Why is Marijuana Illegal?

[Philosoraptor]

A burning question.

[toddaa]

1. Immigrants

[OlderButWiser]

2. If that were true

then I would have areason to dislike immigrants.

[JVS]

131. it is true, but no reason to dislike immigrants

The first ban on MJ was in CA IIRC and it was because it was a popular drug among migrant farmers from Mexico. banning it was a way of "dealing" with the "horror" of their presence

[shenmue]

7. Huh?

Care to elaborate?

[toddaa]

26. If it made sense

It wouldn't be illegal.

[devilgrrl]

114. wow, a stupid retort to a comment made about a stupid comment...

impressive. :sarcasm:

[toddaa]

What was stupid about it

They made marijuana illegal in the 1930s because Mexican immigrants smoked it. So did lot's of other people, but thankfully they were all undesirables too. Desirable people drink scotch. That's why scotch is legal and marijuana isn't. Clear enough for you?

[papau]

53. Nope -Hearst Papers bought a paper mill around 1910 - and Weed makes cheaper better paper - so its

just keeping the rich a bit richer. At least that's my story and I like it! :-)

[tibbiit]

68. i was just going to post Hearst

He was a rabid rightwinger back in the late 1800's who whipped up sentiment against mexicans by demonizing marijuana.
Only brown people who were thugs, lazy killers smoked the weed.
(according to hearst) He founded his empire on hate speech, much like the hate monger right wingers of today.
tib

[dansolo]

75. Hearst and DuPont wanted to make hemp illegal

They used fear of week smokers to get legislation banning marijuana and hemp. Hemp was a better alternative to Hearst's paper and Dupont's synthetic fibers.

[papau]

111. that is also how I recall the economics of the situation = nothing to do with medical thoughts n/t

n/t

[Pyrzqxgl]

99. Wouldn't it be nice to read the morning paper, & then smoke it.

[Zhade]

192. No, HEMP makes better paper. Different, though related, plant.

And Congressional testimony at the time shows very racist anti-immigrant arguments were a significant factor in making marijuana illegal.

[papau]

196. Thanks for the info - I did not know a reason other than Hearst's economic game n/t

n/t

[applegrove]

3. Canada was considering making possession legal or something. Then the tests

came back and weed makes some people nuts. Some people who otherwise would lead healthy lives get schizophrenia and the like simply by smoking too much weed. So it is dangerous to that portion of the population.

[cyborg_jim]

15. Alcohol causes people to go nuts on a regular basis

Some of them even become alcoholics.

Face it, the reason weed is illegal and alcohol is not a matter of logic, it is not based on the effect to society nor is it because of health reasons. If it were then alcohol would have to be banned first.

[applegrove]

21. I'm just reporting what I know. Recent studies have the mental health

community (Drs, nurses, public health practitioners, etc.) all up in arms against weed. This is new. Part of the equation. And why it will likely not be legalized. We are talking serious lifelong illness here because a kid did a little too much weed in high school. Some people are just more vulnerable to weed than others. And though that is like alcoholism... alcoholism doesn't cause major mental disease. Just alcoholism at which point removal of the alcohol stops the worst manifestations of the disease if you stop it soon enough. Whereas once mentally ill - always mentally ill.

Thought I'd make the point that there are new studies and a new perspective on how safe/not safe the drug is.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

35. I live around a bunch of old hippies

who have smoked the whacky tobaccy since the sixties, some of them quite heavily. None have nutted out, though many are very very mellow. All that I know work except for one fellow who has been camping out in caves for decades--but then I've heard tell he was doing that sort of thing before he got glaucoma and took to the herbal remedy. I've never smoked, and am not pressured to do so.

On the other hand, when I was younger, I was around folks who drank heavily. Interestingly enough, they put some pressure on me to drink, and tended to be mean drunks who were dangerous behind the wheel.

Personally, I'd rather hang around potheads.

[mike_c]

40. *I'm* one of those old hippies....

Been a stoner all my life-- currently a research scientist and professor, or at least that's what the voices tell me.... :evilgrin:

I'd like to see citations for these "recent studies" showing pot causes mental illness. I do not believe it.

[Joe Fields]

43. I am also a lifelong hippie. Never had adverse effects from smoking.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

87. ...

:spray:

Well then, you now owe me a new keyboard -- mine's covered in syrupy expectorated coffee...

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

93. In the US, at least,

I've heard it has been next to impossible to get marijuana to conduct any research. I know it was that way in 1967 when I researched for a debate where I was assigned to defend the proposition for legalization. I thought that was fishy, and still think it is fishy that the US government is so afraid of a plant that they encouraged farmers to grow during WWII.

[Bassic]

262. The studies actually say that it can cause mental illness

if smoked as a teenager, and only with people who already have the predisposition for it. It does not cause mental illness in adults.

[EstimatedProphet]

272. Me too!

I owe a goodly portion of my Ph. D. to the herb! If I hadn't smoked, THEN I would've flipped out!

[Sequoia]

293. If anything, it makes you creative.

Just make sure to write your idea down before you forget.

[applegrove]

79. Oh I agree people on weed are passive. I've heard that alot. Don't deny it.

Less crime inducing than other drugs or alcohol.

[Le Taz Hot]

39. Could you please provide

a citation for "those studies?"

Thanks in advance.

LTH

[applegrove]

80. Unfortunately I don't know where to find the studies. But I have seen it

in the newspapers and heard it from health professionals.

[Joe Fields]

42. How do I respectfully say this? I have serious doubts as to what you say.

Provide a link, please?

[applegrove]

81. You haven't heard it? Cause it was in the newspapers for the last few years.

I will keep my eyes open. Maybe I'll do a little research today to see what I can find.

[applegrove]

89. Here is a link to a site that discusses weed and mental illness.

from The Royal College of Psychiatrists


........Snip

"Schizophrenia

Three major studies followed large numbers of people over several years, and showed that those people who use cannabis have a higher than average risk of developing schizophrenia. If you start smoking it before the age of 15, you are 4 times more likely to develop a psychotic disorder by the time you are 26. They found no evidence of self-medication. It seemed that, the more cannabis someone used, the more likely they were to develop symptoms.

Why should teenagers be particularly vulnerable to the use of cannabis? No one knows for certain, but it may be something to do with brain development. The brain is still developing in the teenage years – up to the age of around 20, in fact. A massive process of ‘neural pruning’ is going on. This is rather like streamlining a tangled jumble of circuits so they can work more effectively. Any experience, or substance, that affects this process has the potential to produce long-term psychological effects.

Recent research in Europe, and in the UK, has suggested that people who have a family background of mental illness – so probably have a genetic vulnerability anyway - are more likely to develop schizophrenia if they use cannabis as well."

........snip


http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mentalhealthinformation/mentalhealthproblems/alcoholanddrugs/cannabisandmentalhealth.aspx

[Joe Fields]

94. I am dismissing it offhand.

I have read numerous reports, many of which give anecdotal proof that marijuana has certain benefits for cancer patients, aids patients, those who suffer from mani depression, and I have read results of reports where long term studies have been done, and the results are inconclusive.

In the report that you mention, it said that about one in ten users suffer hallucinations and paranoia.

That is just pure bullshit propaganda from a British government agency with an agenda. Pure and simple.

[Richard Steele]

115. "one in ten users suffer hallucinations and paranoia". Yup, that's some ridiculous BS right there.

That's certainly grounds enough to dismiss it all, IMHO.

[applegrove]

117. I think that studies have been done in Egypt that pointed to the problem

I highlight and they were ignored by Western Medicine for a long time. Till now.

I agree there can be benefits to pot just like alcohol. We should talk about the benefits and the drawbacks. And not shy away from any truths.

[Occulus]

52. You need to provide a link or stop making that ridiculous claim

and it IS a ridiculous claim. But please, if you don't have a link, stop parroting what is very very likely propaganda from another government.

[Heidi]

66. A link would lend at least some credibility to this claim. (nt)

[applegrove]

85. Yes I agree a link would help me a great deal. I think the studies were

from Egypt so were ignored for a long time by the medical establishment.

[meldroc]

74. Alcoholism doesn't cause major mental disease?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

:rofl:

Start with the addiction itself, which is a mental disease. Then there's the fact that alcohol literally pickles your brain, killing millions of neurons, to the point where chronic alcoholics end up with dementia (see George W. Bush for an example.)

Then there's things like fetal alcohol syndrome, which causes ADHD, Oppositional Defiant Disorder, Antisocial Personality Disorder, mental retardation, etc.

I'm with others in this thread - Marijuana was made illegal because of bigotry. It's still illegal because big business (pharmcos, booze companies, etc.) don't want competition.

So they're continually lying to us saying "Marijuana will destroy your brain, make you psycho, etc."

[applegrove]

84. I just happen to believe that it wouldn't be published in the newspapers as

"new findings" if it wasn't true. Though I understand I shouldn't have replied without linking to a paper or two.

[meldroc]

175. This is the MSM we're talking about.

They're bought wholesale by the government and big business. They're not forthcoming with the truth about Iraq or much else, and they certainly aren't forthcoming about the truth about marijuana.

[Bjorn Against]

194. You do realize that most newspapers do not have a great history of accuracy on this issue I hope

[Bridget Burke]

246. Those "new findings" would have been trumpeted loudly in all media....

But you are the only one who seems to remember them.

[applegrove]

287. I read newspapers in Canada. Perhaps it didn't make the US news cycle.

[Bridget Burke]

307. I'm quite sure that American papers would have picked up the story.

Just waiting for proof!

[OlderButWiser]

289. Drinking makes you smarter

One afternoon at Cheers, Cliff Clavin was explaining the Buffalo Theory to his buddy Norm. and here's how it went:
Well ya see, Norm, it's like this... A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members.

In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells. But naturally it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first.

In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. That's why you always feel smarter after a few beers.

[scarletwoman]

165. Well, then. Let's see the links to those studies.

Since you are saying that such studies exist, then surely there is evidence for them -- even if it's just a citation in a footnote.

Otherwise, I might find myself compelled to call bullshit on your post.

I've been smoking marijuana for 40 years. I am friends with many people who have done likewise. In my youth, I didn't know anybody who DIDN'T smoke marijuana.

The only person I ever observed going psychotic was someone who used too much speed. He destroyed so many brain cells that he ended up perching on garbage cans spouting gibberish.

Meanwhile, all us potheads went to work, bought land and houses, and raised children who went to college.

Marijuana is an herb, not a drug. It is one of earth's gifts to humankind, like grain, vegetables and flowers.

sw

[Zhade]

186. Lies.

NT!

[Bridget Burke]

245. Which studies?

Links would be nice.

[cyborg_jim]

255. Life is not safe

People need to deal with that fact and those who would wrap the world up in cotton wool on our behalf need to understand that we, as adults, can very well decide for ourselves what risks we decide to take in our lives.

As with others here what is being described doesn't describe anyone I know who uses - and there's a LOT of those.

