Mj Is Legal In Colorado Washington

[Ralphie]

Just to clarify;

Dude your missing the point entirely.

Yes there is probably a whole culture out there of people who smoke under the radar and are "functional" smokers.

There are 314 million people in the US. I would dare to bet that the majority of people who smoke are not responsible and do not hold down as many responsibilites as you.

Obv I have no proof to show for that, but the culture has been glamorized here in a negative way.

If you compare it to places like the Netherlands(which Bill did), you can clearly see that we in the US have A LOT of work to do before it would be integrated in a way that would have little impact.

If we adopt the Netherlands policy tomorrow, do you really think that overnight all these responsible "potheads"are going to come out of the shadows?

And even if they do and in a few years studies show that some people can perform while high, do you think that will cover all 314 million? No way.


And the whole "close minded" us holding down the stoners is kind of offensive.

I agree that it should be legal.

I agree that you have the right to smoketh it.

However, it in no way shape or form, should effect my life at all.

I choose not to, and therefor, I don't want to have to deal with the consequences(to a point).

Obv no one can prevent Joe smoe from slamming into my car while drunk/high.

It can and will happen.

The fact remains, and there are plenty of studies to show, that while smoking MJ does not produce the same impairment alcohol does, it does produce IMPAIRMENT.

When you smoke one bowl, just one bowl, you are impaired. You would agree right?

For you one bowl might be shit, but out there somewhere, one bowl might blaze someone right up.

And being knowledgable on this, I know first hand that different strains produce different highs.

One bowl of some BC bud or very well hydoponic produced bud can really knock an average user off their feet.

Maybe they could still do toddler activities, but toddlers don't drive vehicles or report to a job everyday.

I go back to driving because driving is so engrained within our culture.

2nd, were all on this forum for a driving related hobby.

I don't think you actually grasp how high the function level of driving is.

Two types of motor skills, gross and fine.

Driving maxes BOTH those skills.

And I don't mean to say your a fool and you don't know shit.

You deff got a few years on me and a lot more street knowledge im sure, but we just take a lot of shit for granted and don't realize sometimes how much skill everyday tasks consume. Everyone is guilty of it, unless your forced to be aware of it.

It just comes down to risk.

There are people who do nothing all day but assess risk.

The risk of jeopardizing peoples lives/property will always come before anyones notion that they can do things better high.

They may not have a free for all event testing people, but they have done numerous studies that show the impairment of being high, can have just as devestating effects as being drunk.

Heck just texting while driving kills people every day now.

I think to summarize, you need to wrap your head around the fact that whats good for the goose is not always good for the gander.

You need to open your mind up and take into account the many possibilities and ramifications that will come with releasing this on the public.

And I know your not talking about flying planes or driving school buses, but there are a lot more things going on then just those two.

Look at those two guys missing from the oil rig explosion.

You go everyday probably without even thinking about the guys who are out there drilling for oil.

Im not sure how tough the regulations are on them, but im sure there is a zero tolerance for substance abuse.

So should that be laxed for them? At the expense of their own lives and their co-workers and the shores on which they drill?

I mean there are just millions of possibile problems, that the current system needs to remain in place.

I don't agree that employers should lax their policy on this because you want to smoke at home.....then how would they catch the ones smoking in the bathroom at work?

You see?

It has to be set in stone and until there is a better way you pay that price for partaking in that vice.

Sorry, it does suck, but that's how it goes.

[wildBill83]

7.4% IS MJ.

Ok I reread it. Of those 7.4%, how many were actually high at the time of the test? The test could not tell you if they had just smoked or had smoke in the last few days. Just because it is in your system does not mean you are high or even buzzed. A typical mj buzz last a couple of hours tops.

Alcohol only was 7.3%.

Of those 7.3%, 100% had drank prior to the test. 100% of those had a buzz when tested.

So for the first time, there are slightly more driverswith mj in their system than drivers with alcohol in their system.

Fixed. This I can agree to.

It's just numbers on a page, but those numbers represet REAL people who are jeopardizing REAL people.

Agreed, but I still feel the results are not accurate enough because they are not testing the level of impairment.

I understand your stance on the discussion with regards to what they can and can't do and your point has been noted.

Thank you for listening to that part.

Now, with regards to your posted links, I believe you were trying to say that the stats they represent show that decriminazling it will not lead to an increase in use with the public.

