and big alcohol and big pharma (who make billions off their products) who are scared to death of legalization because for the most part, it would eliminate the need for the products pot would supplant and the loss of those billions of dollars.” END QUOTE

All I can say here is WOW. Which drugs, by the way, do you feel that pot would “supplant”? The argument for the medical use of marijuana is that, in some cases, there are no effective anti-nausea drugs available for some terminal illnesses, or for those who need chemotherapy.

At this point, I would like to sincerely suggest that you need medical attention. To put it mildly, you seem to be bat-shit crazy. It is time to detox my friend. Head to a treatment center pronto.

[ooglymoogly]

123. well at least your posts are funny, though somewhat disingenuous...

Quote; "The ones who learn how to date and interact with others while stoned or drunk are the ones who turn out to be the statistically negative influences on society". Their lives read like sad novels".

"Statics" imply both a study and facts derived therefrom.
Beyond that I would agree with that statement if it were only about alcohol; Indeed your entire post would have made perfect sense to me if it had been only about alcohol.

About incoherent; My rebuttal was about pot, as was indeed the OP, so I assumed anyone reading it would get that "It" meant same, though I suppose considering, I should have used the word pot instead of "it" which to some perhaps made the sentence incoherent; However I admit "It" is ambiguous.

About the dancing thing; I was quoting from the propaganda of the the 60's, to scare folks about maryjane and caused a lot of hilarity in those days. So the dancing thing was pure snark, and sarcasm, equating your argument with that propaganda; But then I think you got that; So congrats on a red herring of your own.

About Ritalin; Not a straw man. Ritalin is prescribed for kids, teenagers and adults to modify behavior; Teenagers and others who are smoking pot are self medicating for somewhat the same reason although the effects of each are entirely different. Pot replaces not only Ritalin for many teenagers and young adults but also replaces booze and tobacco, again for many.

[TWiley]

124. oh, you sobered up ..... good !

Quote: "Teenagers and others who are smoking pot are self medicating for somewhat the same reason although the effects of each are entirely different. Pot replaces not only Ritalin for many teenagers and young adults but also replaces booze and tobacco, again for many." END QUOTE

Ok, lets look at the "self medicating" thing. Why do you feel that it is such a good idea for teenagers to be self-medicating with pot? Instead of national health care, simply turn to your street corner medic? Seriously though, most teenagers self-medicate for two basic reasons. First of all, they have an underlying mental illness and require medical attention, or they simply feel awkward in social situations while sober. They are shy. The latter is a normal part of growing up, and those who turn to booze or pot to make themselves feel comfortable in a group are headed for disaster. They simply need to learn how to feel emotional security while sober. Otherwise, their lives WILL read like a sad novel. The whole point of living is to discover consciousness and reality. Those who smoke pot stagnate mentally and emotionally. I know many long-term pot smokers, and they have become seriously mentally ill. They are paranoid, dress like they did 35 years ago, have the emotional posture of a 17 year old, usually poor, and are quite intellectually dull. They also suffer from a strange delusion .... that their consumption somehow makes them "hip".

Long term pot smokers have a considerable amount of their personal identity invested in their "consumption" They take pride in knowing where to get it, how many different ways there are to ingest it, they can look at a seed and reason where it was grown. Kind of a hillbilly form of wine snobbery that masquerades as knowledge or education. Odd too is the fact that a monkey can be taught to consume pot.

Now, what if someone had an equal amount of identity invested in bok choy? I am cool because I eat bok choy? Wow, I know 1000 ways to cook and consume bok choy. I can tell you every little detail there is to know about bok choy. I have all the "slicing bok choy" magazines they ever printed (rolling stone) since the beginning. Look at my Mr. Natural Bok choy collection. WOW

You would have to admit that anyone who invested this type of personal identity into bok choy would be insane.

[girl gone mad]

125. Your post is satire, right?

[ooglymoogly]

126. Yes you got it right but more precisely it is snark. nt

[specialed]

109. AMEN!

I'd love to have to pay taxes on my monthly herb purchase. I'm 48, wife, kids, good job, and a life time burrito taster. That's not how I make a living but I do love a good burrito.

[Oeditpus Rex]

115. This isn't an editorial; it's an opinion column

Editorials are un-signed and considered to be the opinion of the newspaper as a whole. An opinion column is signed and reflects the author's view.

It is, however, correct — and the fact that it's Kathleen Parker somehow makes it more correct.

[Friday]

116. Agreed

I spend a lot of time trying to eduate people om CafeMom about the propaganda behind marijuana prohibition and the bullshit drug war. Scary how some who are raising the future trust the govt so much and buy into all of it. I have changed a couple of minds so I won't give up. No matter what kind of horrible mother they call me.

Some awesome links on studies done about driving stoned.

Stoned drivers are safe drivers
by Dana Larsen (11 Jan, 2005) Two decades of research show that marijuana use may actually reduce driver accidents.