[treestar]

58. Totally true. I remember a friend used to say that drunks run red lights

but people who are stoned stop at green lights.

The price to society of alcohol is much higher, yet alcohol's legal.

[mile18blister]

72. Drunks run stop signs, stoners wait for them to turn green.

That's what I remember being told.

[EstimatedProphet]

273. LOL I gotta remember that one!

[dansolo]

76. Umm.... It was.

Are you forgetting prohibition?

[cyborg_jim]

253. Sure, and look at the problems that caused!

Besides I am too young and in the wrong country to remember it!

Either way the banning of alcohol was NOT because of concerns over people's health - it was because a bunch of Christians decided they had the moral authority to ban alcohol because of its, shall we say, more 'sinful' side-effects.

There is far too much inconsistency in the 'drugs cause health problems' rhetoric. It's not based on any objective measure at all. Either we get to choose to alter our mental state with any number of the mechanisms humans have discovered for doing so or we do not. Personally I find it hard to argue liberalism whilst decrying such use of these mechanisms.

[Warpy]

31. Rubbish

Schizophrenia is one of those things they would have developed anyway. It's genetically programmed.

Weed can raise the heart rate in some people and can be dangerous to the ones with heart problems. It's pretty self limiting, though, since those folks will be very uncomfortable the first time they smoke it and will leave it alone.

[Zhade]

188. Correlation IS NOT CAUSATION.

This has been debunked repeatedly - you are wrong. If a single legitimate study showed what you claim, my doctors would not have PRESCRIBED it for me - a person with a family history of mental illness and clinical depression.

Educate yourself!

[porphyrian]

4. Politicians think it's a political-suicide issue. - n/t

[mdmc]

270. lack of backbone. Corporations need to profit before it can be legal

Once Corporations can profit, the politicians will allow us to smoke.

[porphyrian]

284. I don't how credible this is, but I remember hearing years ago...

...that certain tobacco companies were getting ready to do just that, so that they could market a product as soon as it was legalized, if that were to happen. If that story was credible and you are right, they weren't powerful enough to convince legislators to legalize it. Of course, it's also possible this was just a rumor.

[mdmc]

308. Panama Red

Was Marlborough's herb line.

Trust me, in our lifetime Prohibition will end. It will be the CEO's (with the GOP and DLC) that bring it to us.

The Dems will be screaming "But think of the children" or whatever they currently say when asked why they support the drug war.:kick:

[bananas]

5. See Jack Herer's book "The Emperor Wears No Clothes'

"The Authoritative Historical Record of Cannabis and the Conspiracy Against Marijuana"
http://www.amazon.com/Emperor-Wears-Clothes-Authoritative-Historical/dp/1878125028

[Karenina]

9. For the concise answer to the OP's question

Go here:

http://www.jackherer.com/chapter04.html

[A HERETIC I AM]

69. The other major reason is DuPont's involvement in the production of Formaldehyde and Chlorine..

Two chemicals that figure highly in their survival in the early 30's through the 40's. Both Chlorine and Formaldehyde are used extensively in the production of paper products and certain plastics - two industries DuPont (and Dow, for that matter) had a HUGE vested interest in promoting. (see "Kraft Process" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraft_process)

<snip> "DuPont's involvement in the anti-hemp campaign can also be explained with great ease. At this time, DuPont was patenting a new sulfuric acid process for producing wood-pulp paper. "According to the company's own records, wood-pulp products ultimately accounted for more than 80% of all DuPont's railroad car loadings for the next 50 years" (ibid). Indeed it should be noted that "two years before the prohibitive hemp tax in 1937, DuPont developed a new synthetic fiber, nylon, which was an ideal substitute for hemp rope" (Hartsell). The year after the tax was passed DuPont came out with rayon, which would have been unable to compete with the strength of hemp fiber or its economical process of manufacturing. "DuPont's point man was none other than Harry Anslinger...who was appointed to the FBN by Treasury Secretary Andrew MEllon, who was also chairman of the Mellon Bank, DuPont's chief financial backer. Anslinger's relationship to Mellon wasn't just political, he was also married to Mellon's niece" (Hartsell). It doesn't take much to draw a connection between DuPont, Anslinger, and Mellon, and it's obvious that all of these groups, including Hearst, had strong motivation to prevent the growth of the hemp industry." <snip> (bold text mine)
From;
http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_culture11.shtml

<snip> "Most formaldehyde is used in the production of polymers and other chemicals. When combined with phenol, urea, or melamine, formaldehyde produces a hard thermoset resin. These resins are commonly used in permanent adhesives, such as those used in plywood or carpeting. It is used as the wet-strength resin added to sanitary paper products such as (listed in increasing concentrations injected into the paper machine headstock chest) facial tissue, table napkins, and roll towels. They are also foamed to make insulation, or cast into molded products. Production of formaldehyde resins accounts for more than half of formaldehyde consumption." <snip>
From;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formaldehyde

The end result is, it seems to me, a true conspiracy to keep Hemp out of the marketplace as a sound and efficient alternative to fiber production, largely because a chemical company needed to make money selling Chlorine and other chemicals.

[hobbit709]

6. Harry J Anslinger was about to lose his job

when Prohibition ended. Being a good bureaucrat he couldn't have that, so he started lobbying and lying about marijuana. When marijuana became illegal guess who became the first U.S. Commisioner of Narcotics?

[Cooley Hurd]

8. Because a racist asshole named Harry Anslinger hated Mexicans...

...and African-Americans, so, as the country's first drug czar, he ginned up a bunch of falsehoods about pot so he could lock up minorities for using it.

It continues to remain illegal because Big Pharm and the booze lobbies don't want anything to cut into their profits.:grr:

[shenmue]

12. But you ignore the fact that plenty of white people smoke pot.

Don't you think the pharmaceutical companies would want to make money selling it?

People smoke pot and drink at the same time, you know...

I wish the people who talk about legalizing marijuana would just admit that a lot of them want to just get high. I don't see a lot of potheads going to medical school because they are just so concerned with helping people.

[Cooley Hurd]

17. Back in the 1930's, it was believed that only minorities smoked weed...

...of course, this was wrong, since my Grandmother told us that she smoked pot in the 1920's.

Big pharm & booze companies cannot make money on something anyone could grow easily in their back yard. That's why they're against legalization.

Oh, and I know several Drs that smoke pot. I'd rather have a Dr who smokes pot than drinks heavily.

[youngdem]

18. They can't make any money selling it because they cannot patent it

So, it is a threat to their proprietary medications for some applications for nausea reduction, appetite stimulation, panic disorders, anxiety issues, convalescent pain management, AIDS related wasting issues, etc.

Pharmaceutical companies DO make Marinol and related cannabis based medications that are much less effective than the real thing. Sales of these medications would all but cease if marijuana were legalized.

[BlackVelvet04]

20. According to the History Channel documentary

marijuana was basically made illegal in order to demonize Mexican immigrants who were, during the depression, taking jobs Americans then wanted. Before the depression these Americans were perfectly happy for Mexicans to do the hard agricultural and other jobs. Because the Mexicans were so good at what they did the only thing anyone could come up with to criticize was the Mexicans propensity to smoke marijuana. If I remember correctly William Randolph Hearst led the charge making outrageous commercials about the dangers of marijuana.

One of the worst commercials was about how marijuana had caused a young man to kill his mother. Another was how marijuana was more frightening than Frankenstein.

Just as the immigration issue today has been boiled down to immigrants taking jobs away from Americans that was indeed the issue that sparked making marijuana illegal.

[Joe Fields]

47. The real truth lies with the lobbying efforts of the oil, paper and textile

industries to ban the use of hemp products. The demonization of minorities was only a smokescreen to get that accomplished, by playing on people's fears. But the really fearful ones were big business.

[BlackVelvet04]

73. Oh, I'm sure that is true......

hemp products would crimp the style of a lot of big businesses. Not to mention marijuana being legal would hurt the alcohol and pharmaceutical businesses.

I don't believe marijuana will be legalized until there is a hemp/marijuana lobby.

[Joe Fields]

96. Unfortunately, I may not see that come to pass in my lifetime.

[BlackVelvet04]

102. Nor I.....

and what would the poor DEA do? ;-)

[Joe Fields]

146. As well as the entire criminal justice system?

[Warpy]

34. Pot smoke sets off my asthma

so blowing a joint and getting high is not possible for me.

However, I'd love to have the right to make some loaded brownies whenever my illness flares.

[dysfunctional press]

112. pot used to be prescribed to astmathics...

it acts as a bronchial dilator.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

36. Hard to sell pot

when so many people already grow it. It is, apparently, an easy plant to grow.

I first came out for the legalization of marijuana in 1967, and have been consistant with my position. I have never smoked or used it or any other illegal drug. I was not around people who used pot until I was around 40, and moved to my current location. I have seen pot help a person keep from going blind from glaucoma and also help a person who was sick from chemo. Maybe these people wanted to "get high" but that wasn't their primary reason.

[Heidi]

28. EXACTLY. An Anslinger quote:

“There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others." -- Harry Anslinger

:grr:

[ixion]

37. 100 k pot smokers total...

try a few MILLION. :eyes:

[Heidi]

38. That quote is from Harry Anslinger's 1937 testimony before Congress. (nt)

[ixion]

51. yeah, was speaking to Mr. Anslinger

because even back then he was way, way off, IMO.

[Heidi]

60. The US population in 1937 was 128,824,829, so you could very well be right

that the number of marijuana consumers was well beyond the 100,000 estimated by Harry J. Anslinger. :hi:

[Joe Fields]

45. As do oil companies, the textile industry and paper industry.

[LoneDriver]

309. Bingo! you got it exactly right

Racism, pure and simple.

[shenmue]

10. Well, it does encourage terrible taste in music

Think how many more people might be listening to rambling hippie crap if pot were legal!

[Philosoraptor]

32. Louie Armstrong smoked it every day, as does Tony Bennet.

[liberalpress]

297. Well Louis is dead..

... but Tony is 80-ish and still working. Pot, therefore has a 50-50 chance of lengthening your career!

[unpossibles]

41. I blame bad taste for that

I smoke and can't stand most jam music at all.

[Warren DeMontague]

238. And I've been clean and sober for years and I still love the Dead.

Go figure.

[unpossibles]

263. ha! awesome. I have some other friends who feel the same way

I even tried to like them - went to a live show - but it didn't do anything for me. I will say that their earlier stuff is ok, and I like some of the bluegrass stuff Garcia did with Grisman, etc., but the Dead just never really excited me. Most of the modern jam bands flat out annoy me though - a long song can be done and still be kept interesting, but most bands don't seem to know how to do that. Noodling around for 20 minutes doesn't do it for me usually, some exceptions being in the jazz world, but even with that I prefer older Miles, Coltrain, Bird, Cachao, and even 70's era Herbie Hancock to most of the new stuff. Back then I preferred the likes of Pink Floyd and Sabbath and other heavier stoner rock, but to each their own.

Peace!