If you ask the educated youth of the Netherlands if they smoke pot, the majority will say no, even though it is legally available for recreational use. You would think that it would be the opposite result. If the drug was so bad and so widely available then why is there not 100% useage? Infact the number of habitual smokers in the Netherlands is on a decreasing trend.

Now this statment is confusing. Lawfully regulated cannabis would refer to how we control it in the US no?

No, the black market drives cannabis. This is far from lawfully regulated.

Your comparing to very different lifestyles and cultures.

We are all human, and their way of life is not too much different, just the laws are and how the public percieves cannabis.

It has ALWAYS been part of their culture and its been integrated into their daily lives.

It has also always been a part of American culture, just under the table since the early 1900's when they deemed it the devils weed and spread propaganda to demonise a plant. Now Jimson weed is the true devils plant, but it is LEGAL everywhere. Hell it was so much of our culture that George Washington use to grow and harvest cannabis and even spoke of the importance of seperating male plants from the crop. It hass been in out culture since before the declaration of independence that was drafted on hemp paper. Cannabis use is world wide, infact it may be even more common than coffee.

Now I will agree that their approach(Public health issue is #1, Law issue is #2) is the right approach imo.

This is the approach that is reducing addiction and the youth are trending away from drugs because of it there, why not educate our youth instead of tell them "just say no!". I was a child once, and when I was told to not do something ... sometimes I did anyway to find out why I was told not to just because it was not explained to me.

So if I choose not to read an article im close minded!?!?
I wasn't choosing to NOT read them because I felt they were not useful or stupid.

Just didn't feel a need too, but if it mean't that much to you, I would.

And anything that is www.warondrugs.org comes off tinfoil hat to me.

That was presumptious of me, and that I am guilty of, but those websites just come off wacky.

Both actually had good points.

Discounting something before you read it is being closed minded. Open minded people will read it and then weigh the information. You may find the war on drugs site a bit crazy, but infact they are one of the oldest most grounded sites on the subject.

I agree that lessening the crime/punishment for having or using(in certain circumstances, see rest of thread) should be reduced.

As long as your not transporting or selling, it should be confiscated and you sent home.

No arguments there.

I don't think decriminizliing it will make use go up, but in this country, making it legal will(hence why 7.4% are now driving high)

Not sure why you think that use won't go up.

Maybe it wouldn't because most people are ALREADY using, but you will now see a spike in other issues not thought of before(like DUI).

Well considering the study was done in a state that has decriminalized and not legalized, but you say usage is increasing doesn't that go against what you think.

I don't think it will go up, if anything it will go down for a number of reasons.
1. People will be more comfortable to smoke at home and not on the road or at random places they need to travel to.
2. Teens and underage users are the primary ones driving while impaired because they cannot smoke at home, but regulation would reduce this. Think if alcohol was not regulated and there was no age limit, surely there would be more drunk teens on the road?
3. Some people use it just because it is taboo, but if it turns out not to be then their thrill from breaking the law is gone.
4. Public education will teach more of all of the issues associated, rather than telling them just don't do it becuase we said so.
5. Violent crime will reduce that is directly related to cannabis, just as it did with alcohol prohibition. While alcohol was illegal mobs and gangs distributed it on the streets and the government could not stop it and lost out on revenue. When they legalized it, it took the power away from the black market and this took the money away from the moon shiners. How can a gang or mob compete with a company like Anheuser-Busch and still make a profit? They can't and that is why we don't have speak-easy's today with illegal liquor.
6. As you pointed out, those using won't increase because they are going to use it, legal or not. Most of them don't care about the legality in the first place.

Bottom line is that the demand is there, but right now the black market is the only market profiting. Demand won't increase, and may not decrease, but for sure it is not going away so why not educate the public and profit from those who chose to use it? How much power would the cartels in Mexico have if their entire demand for cannabis dissapeared?

[deevergote]

Very good points, both of you.

The Netherlands is a good example. It's legal in parts, and the population doesn't care terribly much. Many people there don't do it, despite the legal status. Many of them have likely tried it. Like many people in the US that have tried alcohol and don't care for it.

If we legalize it here, use will spike for a short time. The current users would rejoice, those that "always wanted to try it but didn't want to do anything illegal" would be first in line for a toke. Those that have always hated it will continue to hate it. Those that were indifferent will continue to be indifferent.
Once the novelty wears off, it will be simply an everyday thing.