The effects of marijuana use on driving performance have been extensively researched over the last 20 years. All major studies show that marijuana consumption has little or no effect on driving ability, and may actually reduce accidents. Here's a summary of the biggest studies into pot use and driving.

A 1983 study by the US National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) concluded that the only significant affect of cannabis use was slower driving - arguably a positive effect of driving high.

A comprehensive 1992 NHTSA study revealed that pot is rarely involved in driving accidents, except when combined with alcohol. The study concluded that "the THC-only drivers had an responsibility rate below that of the drug free drivers." This study was buried for six years and not released until 1998.

A 1993 NHTSA study dosed Dutch drivers with THC and tested them on real Dutch roads. It concluded that THC caused no impairment except for a slight deficiency in the driver's ability to "maintain a steady lateral position on the road." This means that the THC-dosed drivers had a little trouble staying smack in the center of their lanes, but showed no other problems. The study noted that the effects of even high doses of THC were far less than that of alcohol or many prescription drugs. The study concluded that "THC's adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small."

A massive 1998 study by the University of Adelaide and Transport South Australia examined blood samples from drivers involved in 2,500 accidents. It found that drivers with only cannabis in their systems were slightly less likely to cause accidents than those without. Drivers with both marijuana and alcohol did have a high accident responsibility rate. The report concluded, "there was no indication that marijuana by itself was a cause of fatal accidents."

In Canada, a 1999 University of Toronto meta-analysis of studies into pot and driving showed that drivers who consumed a moderate amount of pot typically refrained from passing cars and drove at a more consistent speed. The analysis also confirmed that marijuana taken alone does not increase a driver's risk of causing an accident.

A major study done by the UK Transport Research Laboratory in 2000 found that drivers under the influence of cannabis were more cautious and less likely to drive dangerously. The study examined the effects of marijuana use on drivers through four weeks of tests on driving simulators. The study was commissioned specifically to show that marijuana was impairing, and the british government was embarrassed with the study's conclusion that "marijuana users drive more safely under the influence of cannabis."

According to the Cannabis and Driving report, a comprehensive literature review published in 2000 by the UK Department of Transportation, "the majority of evidence suggests that cannabis use may result in a lower risk of culpability."

The Canadian Senate issued a major report into all aspects of marijuana in 2002. Their chapter on Driving under the influence of cannabis concludes that "Cannabis alone, particularly in low doses, has little effect on the skills involved in automobile driving."

The most recent study into drugs and driving was published in the July 2004 Journal of Accident Analysis and Prevention. Researchers at the Dutch Institute for Road Safety Research analyzed blood tests from those in traffic accidents, and found that even people with blood alcohol between 0.5% and 0.8% (below the legal limit) had a five-fold increase in the risk of serious accident. Drivers above the legal alcohol limit were 15 times more likely to have a collision. Drugs like Valium and Rohypnol produced results similar to alcohol, while cocaine and opiates showed only a small but "not statistically significant" increase in accident risk. As for the marijuana-only users? They showed absolutely no increased risk of accidents at all.


LINKS AND REFERENCES

1983 National Highway Transportation Safety Administration study: Stein, AC et al., A Simulator Study of the Combined Effects of Alcohol and Marijuana on Driving Behavior-Phase II, Washington DC: Department of Transportation (1983)
www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_myth12.shtml

1992 National Highway Transportation Safety Administration study: The Incidence and Role of Drugs in Fatally Injured Drivers, by K.W. Terhune, et al. of the Calspan Corp. Accident Research Group in Buffalo, NY (Report # DOT-HS-808-065)
www.drugsense.org/tfy/nhtsa1.htm

1993 National Highway Transportation Safety Administration study: Marijuana and actual Driving Performance, By Hindrik WJ Robbe and James F O'Hanlon. Institute for Human Psychopharmacology, University of Limburg
www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_driving4.shtml

1998 University of Adelaide and Transport South Australia study:
www.ukcia.org/research/driving4.html

1999 University of Toronto Study, Marijuana Not a Factor in Driving Accidents:
newsandevents.utoronto.ca/bin/19990329a.asp

2000 UK Transport Research Laboratory study on Cannabis and Driving:
www.mapinc.org/newscc/v00/n1161/a02.html

2000 UK Department of Transportation's Cannabis and Driving report:
www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/page/dft_rdsafety_504567.hcsp

2002 Report of the Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs
www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/ille-e/rep-e/repfinalvol1part4-e.htm

July 2004, Journal of Accident Analysis and Prevention, Psychoactive substance use and the risk of motor vehicle accidents.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15094417

For a less scientific and more amusing study of the combination of drugs and driving, go here:
www.techno.de/mixmag/interviews/Driving_on_drugs.html

[JerseygirlCT]

117. And we spend stupid amounts of money on prosecuting and

incarcerating people over pot.

It may be that soon it will just be a ticketed offense in CT - not because people have realized how silly it is to demonize pot, but because of the money issue. I wonder if that will catch on?