[Warren DeMontague]

275. I hear that. There's for sure some overlap with my taste there.

Every once in a while I'm really in the mood for Miles Davis. My dad was a major Jazz aficianado.

With the Dead, it took a few shows for the infection to really take hold, and I would be the first to say that they weren't "on" every night. But man, those good nights.. those REALLY good nights.. were like nothing else.

And I haven't found too much in the modern Jam world that I consider on the same level. The Dead's jams usually had a point, a focus or a purpose (believe it or not) ... There's some Phish I've liked but I seem to get burned out on them pretty fast. I like to think I have a pretty broad range of musical tastes- these days a lot of what interests me would probably be labeled alt-country; Jay Farrar, Steve Earle, James McMurtry, that sort of thing.

[donsu]

44. "rambling hippie crap" music? some examples please

nt

[JVS]

137. I disagree with the argument, but I think I know what is being referred to

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

[Warren DeMontague]

237. Eh, it's a silly commercial, but some of those songs are great.

"Get Together" is a great song. I don't give a shit what anyone says.

[Honeycombe8]

305. HA! I hadn't ever seen that Freedom Rock commercial.

Groovy, man. :hippie:

[Joe Fields]

49. I fail to see any connection there. And as for "rambling hippie crap"

most hippies I've known, and I've known many, are well educated, and a joy to converse with.

[rucky]

166. That was the acid, man! n/t

[go west young man]

181. Weed has been a contributing factor in a lot of great music.

Some of the most amazing musicians have been smokers and tokers. Can you say Pink Floyd, The Beatles, The Stones, The Who, Jimi Hendrix, Bob Dylan, David Bowie, Tom Petty, Leonard Cohen, Stevie Wonder, Iron Maiden, Peter Gabriel? Man the field of music is full of stoners. Thats just a few. And their contribution to society is immense. They give us amazing emotions and connect us all. Think of how many more great songs may come to light if pot were legal.

[Warren DeMontague]

239. As opposed to...

C'mon-- Out with it. What's in your CD changer or Ipod right now.

[hippiechick]

11. ... because big Pharma hasn't figured out how to profit from it yet.

Once they can regulate production, marketing and distribution ... it will be.

[Donkeykick]

13. What puzzles me is...

the way that tobacco is still legal--yes, that's right; the very same stuff that can cause cancer, emphysema, and other health problems, can be purchased by any one 18 or over.:wtf:

[shenmue]

14. If marijuana is such a good preventative...

how come Bob Marley died of cancer?

A lot of people hate modern medicine simply because they don't like being told what to do. They'd rather take comfort in myths.

[Cooley Hurd]

19. .

:eyes:

[Philosoraptor]

33. Show me the statistics where pot causes cancer.

Maybe you're right, maybe you're misinformed.

[donsu]

46. what makes you so down on pot?

somebody forcing you to toke?

[Joe Fields]

50. I don't know where you get your "facts," but I've never read or heard

that smoking pot prevents cancer. In many cases it can inhibit the growth of cancer cells, but is not a "preventative."

[CrownPrinceBandar]

54. Please back up ANYTHING you've said.............

You've made a whole shitload of assertions and painted folks with a bunch of stereotypes. Please provide facts to corroborate ANY of the things you're saying.

[Warren Stupidity]

64. Strawman alert!

Good grief, who the heck claimed that pot cures or prevents cancer?

Oh wait, you haven't a clue what the accepted medical uses of marijuana are, do you? You somehow think that cancer patients turn to pot as a cure. They smoke pot so that they can a) eat and b) not throw up what they just ate.

Get a goddamn clue.

[WindRavenX]

67. There actually is a lot of evidence that THC is a tumor supressor

So, pot may be preventative for cancer--and interestingly, there's never been a single case of lung cancer from pot.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20070418-23472800-bc-us-marijuana.xml

[bettyellen]

83. skin cancer- nothing to do with weed.

[WindRavenX]

86. shhhhh

Let the toolbags think their irrational thoughts ;)

[bettyellen]

162. oh right......

more for us!
wtf, are you moving to utah? for reals?

[WindRavenX]

177. yup. Fiance moved back to Utah for skoolin', so I'm gonna move there next month

I graduate from BC in...exactly one month :wow: :scared:

.
.
.
.
.

How do I find weed in Utah?????

[liberalpress]

298. Find an Osmond?

[dysfunctional press]

113. i've smoked about an ounce of weed every week for 30 years...

and my most recent chest x-ray came back spotless.

[JVS]

140. Jeebus, what's your yearly budget for that?

[nam78_two]

204. Wha...?

I agree with your general thesis here but I am having a hard time believing that -an ounce a week??? :wow:...
If thats true...you lucky bastard!!!

[mdmc]

271. kick

to your health!:toast:

[uppityperson]

141. What? WTF does even your subject line mean?

Treatment for glaucoma, so why did someone who smoked die of cancer? Your logic is stunning.

[Zhade]

193. Like the myth that pot causes cancer, when studies show it SHRINKS TUMORS?

Nice lie you're pushing.

[mainegreen]

252. Actually, soccer caused his cancer. Should we now ban soccer?

:rofl:

[cyborg_jim]

257. Didn't you know? Reggae music causes cancer.

It's true!

[12string]

16. marijuana is illegal because...

   hemp oil is a completely renewable resourse for diesel
fuel.The main reason any way.It never had anything to do with
getting you high.

[nolabels]

22. Because big pharma can't get rich off naturally occurring plants

and even at highly concentrated levels the CDC hasn't been able get people die of overdose.

It's not a war about practicality, it's a war of cultures. If others find out they were lying about this then they might be wondering what else they were lying about. And just think how much potential overturn of peoples profession would be going on. The percentage of people in jail or prison for pot would be a big hit on law enforcements budget. The cops might even find time to go after people doing real harm. All arrows point to bad trends if pot were legal and list why it would be a bad thing is endless

[johnaries]

100. Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner! nt

[Kazak]

104. This is the answer...

Only not only pharma, but tobacco, alcohol, even more, possibly textiles, or frickin' oil(!), all would take a hit if MJ were legalized.

[Kelly Rupert]

267. Tobacco is naturally occuring,

and you bet your ass people get rich off it. Corporations would love to have another addictive, mind-numbing product to sell us.

[Dr.Phool]

23. Some people just can't stand the sight of someone else enjoying themselves.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

24. Because it makes you feel good. You're not supposed to feel good.

[Matsubara]

25. Because it makes people less apt to want to be chipper wage slaves?

Because it makes people less violent?

Because it encourages creativity?

All manner of things that just drive repukes and repukelike dems nuts.

[zanne]

27. Because "hippies" liiked it...

Yes, folks; the culture wars have been raging for a long time.

[DemGa]

29. It's bad for war

Getting all "conceptual" and questioning authority is not good for war.

[Vexatious Ape]

30. Many reasons--all dumb.

Here's one that's not mentioned that often: It's easy to grow--unlike tobacco and easy to produce unlike home made hooch, thus there's not much incentive for big biz to get involved. Sure, money can be made from it, if it was legalized, but soon enough people who smoke a lot will eventually grow their own--it's a freaking weed. Doesn't matter if you live in the North, South, East, or West, you can grow the stuff.

[donsu]

48. an aside: tobacco is not hard to grow, but harvesting and curing

is labor intensive.

[HughMoran]

56. Have you ever wanted to just "spread the seed"

as it were?

I have this fantasy of spreading millions of seeds everywhere until "weed" was so common it could not be outlawed. :D I guess even the seeds are illegal right?

[live love laugh]

61. That would be fantastic. I don't smoke it but planting it everywhere would

be great because it's obvious that the reason it's illegal is that people don't have to buy it at all.

[HughMoran]

88. It's probably inappropriate for me to suggest this...

...but a coordinated effort by thousands of people across the country would be nearly impossible to detect or counteract. I personally do not smoke or have any seeds, just saying for the sake of argument... }(

OTOH, the post below points out that this could be quite an intrusive weed problem, even if many people used it for extra curricular activities :D

[Heidi]

71. That's how it is here in Switzerland.

It's mixed with the sunflower seeds I buy to feed our winter birds. In the spring, if I don't pull the hemp up from the roots, it suffocates my tuplips, daffodils and lilies. The "weed seeds" mixed with the bird seeds I buy in the local garden store are low-THC and I consider them an invasive weed not unlike crabgrass or wild strawberries. I yank them up. At the same time, it is perfectly legal here to buy seeds yielding high-THC plants, and that's just fine with me, too.

[HughMoran]

55. It's a socio-historical kind of thing

Now it has a link to "those lazy good for nothing welfare city people". Perhaps if more wealthy people used it...?

[sofa king]

57. Jesus doesn't want the competition.

That's one of the fundamental--and I choose that word carefully--problems with marijuana today.

I think that God told Jesus who told some hair-helmet sociopath in Lynchburg, Virginia that drugs compete with religion in the all-important market of contentment.

A person who spends ten percent of his annual income on dope--or any drug, for that matter--is a fool. And, God forbid, the masses might actually make money out of it if marijuana were legal and they could grow it themselves.

On the other hand, a person who tithes ten percent of his annual income to the sociopaths is a good Christian.

[JNelson6563]

59. Two words: Liquor lobby

:toast:

[kwyjibo]

62. HEMP would be a huge competitor with industries such as cotton, oil, paper, etc...

It grows anywhere. It doesn't need pesticides. It doesn't deplete the soil. Hemp fabric is stronger and more durable than cotton. Hemp seeds can be used as a food source, and hempseed oil can be used for so many different things.

[skids]

63. Better question: Why is it STILL illegal?

...I mean, aren't the baby boomers now supposedly in control of everything?

[A HERETIC I AM]

70. See my post #69 above. It's still illegal because of money.

It was made illegal because of money and it still is because of money.

[Pyrzqxgl]

109. How about we make the money out of hemp?

I guess too many people would tend to smoke their money.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[porphyrian]

77. I'm ready to legalize it. Everyone I know is as well, even if they don't do it.

How long must we remain beholden to the tyranny of the prohibitionist minority?

[cgrindley]

78. Cause it's a dumb god damn drug,

not as bad as alcohol, but still a dumb god damn drug. People need to be stupifying themselves with that shit like they need trepanation.

[Cooley Hurd]

90. What about cancer patients?

:shrug:

[cgrindley]

95. What about them?

Whenever anyone criticizes stupid potheads, the first thing that anyone posts is "what about the cancer patients?"

Well, you know what? Recreational opiates are illegal, too. And that doesn't have shit to do with morphine being given to cancer patients.

Pot should stay illegal for recreational use. It's a stupid drug.

[Cooley Hurd]

97. You haven't had much experience with weed, have you?

:eyes:

[cgrindley]

118. Dude

I'm from British Columbia. I'm a generation x'er. I've had more weed than you've had hot dinners.

[Joe Fields]

147. Really? Well, I was born in the early '50's, so I doubt that.

[cgrindley]

156. Pot back then was lame and you know it

I dare you to try to smoke as much hydroponic BC weed as you used to smoke shitty home bo.