The thing is, the deviant nature of marijuana use is largely to blame for the "culture" surrounding it. Sure, there is a certain amount of "culture" surrounding alcohol (beer brewers, whiskey aficionados, wine snobs...), tobacco (cigar fans can get pretty damn crazy!), and even coffee (people who will pay $40/lb for Jamaican Blue Mountain coffee... )
Still, no other substance has as deep a "culture" as marijuana. Remove the deviant status, and you'll remove any appeal to identifying yourself with that culture. Very few people walk around bragging about being drunk all the time, wearing it on their t-shirts and such...

Personally, I find the culture far more offensive than the substance.

[Ralphie]

This is a VERY good read.

Talks about the relationship between violence and MJ.

The subject was a African-American youth.

Here are some profound quotes-

A drug-induced pharmacological effect
leading to intoxication and impairment of cognitive abilities and confusion
can also result in violent behavior, according to Pernanen.

Kaplan and Damphouse14 reported that early drug use in the
seventh grade (i.e., marijuana and narcotics) predicted later violent
behaviors at age 26, when controlling for early violence. However, the
adolescent drug use in that study was found to account for only one
percent of the variance in young adult violence

Drug use by persons with antisocial personality could reasonably be
expected to increase any tendency to act violently. On the other hand,
such drug use has also been postulated to be an attempt to assuage
violent tendencies through self-medication

earlier
marijuana use, as well as the earlier use of opiates and cocaine/crack,
was found to have a greater relationship to subsequent commission of
such serious types of offenses as ‘‘Weapons Offenses’’ and ‘‘Attempted
Homicide/Reckless Endangerment,’’ than was found for alcohol use.

Alcohol is the substance that has most often been reported to be a
predisposing factor to the commission of violent crimes. Alcohol was,
however, not found in this study to be associated with the commission
of such serious offenses as Attempted Homicide/Reckless Endangerment,
and Weapons Offenses, to as great a degree as was found for
marijuana. The earlier reported alcohol-to-violence linkage had been
based, at least in part, on the disinhibiting effect of alcohol; and the
violent behavior occurred while the study subjects were still under the
influence of alcohol. That is a different situation from the situation that
was analyzed in this study.

The most unexpected of the findings were the significant relationships
that were found between the degree of use of marijuana use and
the tendency to commit the violent offenses of Attempted Homicide/
Reckless Endangerment and Weapons Use. The findings that the use
of marijuana is associated with drug trafficking and with the commission
of serious types of violent offenses is of particular interest, because
marijuana use is often thought to be a less serious problem than
the use of other illicit drugs.

http://www.csdp.org/research/friedman_mjviolence.pdf


Now you can write that off any way you want.

It was a study done by a bunch of guys with PhD that we don't know personally.

Maybe it is skewed or slanted, I don't think so, but you have to form your own opinions.

I am not sure why they focused on African American communities but they have stats for white men of the same age as well.

What I take away from that is that there are ALOT more people doing dumb shit when high/and or drunk, then when sober.

Doesn't take rocket science to know that, Im aware.

Does that mean people don't commit violent crimes when sober? No.

Should we blame violent crimes on the guns? No.

What I am saying, and have been saying all along, is that no matter which way you show it, everyone knows that MJ has an effect on people when you smoke/eat it whatever you do.

Because it has an impact on your reasoning/cognition/reaction/etc etc

It still needs to be controlled(as it is a controlled substance) and still needs to be regulated regardless of it being made legal.

Just because group A(lets say 324,238 people) can be high and land an F16 on a Aircraft carrier, does not mean that group B(the rest of the population) can do it.

[wildBill83]

If you believe that then I'll bet you believed the movie "Reefer Madness" when it was shown in health class.

Of course the study is skewed. Do the same study in Amsterdam. If drug use equated to violent crime, wouldn't they have the highest crime rate in the world instead of one of the lowest?
EDIT: After reading the study even admits it is skewed and does not apply to the general population:

These findings may not apply to a middle-class African-American sample.

For that study to be even close to considered they need to monitor a control group spread across the spectrum (race/income/location) rather than those who may be more likely to skew the results in their favor.