[Warren Stupidity]

172. So you are very experienced. Good for you.

How was prison? Did it straighten you out?

[Joe Fields]

209. You must get a kick from thinking you're jerking people's chain.

[Bjorn Against]

205. So logically you must believe you should have been thrown in jail then...

I mean if you believe it should be illegal yet you admit to smoking it a lot then logically you must think of yourself as a hardened criminal right? Or do you think we should only consider other people who smoke to be criminals but exempt you?

[cgrindley]

228. I believe pot possession should result in a fine

like speeding. I've said this a million times not only in this retarded pot debate, but in all the other retarded pot debates. No one should go to jail for pot. But a fine? Yeah. That'd be okay with me.

[Warren Stupidity]

106. "And that doesn't have shit to do with morphine being given to cancer patients"

Actually it does. Access to opiates of all sorts is ridiculously restricted precisely because of its their classification as class one substances. Terminally ill patients are denied effective pain management treatment because of drug prohibition laws.

Opiate prohibition is a classic example of the absurd blowback from ill thought out policy. The relatively benign natural form of the drug, opium, has been replaced by more addictive and more dangerous refined substances that are easier to smuggle and more profitable in a black market context.

"Then in January 1994 Swiss authorities opened the first heroin maintenance clinics, part of a three-year national trial of heroin maintenance as a supplement to the large methadone maintenance program that had been operating for more than a decade. The motivation for these trials was complex. They were an obvious next step in combating AIDS, but they also represented an effort to reduce the unsightliness of the drug scene and to forestall a strong legalization movement. The program worked as follows: Each addict could choose the amount he or she wanted and inject it in the clinic under the care of a nurse up to three times a day, seven days a week. The drug could not be taken out of the clinic. Sixteen small clinics were scattered around the country, including one in a prison. Patients had to be over 18, have injected heroin for two years and have failed at least two treatment episodes. In fact, most of them had more than ten years of heroin addiction and many treatment failures. They were among the most troubled heroin addicts with the most chaotic lives.

By the end of the trials, more than 800 patients had received heroin on a regular basis without any leakage into the illicit market. No overdoses were reported among participants while they stayed in the program. A large majority of participants had maintained the regime of daily attendance at the clinic; 69 percent were in treatment eighteen months after admission. This was a high rate relative to those found in methadone programs. About half of the "dropouts" switched to other forms of treatment, some choosing methadone and others abstinence-based therapies. The crime rate among all patients dropped over the course of treatment, use of nonprescribed heroin dipped sharply and unemployment fell from 44 to 20 percent. Cocaine use remained high. The prospect of free, easily obtainable heroin would seem to be wondrously attractive to addicts who spend much of their days hustling for a fix, but initially the trial program had trouble recruiting patients. Some addicts saw it as a recourse for losers who were unable to make their own way on the street. For some participants the discovery that a ready supply of heroin did not make life wonderful led to a new interest in sobriety.

Critics, such as an independent review panel of the World Health Organization (also based in Switzerland), reasonably asked whether the claimed success was a result of the heroin or the many additional services provided to trial participants. And the evaluation relied primarily on the patients' own reports, with few objective measures. Nevertheless, despite the methodological weaknesses, the results of the Swiss trials provide evidence of the feasibility and effectiveness of this approach. In late 1997 the Swiss government approved a large-scale expansion of the program, potentially accommodating 15 percent of the nation's estimated 30,000 heroin addicts."
http://www.publicpolicy.umd.edu/faculty/reuter/europe.htm

[cgrindley]

119. Harm reduction is retarded

if people are being junkies, they should stop being junkies.

[Warren Stupidity]

125. in other words they should fucking die.

your compassion is astounding.

[cgrindley]

127. So no one has ever gotten off junk?

I'm pretty sure I know at least one person who managed to do it.

[Warren Stupidity]

134. Gee not what I said.

Criminalization kills heroin addicts. It doesn't kill all of them, and some of the ones who survive do overcome their addiction. It turns out that more survive and more overcome their addiction if a policy of decriminalization and treatment is used, but of course that does not interest you, you are fine with just killing them off.

[cgrindley]

142. Criminalization doesn't kill addicts, overdose does

about 16k a year. And I'm not fine with killing them off, but I really don't think that decriminalization is the answer for junkies. I think that forced rehab for at least 1 year--in a secure lockdown drug rehab facilty with no visitors--that would probably help. After they complete the program, wipe their drug records clean.

[Warren Stupidity]

169. Accidental overdose, impurities, violence and disease

kills addicts. All directly related to prohibition. Decriminalization has been shown to be the best policy for dealing with addiction. Decriminalization and treatment. Unless of course your goal is to be the stern daddy punishing ne'er do wells as an example to others. Fucking puritan bullshit.

[cgrindley]

189. 1 year mandatory secure rehab followed by pardon

that's the way to go. But perhaps you've never either a) been a junkie or b) been around junkies.

[Zhade]

199. There's never been an overdose on pot. Ever.

You lose the argument, based on your ignorance and lies.

Kinda like your anti-choice stance.

[cgrindley]

221. Read the thread

it is a discussion of opiates, not pot.

[Joe Fields]

149. Tell me, when does your book of all-knowing answers come out?

I may want to buy it, and put myself on the path of seeing the world in black and white.

[cgrindley]

157. man, I wish

that'd be so cool. I'd even autograph it for you.

[High Plains]

310. You, sir, are an idiot, and a dangerous one at that.

"Harm reduction is retarded."

Pray tell, what is retarded about preventing the spread of infectious diseases like AIDS or Hep C through needle exchange programs? You may not care about junkies, but needle exchange and other harm reduction measures lower the threat to all of us.

Are you sure you're not from Saskatoon?

[Joe Fields]

148. What happened, did you get busted once?

[cgrindley]

151. Never

never got busted.

[uppityperson]

143. What about cancer patients? What about them do you mean what about them?

[Cooley Hurd]

258. Marijuana use for cancer patients...

:hi:

[uppityperson]

264. Thanks, I didn't read back far enough to what you were replying to.

Thus, the confusion. Yes, stupid goddamn drug indeed, except, like everything else, it has its uses in some situations, like chemotherapy therapy.

[Joe Fields]

98. You ever try it? Sounds like you haven't.

[cgrindley]

120. Me?

Like everyday from age 12 to age 26. I grew up on the west coast of British Columbia. We make the finest weed in the world. I just happened to eventually grow up.

[Bridget Burke]

247. But your profile says "CT"....

Why did you leave?

[Warren Stupidity]

101. So it is better to incarcerate them?

"People need to be stupifying themselves" - it seems that despite all of you high and mighty moral prudes, people do in fact need to get high. So perhaps rather than criminalizing safe non-addictive substances, instead of punishing people for seeking some relief from their misery, you all might consider minding your own business, and more importantly stop making things worse in your incessant efforts to drag us up by force to meet your standards.

[cgrindley]

123. Who is smoking dope?

trustafarians? college students? aging hippies? record store clerks? video rental geeks? go ahead, suffer.

I don't think that the penalty should be anything more than a NH speeding ticket, but it should remain illegal.

[Warren Stupidity]

126. Again with that compassion. Wow.

I think insufferable arrogance should be criminalized.

[cgrindley]

132. name some types of pot-worthy misery and I'll tell you for what

lost your job?
divorce?
got an F in western civ?
new skateboard wheels haven't arrived yet?
sad that 1960's counterculture betrayed itself at every opportunity?

I don't think any of these are pot worthy, but maybe you know some that are...

[Warren Stupidity]

178. Why does anyone have to justify their private behavior?

Why is it anyone's business? I understand you hate pot smoking hippies, that you are fine with killing off heroin addicts, but why? What happened to you to make you so mean spirited and, well, republican?

[cgrindley]

187. Dear god

how is advocating mandatory drug treatment (with automatic pardon) for heroin addicts a republican plank? how is reducing the penalties for possession of pot a republican plank?

You realize, don't you, that it is against the rules to accuse someone of being a repuke on these boards?

[nam78_two]

195. A rule that is vey useful for some of the Repukes on this board

:eyes:
I take it you are still pushing your "No one should ever sacrifice anything to help protect the environment cause only dumb ol' hippies think like that" platform as well as all your other super-progressive views?
I am shocked, SHOCKED I tell you, that people consider some of your views right-wing.

[cgrindley]

222. I believe that anthrogenic climate change is irreversible

and that recycling tuna fish cans is pretty much worthless. How is wholeheartedly believing in anthrogenic climate change a right wing point of view? the right wing denies the existence of climate change altogether.

[Bridget Burke]

248. But on other threads he's come out FOR a "nanny state" government.

Not consistent, at all.

[cgrindley]

260. That's totally consistent

Explain to me how that's inconsistent.

[Joe Fields]

152. Why should we give our money to organized crime, when we could be

alleviating our national debt, having a saner drug policy, instituting more beneficial social programs and putting far fewer people in prison; people who don't deserve to be?

Plus, as long as it is illegal, we take valuable resources away, so that we end up beefing up an already bloated criminal justice system, raise the crime rate, cause more murder, and strengthen drug cartels around the world.

[cgrindley]

158. You realize that the same argument could be made

for like extortion and hitmen and shit like that?

[Warren Stupidity]

168. Well no it can't. nt.

[cgrindley]

191. Sure it can

you're arguing that we can cut organized crime's profits by legalizing one of their enterprises... so why not cut organized crime's profits by legalizing all of their enterprises?

It's your argument. It's not my fault if it doesn't make sense.

[Joe Fields]

210. Wow, pretzle logic.

[butterfly77]

173. You left off some people who smoke weed,marijuana...

mary jane or dope as you call it. Here are some more people who smoke it. The judge who presided over the Anna Nicole case (the second judge)old,young,doctors, lawyers,preachers, teachers, senators,government officals, aevery damn body so stop sterotyping there are so many people who smoke it, I don't know why it is illegal. Go to a sporting event, concert, mall, or any other public place and you smell it. This is a hypocritical law and the people who are making the laws are full of shit,they aren't going to stop it...

[cgrindley]

184. You're not making any points citing the Anna Nicole Smith judge

as the paragon of potheads.

[Richard Steele]

116. What a rational, fact-based response!

[cgrindley]

121. Well, what's the pothead argument?

that it's safer than booze? gee, that's a real winner of an argument.

[Warren Stupidity]

130. Well actually it is a winner of an argument.

Unless of course you are astoundingly stupid enough to think we ought to return to booze prohibition as well.

[cgrindley]

135. Just because it wouldn't and didn't work doesn't make it wrong

and that's hardly a sound argument to end the non-constitutionally mandated prohibition on pot.

[Warren Stupidity]

138. So you are that astoundingly stupid.

Oh well.

[Zhade]

201. You are astoundingly authoritarian.

First you think women should die instead of getting abortions, now you suggest that Prohibition was right.

Unbelievable.

[cgrindley]

223. Since when did I say either?

The protection of a woman's life is always reason to abort a fetus.

I don't advocate prohibition of either pot or booze. Prohibition was logical, it was a good idea, it just didn't work.

[WindRavenX]

226. I'm speechless. You honestly think alcohol should be criminalized?

I'm beginning to think you're just an act. No one could believe such an astonishingly stupid statement and still have enough brain cells to operate a computer.

[cgrindley]

229. No, I don't

I think that the idea "made sense". It seemed like a perfectly good way to address the incredible harm caused to society by alcohol, but the ban didn't work. It could have worked if everyone had wanted it to work, but no one did.

I want neither to ban alcohol or pot. I just happen to think that pot should be kept illegal although the penalties for its possession should be lessened.

[WindRavenX]

230. Dude, do you read what you even type?

I don't advocate prohibition of either pot or booze. Prohibition was logical, it was a good idea, it just didn't work.


You're contradicting yourself. You can't claim prohibition is logical and a good idea and then claim you don't support it.

[cgrindley]

243. There are a lot of logical, rational policies that I don't support

There are often more than one logical or rational solution to a problem. EG, to drive to Boston should I take I95 or I91? Both are good solutions to a problem. I will, however, only be able to drive on one of the two highways.

[Warren DeMontague]

136. How about that what a consenting adult does with his or her own body

ISN'T ANY OF THE GOVERNMENT'S FUCKING BUSINESS.

You really like the idea of people's bodies belonging to the state, don't you?

[Name removed]

145. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cgrindley]

225. The state exists solely to regulate behavior

that is the only reason.

[Warren DeMontague]

234. The state exists solely to regulate PERSONAL, PRIVATE behavior?

I disagree. I think as a general rule what people do in the privacy of their own homes, as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, that doesn't harm or interfere with the freedom of others, is NOT the state's business to "regulate".

So... if the state passed a law making consensual, private sex between adults against the law, you'd be okay with that?

[cgrindley]

244. You haven't demonstrated that drug use

is a private affair that doesn't interfere with the lives of others.

And yes, there are many laws making consensual, private sex between adults against the law. EG bigamy and incest laws. I would imagine that bug hunting is also illegal even though the participants know the risks. And so on. I am okay with some of these laws.

I also think that your of individual freedoms is a little more than naive.

[Warren DeMontague]

277. I'm "naive" because I think it's ridiculous to spend $40 Billion a year trying to keep

otherwise law-abiding, productive citizens from smoking a relatively harmless plant?

I don't even know what "bug hunting" is, but laws against bigamy have to do with marriage- not sex.

Okay, leaving aside consensual adult sex, how about masturbation? You'd be okay with spending $40 Billion a year in taxpayer dollars to keep consenting adults from flogging the Bishop in the privacy of their own homes?

I think if someone is doing something in the privacy of their own home with their own body the onus in on the state to demonstrate how it "harms" someone else before they arm swat teams to come kick down doors and drag those folks off to prison for, say, smoking a joint.

[cgrindley]

281. Don't you mean 7 billion a year?

a) No need to inflate an already large number is there?

b) pot is not harmless and you know it (cf schizophrenia studies at Yale and in the UK)

c) bug hunting is an HIV thing, google it

d) why are you on about masturbation

e) prove that this substance is harmless. I can prove that it causes harm (see point b and maybe google it or look it up for yourself on medline)

[Warren DeMontague]

292. No, the cost of the drug war is approx. 35-40 Billion a year. The PRIMARY focus of drug war energy

is marijuana. And that's NOT including the costs of incarceration of millions of non-violent drug offenders, many of whom are, yes, in there for simple pot possession. That's "A".

B) the number of studies that show pot is relatively harmless far outweigh any dubious correlation-is-not-causation studies showing it to "make" people nuts. Actually, there are a number of studies showing it to have beneficial properties in fighting, for instance, lung cancer. No substance is "harmless", not asprin, not table salt, not sugar. But the relative harmlessness of pot for SURE makes it totally fucking inane for us to spend, again, $40 Billion a year plus "fighting" it. It should be legal, taxed, regulated and available for consenting adults to choose to consume. That's called freedom, Jack. I really don't grasp why it, as a concept, makes you so reflextively angry and/or frightened.

C) No thanks. I'm still of the considered opinion that consensual sex between adults is generally legal. Sorry that, too, makes you mad.

D) Because, again, we're talking about what a FREE citizen (oh noes!) chooses to do with his or her own body. You seem to think that people's bodies don't belong to themselves, they belong to the government. Nice view. I happen to believe that IF someone is not directly harming anyone else (driving under the influence, robbing a bank, neglecting their kids, etc.) Then what they do with THEIR OWN BODY on THEIR OWN TIME is THEIR OWN GOD-DAMN BUSINESS. Oh, I know, you think that's a "loony" proposition. Too bad.

E) Judge Francis Young, DEA Administrative Law, 1988: " Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man."

http://www.ccguide.org.uk/young88.php

http://www.druglibrary.org/olsen/medical/pot/nnsaposi.html

[Richard Steele]

150. That we don't usually outlaw things because cgrindley thinks they're "dumb", for starters.

Or the fact that we've had generations to see that "prohibition"
is a completely failed, utterly bankrupt philosophy which has never
worked anywhere, ever.

Or the fact that the "legitimate" arguements for regulating it
have proven, time and again, to be based on politically useful LIES
rather than any sort of scientific fact?

Why don't you try being HONEST sometime, and tell us why you REALLY
have such a knee-jerk response to this issue? It might make
you feel better.

[Warren DeMontague]

161. Because it's so much more fun to grind, grind, grind that axe.

Damn hippie boomer pothead abortion demanding women robble robble robble! :eyes:

[Joe Fields]

211. This damned dirty hippie pothead covets your bumper sticker.

[Warren DeMontague]

232. Thanks!

It's clickable. ;-)

[Jonathan50]

251. You know, I gotta' ask you..

Where does Al Gore stand on ending the War On (some) Drugs?

[Warren DeMontague]

278. I don't know. I do know he and Tipper are Deadheads.

But that's a good question. Right now I think he's the best potential candidate based on a lot of big issues; his track record with regards to Iraq, his experience, and his commitment to the environment and global warming. If he does get in the race, I would hope maybe he might make a statement on the issue of the drug war (and industrial hemp, for obvious environmental reasons).

Right now I think Kucinich is the only one who has proactively taken a stance on that, and for that I commend the guy heartily.

[Warren DeMontague]

133. Nice to see that you're consistent about your anti-choice views, at least.

So besides women who have abortions and people who smoke pot, got anyone else you want to use our tax dollars to lock up?

[cgrindley]

144. Holy smokes! Pro Smoking pot = Pro Choice?????

That's so dumb it boggles the mind.

For the record, I do not oppose abortion. I am merely opposed to 3rd trimest abortions where there is no active threat to the mother's life or fetal abnormality. That does not make me anti-choice nor am I pro-life as I heartily recommend first trimester abortions for health, life, fetal abnormality, rape or incest.

I do not advocate locking up stupid potheads, merely making them pay fines (a sliding scale starting at $250 bucks for 28g or less seems fair to me).

[Warren DeMontague]

153. "No first trimester except woman's health or life is threatened, rape, incest...

or feturs (sic) with birth defects."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=734521&mesg_id=737461

You said that. That's an anti-choice position. It's certainly not pro-choice. You advocate forcing women who want abortions, in the first trimester, to have to stand in front of strangers and explain why they should be allowed to have one. That is not pro choice.

Beyond that, yes- saying that what a consenting adult wants to do with his or her own body, even if they are (as you so charmingly put it) a "stupid pothead" is his or her own business... Yes. That is PRO CHOICE- it means letting people -even stupid potheads- make their own decisions, instead of trying to make their decisions for them.

[cgrindley]

154. That's where you're wrong

my position is on the spectrum of pro-choice. If it wasn't on the spectrum of pro-choice, then I'd be pro-life and I would be against all abortions period. I'm not against all abortions, so that's that.

And yes, you are cracked in the noggin if you are trying to suggest that smoking pot and having abortions have anything at all to do with one another.

[Warren DeMontague]

155. You certainly don't have anything resembling a grasp on what it means to be "pro choice"

that's for sure.

[cgrindley]

159. No, you're the one who doesn't grasp the meaning of "pro choice"

you actually had the balls to compare the legalization of pot to abortion. That just boggles the mind.

[Warren DeMontague]

160. Well, seeing as you don't think people should be able to CHOOSE to do either

I'm not sure you really should be holding yourself forth as an expert on the subject of choice.

[cgrindley]

163. I am pro-choice as far as abortion is concerned

and I am for the lessening of some drug laws. Both, I believe, are progressive positions to take. Just because they're not as goofy as your positions doesn't make them reactionary.

[Warren DeMontague]

164. "I am against abortion on demand"- you said that.

Saying that you would graciously permit women to get abortions in the first trimester if they could prove they had been raped or molested by a relative is NOT a pro-choice position.

[cgrindley]

182. Sure it is... access to abortion = pro choice

pro life = no abortions whatsoever

or are you saying that we need some new terminology for people who support anything other than abortion on demand?

[Warren DeMontague]

235. Uh, half the Republican anti-choice delegation pays lip service to "exceptions" for rape, incest.

So, now, you're saying the folks working to overturn Roe v. Wade are "pro-choice"?

Your position is at odds with Roe v. Wade. Presumably you think it should be overturned. Who is working to overturn Roe v. Wade- the "pro choice" people?

I'm not saying we need new terminology. I think you need to stop kidding yourself and trying to pass yourself off as "pro-choice" around here, when clearly you're anything but.

[cgrindley]

242. No. I am perfectly in tune with Roe v Wade

Roe v Wade gradually increases fetal rights as the trimesters roll past. You know this. Don't feign ignorance. In the first trimester, it's pretty much abortion on demand. Less so in the second trimester. Less so in the third. Roe v Wade strongly considered fetal viability. And again, you know this. Or if you don't, perhaps you should. It has been carefully outlined in debate after debate on this site. The last time about a week ago.

[Warren DeMontague]

279. I think you ought to get your ducks in a row with what you've said previously

before you start lecturing me about what I do and don't know about Roe v. Wade.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=734521&mesg_id=737461

"I don't support abortion on demand". YOU said that. It's in the archives. Now you're saying that Roe v. Wade is pretty much abortion on demand in the first trimester, which is true, and you're also saying that you're "perfectly" in tune with Roe v. Wade. But you're against abortion on Demand. :crazy:

And you accuse me of "feigning ignorance". At least I stand by my own statements on the matter.

[cgrindley]

282. They are in line

Roe v Wade takes a similar stance with regard to the viability of the fetus based on trimester measures.

[Warren DeMontague]

294. There is nothing- ZERO- in Roe v. Wade about women having to prove that they were raped

victimized by incest, or that they need an abortion due to "health" reasons. That's not Roe v. Wade.

[cgrindley]

299. It doesn't. It does establish limitations on abortion according

to trimester of fetal development. This is my stance also.