The "culture" associated with the drugs they reportedly used is an illegal culture. Those that typically break one law have no qualms about breaking many others, especially felony offenses. A good deal of crime related to drugs are from either gangs or cartels. Take the money and product away from the street pharmacist and they will then link crime to their next capital product, guns. No big suprise there. The problem is not the drugs or the guns, but the gangs/cartels. The black market drives violence more than any drug or weapon ever invented.

Here is a more interesting and factually based read about violence and marijuana use:
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/...S/psycviol.htm
Summary:http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/.../basicfax6.htm

All major authorities agree that the vast majority of drug-related violent crime is caused by the prohibition against drugs, rather than the drugs themselves. This was the same situation which was true during alcohol Prohibition. Alcohol Prohibition gave rise to a violent criminal organization. Violent crime dropped 65 percent in the year Prohibition was repealed.

[toycar]

Ralphie;


In the interest of people actually reading what we are talking about Im not going to quote any more epic posts, lol.


Damn we type alot.



Lol




I guess somewhere I need to clearly state that I feel the same way as you when it comes to my habit and how it would overlap with your life.




Just the same, I have my own life to live as well with equal rights to you. Smoker or not, your "non smoking" ideaology should not influence my life, just like my smoking habit should not infleunce yours.




But it does. You guys seem to think that your opinion, your thoughts or your lifestyle is somehow more important than my own. You take such a position that it is difficult to hold a conversation because the general nature of your position.



You guys think you have all the answers and take it personally when someone such as myself points out that maybe your theory is flawed. Im not saying I feel differently as you when it comes to use, public use, exposure or using at work.

I am clearly saying that the interpretation of being high is incorrect, and the general public could benefit from a better understanding. If you guys were aware of how many people like me exist, maybe you would feel different. If the laws didn't validate your fears, maybe you would be willing to listen.


Until then you just come across as unreasonable and it reinforces the thought that you guys just dont want to listen or admit that maybe you are wrong or maybe there is a middle ground here.

I am clearly saying that they should not be able to fire you if you smoke weed on your own time. This is something I feel very strongly about. If you take a blood test, drugs only show up if you are currently high on them so why can't they blood test you for drugs and solve this riddle all together? Nobody that is responsible about MJ thinks you should be allowed to risk others health or safety due to our habit. Get that shit out of your head. We are not asking for some pass in life to disregard other people or their feelings.

Testing has evolved, and there is a way to test for people actively high vs previous use.


THC sticks to your fat, and that is how they test for it currently. Problem is you could smoke 3 weeks ago and still fail today for no reason. You are not impaired, but you are blindly labeled as such since you have thc in your system. Workers need to be protected.

Not so they can get high at work, but to avoid the job fucking with them in their personal time. Its not like you could get fired for drinking off the clock, but clearly you could drink enough on your own time to cause issues at work-even without drinking at work.




I think the entire conversation has blown into a tit for tat angle and its really silly.


You are really holding onto your position, pretty desperately if you ask me. Nobody is saying that people should be able to smoke in public, at work or whenever.

I am openly stating that I think the regulation and laws surrounding the use should be similar if not worse to that of alcohol use. Where exactly am I losing you here?



Aside from that- you revert back to the idea that me being allowed to smoke weed is going to effect you in a personal matter.





Hows about you think about this for a second;



Why are your opinions or thoughts more valueable than my own? Why should I give one ounce of shit about how you feel? What makes you so important that I should adjust MY LIFE in an effort to accomodate YOURS?



You are clearly afraid of my life/habit effecting your life, what makes your life so much more important than my own?



The problem here is while you claim that you feel the way you do out of fear that we will alienate your life, you are alienating ours.

You are convinced that we will smoke and crash into your car, or smoke and ruine your house, do some shitty work or whatever. You assume that since we smoke weed we lack common sense or the ability to function.



The thing is, as long as you feel the way you do you are already alienating me in my life. You assume that you are due an explanation about my habits, and that you are due some sort of law/regulation surrounding me and my habits. If you were in a real life situation to base your own opinion, you and I would get along just fine and probably even be friendly.


Add my weed habit to the conversation and now YOU feel differently. Aren't you already alienating me, in my life by doing so? That is what my point is about.


Not only do you guys and your thought process force people like me to live a certain way, you think you are right and that we need to accomodate you and your fears. All these stipulations, circumstances and BS to argue about.


I would like to know at what point your opinion or life became more important than my own and at what point you were entitled to feel like your opinion should effect MY life. Maybe you haven't previously connected those dots, who knows.