[Warren DeMontague]

306. So, then, you do support "abortion on demand" in the first trimester.

I hope you can see how that wasn't exactly clear from your responses in the previous thread.

[Name removed]

203. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JetCityLiberal]

291. You are NOT pro choice

You are about controlling a woman's body. You are about restrictions on Women.

Your right wing arguments are as much bullshit now as ever. Including your right wing spew about marijuana.

Your positions are right wing and stupid and goofy. Right back at you. Pathetic and transparent.

This is once again about thread hijacking to dish out your right wing spew.

:puke:

[cgrindley]

300. Oh yes I am

My position on abortion is pro-choice. I believe that women have the right to choose abortion based on the trimester of their pregnancy. This is a pro-choice position. It is the Roe v. Wade position. Or do you disagree with Roe v. Wade? Do you consider Roe v. Wade to be a right wing position? If, for example, you believe in abortion on demand in any trimester, your opinion is not that of Roe v. Wade. Perhaps this is the case and you simply do not know Roe v. Wade well enough to have an informed opinion on it.

In addition, my opinion regarding marijuana is hardly right wing. I advocate that the penalties for its use should be lessened. I would rule out any prison time for personal amounts of marijuana, nor do I believe that marijuana should treated any more severely than a speeding ticket. I certainly believe that recreational marijuana use is something to discourage rather than encourage.

Now, stop calling me right wing. You are violating the rules of this forum by doing so. My views are clearly and incontestibly liberal and progressive.

[JetCityLiberal]

301. You are NOT pro choice

you want to control women.

Feel free to use ignore. You are not pro choice.

[cgrindley]

303. Oh yes I am

I don't feel like ignoring you. But you can ignore me if you want.

PS support for Roe v. Wade = Pro-Choice

[Richard Steele]

208. Obviously, the list of issues he "doesn't have a grasp of" is a very long one indeed.

Just this thread alone paints a portrait of one SEVERELY confused/uninformed individual.

[Zhade]

202. Stop lying. We know what you said. Proof has been provided.

NT!

[devilgrrl]

167. Let's hear you tell Richard Branson to "grow up."

Yep, Mr. Virgin/Atlantic billionaire-trying to do something good for the environment, etc.... is a stoner.

So much for your theories.

Twit.

[cgrindley]

183. Okay. HEY BEARDO! GROW THE FUCK UP AND KNOCK IT OFF WITH THE WEED

was that to your satisfaction?

[Joe Fields]

215. Now THAT'S funny. Telling Richard Branson to grow up.

[Warren DeMontague]

231. The late Carl Sagan was an enthusiastic pot smoker, too.

That must have been what killed him. Certainly, it was what turned him into such an unproductive, useless-to-society stoner idiot. :eyes:

[Zhade]

198. Says the anti-choice guy.

You are absolutely mistaken. First off, it's clear you don't even know there are two wildly different types - indica and sativa.

The first is a body high, the second a mind high.

And my doctors know WAY more than you about its effects. Simply put, you're full of shit on this (and abortion).

[cgrindley]

227. I support legal abortion, how is that anti-choice

There's no freaking difference between "mind" and "body" highs... that's foolish crap. The effects always take place in the brain.

[Warren DeMontague]

236. You Support Legal Abortion in the first trimester: ONLY if a woman can prove she has been raped

or the victim of incest.

That is NOT a "pro choice" position.

[cgrindley]

241. Check my posts look for the word "health"

in the first trimester. I have specifically included health, life, rape, incest, fetal abnormalities in the first trimester. Health = mother's choice you know.

[Cooley Hurd]

254. How about "failure of birth control device (condom, the pill)?"

Or, should those people just fuck off? :shrug:

[cgrindley]

261. That's covered by the word "health"

The word "health," if you didn't know, is code for "for whatever reason the mother feels because the alternative will make her feel depressed which will affect her life and health". Why do you think that there is always a battle to include the word "health" in the late term abortion laws, whereas the word "life" is never debated.

[Warren DeMontague]

276. You are COMPLETELY changing your story, now.

You yourself said "I don't support abortion on demand":

"No first trimester except woman's health or life is threatened, rape, incest, or feturs with birth defects.

I don't support abortion on demand. I don't even think that my point of view on this is out of the ordinary.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=734521&mesg_id=737461

Now you're saying that, basically, any reason is okay. I'm glad you've come around, but you'll excuse me if it seems a little disingenuous... What is the precise difference between what you're saying above, and abortion "on demand"? The tone of voice used by the woman when asking for the procedure?

[cgrindley]

280. I'm not being inconsistent

I've explained it a million times:

1st trimester: life, health, rape, incest, fetal abnormalities
2nd trimester: life, health with doctor's approval, fetal abnormalities
3rd trimester: life, fetal abnormalities

It's a sliding scale. And I don't support abortion on demand as my stance to 2nd and then 3rd trimester abortions is different from my stance on 1st trimester abortions.

[Warren DeMontague]

288. Well, what you've outlined above is NOT how things are under Roe v. Wade.

You said yourself Roe v. Wade permits "abortion on demand" in the first trimester. You say you support Roe.. but you say you don't support "abortion on demand".

I don't know why I should bother debating you, seems like you're having enough trouble debating yourself.

[cgrindley]

302. Jesus

I have written on more than one occasion that I support the "health" condition in the first trimester. That's exactly the position of Roe v. Wade.

I'll write it again:

Trimester 1: Health, Life, Rape, Incest, Fetal abnormality
Trimester 2: Health with doctor's advice, Life, Fetal abnormality
Trimester 3: Life, Fetal abnormality

This is Roe v. Wade's view. This is a PRO-CHOICE view.

[RestoreGore]

82. It's not put out by a pharmaceutical company

Can't step on their profits you know.

[Kelly Rupert]

268. Neither is tobacco. n/t

[Fozzledick]

91. Multiple layers of corruption

1. To provide permanent employment for all the prohibition agents who were supposed to be let go after the end of alcohol prohibition. (Harry Anslinger's private little empire.)

2. To provide an excuse for police to harass and arrest uppity Negroes and Chicanos who have committed no crime.

3. To protect artificial fiber and wood pulp interests (DuPont and Gannet) from free-market competition
from superior natural hemp fiber suddenly made cheaper by the invention of the hemp decorticator in the 1930's.

4. To provide an excuse for the Federal government to use secret police to spy on, harass and persecute
political dissidents, especially anti-war activists. (Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan)

5. To provide an excuse for the U.S. military to intervene directly in the internal affairs of our Latin American client dictatorships.

6. To provide continuing revenue to all the parasitic drug-war profiteers both inside and outside the government.

7. To promote the far right's agenda to undermine and destroy the U.S. Constitution, Democracy, and the rule of law.

8. To implement the Illuminatti's agenda to subvert scientific progress and keep humanity in a state of undeveloped ignorance and slavery fnord. :tinfoilhat:

[Solon]

92. Greed and Control. n/t

[Jamastiene]

103. Because our government reacts to anything good with a

knee jerk reaction. They should all just have a few tokes and chill. Marijuana gets a bad rep. It's not like it's meth or something else that actually hurts people. Long live marijuana.

[krispos42]

105. How else are we going to keep all those black Democrats from voting?

Pot and crack... a one-two punch!

[killbotfactory]

107. It's illegal for a lot of bad reasons

and no good ones

[mudesi]

108. It's used by Republicans as a political wedge issue (nm)

[Jonathan50]

170. The I'm sure that you will have no problem naming a Democratic politician

Other than Dennis Kucinich who is for ending the war on cannabis.

[Bjorn Against]

207. It used to be a wedge issue by people in both parties...

Now however most politicians are afraid to even mention it. I mean honestly, how often do you hear politicians campaign on pot either for or against? It is an issue they would all prefer avoid like the plague, none of them want to call for legalization but none of them want to call for cracking down either. They know there is a lot of opposition to the drug laws, but they also know that some of the older voters who have been hearing the anti-drug propaganda their whole lives would not want to hear them call for legalization. They are all running away from the issue while bad laws continue to be enforced.

[citizen snips]

110. For a lot of reasons.

http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html

[Kip Humphrey]

122. Marijuana ais in shifting one's perspective...Makes controlling the herd more difficult

[Rex]

124. Many, many reasons.

None of which actually deal with what the drug does to a person.

[Warren DeMontague]

128. Because $40 Billion a year is a big fat juicy fucking gravy train to fight it.

And because the law is idiotic.

Legalize it, tax it, regulate it. Enough, already.

[Cleita]

129. Probably because back before the sixties, Marijuana

was used by musicians, artists and other Bohemian types along with hard drugs like cocaine and heroin. Since it became associated with the drug company it kept, it too acquired the stigma. Also, there was a lot of inaccurate propaganda spread about it back then with public service films like "Reefer Madness", which today is really laughable, but back then people believed it.

[uppityperson]

139. To bulk out the numbers in The War On Drugs.

[Madspirit]

171. Pot Should Be Legal

There has never been a death attributed to an overdose...unlike with booze. You don't get violent, unlike with booze and you don't kill people in cars, unlike with booze.

Legislating personal behavior never works...see: Prohibition.

NOTHING IN THE 'VERSE WILL EVER TAKE MY WEED. PERIOD. So don't criminalize me and what I do with my body...stupid nanny government....is MY business. Nanny government is all a pretense anyway. They simply figure they can make more money from it illegal than from it legal.

I suggest Harvard Medical School googling or Cornell or anything but your self-righteous..(not the OP...the people against pot...)...puritanical non-reasoning. Pot is great and doesn't hurt anyone.

Anti-motivational syndrome is also a myth. Go ask a shrink and by the way, my shrink and every psychiatrist I have EVER known and every cop I have EVER known...thinks marijuana should be legal...anyway... Anti-motivational syndrome. No other form of recreation has the added burden of supposing to make lazy people, not lazy. I'm sorry but if you are the kind of person who is just going to sit around all afternoon with your feet up, eating BBQ potato chips and watching re-runs of The Dukes of Hazard...it's not the pot baby...not the pot.

Leave your asshole laws off my body. Period. I will do what I want. Period. You only have the choice of criminalizing me or not.

KEEP YOUR LAWS OFF MY BODY CONTROL FREAKS.

National Organization For the Reform of Marijuana Laws:
www.norml.com

Lee

[Madspirit]

174. POT FACTS

POT FACTS: www.norml.com

Who smokes marijuana?
According to recent statistics provided by the federal government, nearly 80 million Americans admit having smoked marijuana. Of these, twenty million Americans smoked marijuana during the past year. The vast majority of marijuana smokers, like most other Americans, are good citizens who work hard, raise families, pay taxes and contribute in a positive way to their communities. They are certainly not part of the crime problem in this country, and it is terribly unfair to continue to treat them as criminals.

Many successful business and professional leaders, including many state and elected federal officials, admit they have smoked marijuana. We must reflect this reality in our state and federal laws, and put to rest the myth that marijuana smoking is a fringe or deviant activity engaged in only by those on the margins of American society. Marijuana smokers are no different from their non-smoking peers, except for their marijuana use.


Why should we decriminalize or legalize marijuana?
As President Jimmy Carter acknowledged: "Penalties against drug use should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself. Nowhere is this more clear than in the laws against the possession of marijuana in private for personal use."

Marijuana prohibition needlessly destroys the lives and careers of literally hundreds of thousands of good, hard-working, productive citizens each year in this country. More than 700,000 Americans were arrested on marijuana charges last year, and more than 5 million Americans have been arrested for marijuana offenses in the past decade. Almost 90 percent of these arrests are for simple possession, not trafficking or sale. This is a misapplication of the criminal sanction that invites government into areas of our private lives that are inappropriate and wastes valuable law enforcement resources that should be focused on serious and violent crime.


What about kids and marijuana?
Marijuana, like other drugs, is not for kids. There are many activities in our society that we permit adults to do, but forbid children, such as motorcycle riding, skydiving, signing contracts, getting married and drinking alcohol or smoking tobacco. However, we do not condone arresting adults who responsibly engage in these activities in order to dissuade our children from doing so. Nor can we justify arresting adult marijuana smokers on the grounds of sending a message to children. Our expectation and hope for young people is that they grow up to be responsible adults, and our obligation to them is to demonstrate what that means.

The NORML Board of Directors has adopted a set of principles called the "Principles of Responsible Cannabis Use," and the first principle is "Cannabis consumption is for adults only; it is irresponsible to provide cannabis to children."


Critics claim that marijuana is a "gateway drug." How do you respond to this charge?
There is no conclusive evidence that the effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent use of other illicit drugs. Preliminary animal studies alleging that marijuana "primed" the brain for other drug-taking behavior have not been replicated, nor are they supported by epidemiological human data. Statistically, for every 104 Americans who have tried marijuana, there is only one regular user of cocaine, and less than one user of heroin. Marijuana is clearly a "terminus" rather than a gateway for the overwhelming majority of marijuana smokers.

For those minority of marijuana smokers who do graduate to harder substances, it is marijuana prohibition -- which forces users to associate with the illicit drug black market -- rather than the use of marijuana itself, that often serves as a doorway to the world of hard drugs. The more users become integrated in an environment where, apart from cannabis, hard drugs can also be obtained, the greater the chances they will experiment with harder drugs.

In Holland, where politicians decided over 25 years ago to separate marijuana from the illicit drug market by permitting coffee shops all over the country to sell small amounts of marijuana to adults, individuals use marijuana and other drugs at rates less than half of their American counterparts.


But isn't marijuana addictive?
Substantial research exists regarding marijuana and addiction. While the scientific community has yet to achieve full consensus on this matter, the majority of epidemiological and animal data demonstrate that the reinforcing properties of marijuana in humans is low in comparison to other drugs of abuse, including alcohol and nicotine. According to the U.S. Institute of Medicine (IOM), fewer than one in 10 marijuana smokers become regular users of the drug, and most voluntary cease their use after 34 years of age. By comparison, 15 percent of alcohol consumers and 32 percent of tobacco smokers exhibit symptoms of drug dependence.

According to the IOM, observable cannabis withdrawal symptoms are rare and have only been identified under unique patient settings. These remain limited to adolescents in treatment facilities for substance abuse problems, and in a research setting where subjects were given marijuana or THC daily. Compared with the profound physical syndrome of alcohol or heroin withdrawal, marijuana-related withdrawal symptoms are mild and subtle. Symptoms may include restlessness, irritability, mild agitation and sleep disruption. However, for the overwhelming majority of marijuana smokers, these symptoms are not severe enough to re-initiate their use of cannabis.


The Supreme Court recently ruled that the U.S. Justice Department, including the Drug Enforcement Agency, may prosecute state-authorized medical marijuana patients for violating the federal Controlled Substances Act. What does this decision mean for seriously ill patients and for the ongoing tension between state and federal laws?
Laws in twelve states (Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington) remain in effect despite the Supreme Court's decision.

The US Supreme Court decided 6-3 in Gonzalez v. Raich that the Justice Department has the authority to prosecute state-authorized medicinal cannabis patients for violating the federal Controlled Substances Act.

The Ninth Federal Circuit Court had previously ruled 2-1 in December 2003," The intrastate, non-commercial cultivation, possession and use of marijuana for personal medical purposes on the advice of a physician - is, in fact, different in kind from drug trafficking," and issued an injunction barring the US Justice Department from taking legal action against the appellants, California medical cannabis patients Angel McClary Raich and Diane Monson, for violating the federal Controlled Substances Act. The Justice Department appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, which ruled on June 6, 2005.

The Supreme Court's 2005 decision did not expand the powers of federal law enforcement agencies like the DEA; it only affirmed that they can enforce federal laws prohibiting the use of controlled substances, regardless of state, county, or municipal law. It is not anticipated that federal agents will step up efforts against state-authorized growers, dispensaries, or patients because of this decision. State and local law enforcement officers, who are responsible for the enforcement of state and municipal laws, will most likely continue to honor the democratic decisions that their residents have made about marijuana policy.

Writing for the majority, Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens said that he longs for the day when medicinal cannabis advocates "may be heard in the halls of Congress." NORML's chief complaint is directed at Congress, not at the Court, for allowing the federal/state inconsistency in medical marijuana laws to exist.


Why does Congress refuse to reschedule marijuana to permit its use as a medicine under federal law?
Many members of both parties in Congress have confused a public health issue, medical marijuana, with the politics of the War on Drugs. In doing so, they have denied an effective medication to the seriously ill and dying.

Pending legislation H.R. 2087, on this specific proposal.

Didn't Congress vote on a measure to prevent the federal prosecution of medical marijuana patients in 2005?
On June 15, 2005, the House voted 264 to 161 against a bi-partisan measure, sponsored by Reps. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), that would have barred the US Department of Justice (DOJ) from targeting patients who use marijuana medicinally in accordance with the laws of their states.

The 161 House votes in favor of the patient-protection provision was the highest total ever recorded in a Congressional floor vote to liberalize marijuana laws. Of those who voted in support of the Hinchey/Rohrabacher medical marijuana amendment, 15 were Republicans and 128 were Democrats. The House's only Independent Congressman also voted in favor of the amendment.

Many Congressional battles are won only after several failed attempts. Please contact your representative now and urge their support for federal medical marijuana legislation.


Critics of the medical use of marijuana say (1) there are traditional medications to help patients and marijuana is not needed; and, (2) permitting the medical use of marijuana sends the wrong message to kids. How do you respond to these concerns?
For many patients, traditional medications do work and they do not require or desire medical marijuana. However, for a significant number of serious ill patients, including patients suffering from AIDS, cancer, multiple sclerosis and chronic pain among others, traditional medications do not provide symptomatic relief as effectively as medicinal cannabis. These patients must not be branded as criminals or forced to suffer needlessly in pain.

Dronabinol (trade name Marinol) is a legal, synthetic THC alternative to cannabis. Nevertheless, many patients claim they find minimal relief from it, particularly when compared to inhaled marijuana. The active ingredient in Marinol, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, is only one of the compounds isolated in marijuana that appears to be medically beneficial to patients. Other compounds such as cannabidiol (CBD), an anti-convulsant, and cannabichromine (CBC), an anti-inflammatory, are unavailable in Marinol, and patients only have access to their therapeutic properties by using cannabis.

Patients prescribed Marinol frequently complain of its high psychoactivity. This is because patients consume the drug orally. Once swallowed, Marinol passes through the liver, where a significant proportion is converted into other chemicals. One of these, the 11-hydroxy metabolite, is four to five times more potent than THC and greatly increases the likelihood of a patient experiencing an adverse psychological reaction. In contrast, inhaled marijuana doesn't cause significant levels of the 11-hydroxy metabolite to appear in the blood.

Marinol's oral administration also delays the drug from taking peak effect until two to fours hours after dosing. A 1999 report by the US Institute of Medicine (IOM) concluded: "It is well recognized that Marinol's oral route of administration hampers its effectiveness because of slow absorption and patients' desire for more control over dosing. ... In contrast, inhaled marijuana is rapidly absorbed." In a series of US state studies in the 1980s, cancer patients given a choice between using inhaled marijuana and oral THC overwhelmingly chose cannabis.

As to the message we are sending to kids, NORML hopes the message we are sending is that we would not deny any effective medication to the seriously ill and dying. We routinely permit cancer patients to self- administer morphine in cancer wards all across the country; we allow physicians to prescribe amphetamines for weight loss and to use cocaine in nose and throat operations. Each of these drugs can be abused on the street, yet no one is suggesting we are sending the wrong message to kids by permitting their medical use.


Don't alcohol and tobacco use already cause enough damage to society? Why should we legalize another intoxicant?
While there are indeed health and societal problems due to the use of alcohol and nicotine, these negative consequences would be amplified if consumption of either substance were prohibited.

Marijuana is already the third most popular recreational drug in America, despite harsh laws against its use. Millions of Americans smoke it responsibly. Our public policies should reflect this reality, not deny it.

In addition, marijuana is far less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco. It fails to inflict the types of serious health consequences these two legal drugs cause. Around 50,000 people die each year from alcohol poisoning. Similarly, more than 400,000 deaths each year are attributed to tobacco smoking. By comparison, marijuana is nontoxic and cannot cause death by overdose. According to the prestigious European medical journal, The Lancet, "The smoking of cannabis, even long-term, is not harmful to health. It would be reasonable to judge cannabis as less of a threat than alcohol or tobacco."

No one is suggesting we encourage more drug use; simply that we stop arresting responsible marijuana smokers. In recent years, we have significantly reduced the prevalence of drunk driving and tobacco smoking. We have not achieved this by prohibiting the use of alcohol and tobacco or by targeting and arresting adults who use alcohol and tobacco responsibly, but through honest educational campaigns. We should apply these same principles to the responsible consumption of marijuana. The negative consequences primarily associated with marijuana -- such as an arrest or jail time -- are the result of the criminal prohibition of cannabis, not the use of marijuana itself.


What is industrial hemp? How does it differ from marijuana?
Hemp is a distinct variety of the plant species cannabis sativa L. It is a tall, slender fibrous plant similar to flax or kenaf. Farmers worldwide have harvested the crop for the past 12,000 years for fiber and food, and Popular Mechanics once boasted that over 25,000 environmentally friendly products could be derived from hemp.

Unlike marijuana, hemp contains only minute (less than 1%) amounts of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the primary psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. In addition, hemp possesses a high percentage of the compound cannabidiol (CBD), which has been shown to block the effects of THC. For these reasons, many botanists have dubbed industrial hemp "anti- marijuana."

More than 30 industrialized nations commercially grow hemp, including England and Canada. The European Union subsidizes farmers to grow the crop, which is legally recognized as a commercial crop by the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Nevertheless, US law forbids farmers from growing hemp without a federal license, and has discouraged all commercial hemp production since the 1950s. NORML is working to allow American farmers to once again have legal access to this agricultural commodity.


How can I help?
The most important step you can take is to contact your elected officials at all levels of government (local, state and federal), and let them know you oppose arresting responsible marijuana smokers. As a constituent, you hold special influence over the politicians who represent your district. It is critical you let them know how you feel.

Because the marijuana smoking community remains largely "in the closet" and is all too often invisible politically, our core constituency currently exercises far less political power than our numbers would otherwise suggest. The only way to overcome this handicap is for more of us to take an active role, and routinely contact our elected officials.

A majority of the American public opposes sending marijuana smokers to jail, and 3 out of 4 support the medical use of marijuana. Yet many elected officials remain fearful that if they support these reform proposals, they will be perceived as "soft" on crime and drugs and defeated at the next election.

Tell your elected officials that you know the difference between marijuana and more dangerous drugs and between marijuana smoking and violent crime, and that you do not support spending billions of dollars per year incarcerating nonviolent marijuana offenders.

To make that easy, NORML has a program on our web site that will identify your state and federal elected officials, and provide a sample letter that you can fax to Congress or e-mail to state legislators. Additionally, we encourage you to join NORML and help us with this fight for personal freedom. We depend on contributions from private individuals to fund our educational and lobbying campaign, and our ability to move reform efforts forward is partially a question of resources. Please join with us and let's end marijuana prohibition, once and for all.

[Jonathan50]

176. I think this piece of information belongs in this thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x784630


http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/29/cops-admit-to-... /

Two police officers pleaded guilty Thursday to manslaughter in the shooting death of a 92-year-old woman during a botched drug raid last fall. A third officer still faces charges...

The charges followed a Nov. 21 "no-knock" drug raid on the home of Kathryn Johnston, 92. An informant had described buying drugs from a dealer there, police said. When the officers burst in without warning, Johnston fired at them, and they fired back, killing her.

Fulton County prosecutor Peter Johnson said that the officers involved in Johnston's death fired 39 shots, striking her five or six times, including a fatal blow to the chest.

He said Johnston fired only once through her door and didn't hit any of the officers. That means the officers who were wounded likely were hit by their own colleagues, he said.<..>

Assistant U.S. Attorney Yonette Sam-Buchanan said Thursday that although the officers found no drugs in Johnston's home, Smith planted three bags of marijuana in the home as part of a cover story.

The case raised serious questions about no-knock warrants and whether the officers followed proper procedures.

*********************************************************************************************

This is exactly the sort of thing that continues to happen on a regular basis with the War On (some) Drugs.

Cops murder an old woman and then plant "evidence" to show that she was "breaking the law".

Anyone who thinks this sort of thing doesn't happen on a regualar basis needs to ask themselves why these particular cops thought that could get away with what they did.

[Orsino]

179. Because it's against the law.

A circular answer.

[Madspirit]

180. Nope

Saying it is illegal because it's against the law is not what's called a circular answer. That's not an answer at all. That is just still the question. Why is it illegal/against the law?
Lee

[OxQQme]

185. I um think i umm remmemmberr

that Hearst owned a brazillion acres of trees, along with the paper mills that fed his publications and was the 'mouth' that demonized it because of it's competition to those trees.
Follow the money trail:
http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/hearst.asp

[Bjorn Against]

190. So they can keep hemp illegal...

Seriously many people think hemp is illegal because of marijuana, I think the situation is actually the opposite. Hemp is a excellent crop which has numerous uses, but it is just not as profitable as timber, cotton or petroleum. There are big monied interests that do not want hemp legalized, but they could not possibly rationalize criminalizing hemp but not marijuana. They need marijuana as an excuse to criminalize hemp.

[Philosoraptor]

256. It threatens big tobacco and big oil.

And it gives you the munchies.

[Kelly Rupert]

269. Threatens?

It doesn't threaten Big Tobacco; it would give them another market to expand into.

[Madspirit]

197. May I suggest...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x784782

[nam78_two]

200. I hope I live to see it legalized

Since I am only 28, I am hopeful :).

[Roon]

206. A cop told me why it's illegal

It's illegal because pot is a handy tool to get the drugs they really want. If cops smell pot in your car or home that gives them probable cause to search for the drugs that they are really after, cola..meth..etc.

[joshcryer]

212. That's an interesting observation.

Come to think of it many times I've seen "COPS" they say "you been smoking dope?" And then search the car, finding cocaine, heroine, etc.

[Madspirit]

214. Cop lied

I don't think that cop knew what he was talking about. Most of the cops I've spoken to think it should be legal. They don't want to bust people for this or fill the jails with the people who indulge. 83 million people in our country have smoked pot. Go check the stats in the post: Marijuana Truths. I am fairly sure they are quite aware that 83 million of us are not into cocaine and meth.

They bust people for ulterior motives, you're right but I think the excuse your cop gave you is the least of it. In my town, the majority of people busted and jailed for pot are Hispanic. I think you might look at racism. I've been caught by cops, with pot, many times and all they've done is dump it out or keep it. ...and I'm white. Hmmmm...go figure.
Lee

[Roon]

216. That happened to a buddy of mine in Boulder Co

Cop pulled them over, searched the car, found a pot pipe. The cop put the pipe on the curb when he get another call, he just took off leaving the pipe behind.

[Ariana Celeste]

240. thats how they found my mushrooms

:sigh:

[CrownPrinceBandar]

250. Then pot is a gateway drug after all!..........

Its a gateway to letting cops rifle through your shit!

[Catfight]

213. Why can't they make it in a pill form or another form other than smoking

so that they can actually prescribe it? I still can't understand that. If it's such a great drug for certain illnesses, then by all means, make it in a controllable form and prescribe it.

[Roon]

217. They do

It's called Marinol.

[Catfight]

218. Then what's the problem? I think that's great, I didn't know that. nt

[WindRavenX]

219. It's still absurd a benign, beneficial plant is illegal

NT.

[Bjorn Against]

220. The problem is it is really expensive and not nearly as effective as the real thing

[oldgrowth]

259. A Vaporizer for vaporizing marijuana

[MrSlayer]

224. Alcohol companies, big pharma and chemical companies.

Not to mention the government makes way more money from it being illegal by confiscating property, big fines and court costs. There is no compelling reason why it should be illegal except that it would cut into profits.

[Kelly Rupert]

266. Are you kidding? They'd love it.

Legalization brings regulation. You think corporate America wouldn't love to have another addictive, mind-numbing product to push on us?

[MrSlayer]

304. Nope, wrong.

First off it's neither addictive nor mind numbing. Doesn't numb my mind anyway. And as I said they are making way more money off of it being illegal. Alcohol companies don't want the competition, their sales would drop if people had the option to buy weed instead. Pot is way safer than alcohol. Pharma companies want you to keep taking their dangerous and expensive drugs instead of smoking an inexpensive plant that anyone can grow. And chemical companies want to go on making their synthetic, poisonous chemicals, oils, solvents and the like because they profit heavily from it. Most of the stuff Dow makes could be made from the hemp plant. Even the big oil companies don't want it because we could be running our cars off inexpensive, cleaner hemp seed oil. Add in the legal elements I mentioned before and there you have it. It's all about the money.

[Jonathan50]

233. Here in Georgia the state patrol cruisers..

Have decals on the windows with a big pot leaf and the red circle with a line through it that means "NO".

[LeftishBrit]

249. Here's a link that may be of interest

http://www.idmu.co.uk/historical.htm


It seems that the UK and many other countries made cannabis illegal in response to the recommendations of an international convention on dangerous drugs in 1925. The strongest pressures came from Egypt and Turkey, while India opposed a ban on the rather sensible grounds that people had been using it since forever, and prohibition was very unlikely to be effective. But the prohibitionists won in most places. The UK made the recreational use of cannabis illegal in 1928, but it was legal for medical purposes until an infamous law of 1971 (incidentally, one well-known British user of cannabis for medical purposes was Good Queen Victoria, who was prescribed it for her period pains). The marijuana laws were relaxed, but well short of legalization, a few years ago.

It does appear from the article that American laws had a somewhat different impetus, and were more based on antipathy toward Mexicans.

[Kelly Rupert]

265. Because all recreational drugs are

with the exception of alcohol and tobacco, which have been grandfathered into legality. If tobacco were only invented yesterday, it would be illegal, and the same goes for alcohol.

[MLFerrell]

274. Because of Harry Anslinger...

And racism.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

283. It's the least addicitve drug out there - so I'd rather see people doing that.

n/t

[Jonathan50]

285. LSD and psilocybin are both less addictive than cannabis.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/misc/addictiv.htm

Relative Addictiveness of Various Substances

In Health, Nov/Dec 1990

"To rank today's commonly used drugs by their addictiveness, we asked experts to consider two questions: How easy is it to get hooked on these substances and how hard is it to stop using them? Although a person's vulnerability to drug also depends on individual traits -- physiology, psychology, and social and economic pressures -- these rankings reflect only the addictive potential inherent in the drug. The numbers below are relative rankings, based on the experts' scores for each substance:

100 Nicotine
99 Ice, Glass (Methamphetamine smoked)
98 Crack
93 Crystal Meth (Methamphetamine injected)
85 Valium (Diazepam)
83 Quaalude (Methaqualone)
82 Seconal (Secobarbital)
81 Alcohol
80 Heroin
78 Crank (Amphetamine taken nasally)
72 Cocaine
68 Caffeine
57 PCP (Phencyclidine)
21 Marijuana
20 Ecstasy (MDMA)
18 Psilocybin Mushrooms
18 LSD
18 Mescaline

Research by John Hastings
Relative rankings are definite, numbers given are (+/-)1%

[Jonathan50]

286. Cannabis is not the least addictive recreational drug.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/misc/addictiv.htm

Relative Addictiveness of Various Substances

In Health, Nov/Dec 1990

"To rank today's commonly used drugs by their addictiveness, we asked experts to consider two questions: How easy is it to get hooked on these substances and how hard is it to stop using them? Although a person's vulnerability to drug also depends on individual traits -- physiology, psychology, and social and economic pressures -- these rankings reflect only the addictive potential inherent in the drug. The numbers below are relative rankings, based on the experts' scores for each substance:

100 Nicotine
99 Ice, Glass (Methamphetamine smoked)
98 Crack
93 Crystal Meth (Methamphetamine injected)
85 Valium (Diazepam)
83 Quaalude (Methaqualone)
82 Seconal (Secobarbital)
81 Alcohol
80 Heroin
78 Crank (Amphetamine taken nasally)
72 Cocaine
68 Caffeine
57 PCP (Phencyclidine)
21 Marijuana
20 Ecstasy (MDMA)
18 Psilocybin Mushrooms
18 LSD
18 Mescaline

[NightWatcher]

290. ilegal, schmegal. Why is it so hard to find?

that is the question.

(joke.....or is it)

[liberalpress]

295. Wait! Wait! I know! It's...

...Um.. I'm sorry what was the question again?

[butterfly77]

296. This needs to be on a ballot for a national election...