Under the cover of darkness we live our lives with our own secret, all the while people like you are co-workers and random people we interact with.

NONE THE WISER of our habit.



But, let an open conversation pop up about the subject and unknowingly you make yourself look like a fool talking about shit that you really dont have a clue about. No offense. Its just the truth. You guys blirt out insulting comments and ridicule something that by all means you know nothing about. You are repeating information that you read, second or third hand.


I actually smoke weed all the time but somehow my opinion doesn't carry any weight? WTF is that?


In one of your posts you make it sound like smoking weed makes people unable to do the easiest of shit.

Come on man, if you really smoked weed as you claim you know better.









Any opinion you may have about MJ has all been formed with the current laws in place. We can agree on that right?


Are you really trying to tell me the current system is working? You think you dont already drive in traffic with people that are high? You think you go to the "non smokers" grocery store?



We are apart of your daily grind, and you are oblivous to this fact 99% of the time.

[Ralphie]

Ok I reread it. Of those 7.4%, how many were actually high at the time of the test? The test could not tell you if they had just smoked or had smoke in the last few days. Just because it is in your system does not mean you are high or even buzzed. A typical mj buzz last a couple of hours tops.

Well that your right about, it does not differentiate between being high during the test or smoking a week before. Like I've said already, I don't see them changing the tests to accomodate the legalization, so you inherit the risk of being charged with DUI if you test hot.

If you ask the educated youth of the Netherlands if they smoke pot, the majority will say no, even though it is legally available for recreational use. You would think that it would be the opposite result. If the drug was so bad and so widely available then why is there not 100% useage? Infact the number of habitual smokers in the Netherlands is on a decreasing trend.

This makes no sense. Why would anyone assume that because it is 100% legal, 100% of the population would use? 100% of the pop does not smoke ciggs or drink alcohol. I do think making it legal here will increase users but because of the way the US looks at use to begin with.

No, the black market drives cannabis. This is far from lawfully regulated.

What I am talking about is laws and regulation from the Fed agencies. Im not talking about black markets or the cartels. They don't get a say.

It has also always been a part of American culture, just under the table since the early 1900's when they deemed it the devils weed and spread propaganda to demonise a plant. Now Jimson weed is the true devils plant, but it is LEGAL everywhere. Hell it was so much of our culture that George Washington use to grow and harvest cannabis and even spoke of the importance of seperating male plants from the crop. It hass been in out culture since before the declaration of independence that was drafted on hemp paper. Cannabis use is world wide, infact it may be even more common than coffee.

Eh im not so sure about some of these claims. I have no idea what Jimson weed is, but I won't argue about it being part of our "society" since the days of Washington. It has NEVER been a part of our culture. Society and culture are two different things.

This is the approach that is reducing addiction and the youth are trending away from drugs because of it there, why not educate our youth instead of tell them "just say no!". I was a child once, and when I was told to not do something ... sometimes I did anyway to find out why I was told not to just because it was not explained to me.

I agree with this. Im always an advocate for education. There is plenty of evidence to support the fact that MADD brought down the drunk driving fatalities. Education is a wonderful thing.

Discounting something before you read it is being closed minded. Open minded people will read it and then weigh the information. You may find the war on drugs site a bit crazy, but infact they are one of the oldest most grounded sites on the subject.

See I never discounted it, I just didn't have a reason to read them. Then once you brought up some points, I had a reason to go back and read them. That is being open minded.

Well considering the study was done in a state that has decriminalized and not legalized, but you say usage is increasing doesn't that go against what you think.

I don't think it will go up, if anything it will go down for a number of reasons.
1. People will be more comfortable to smoke at home and not on the road or at random places they need to travel to.
2. Teens and underage users are the primary ones driving while impaired because they cannot smoke at home, but regulation would reduce this. Think if alcohol was not regulated and there was no age limit, surely there would be more drunk teens on the road?
3. Some people use it just because it is taboo, but if it turns out not to be then their thrill from breaking the law is gone.
4. Public education will teach more of all of the issues associated, rather than telling them just don't do it becuase we said so.
5. Violent crime will reduce that is directly related to cannabis, just as it did with alcohol prohibition. While alcohol was illegal mobs and gangs distributed it on the streets and the government could not stop it and lost out on revenue. When they legalized it, it took the power away from the black market and this took the money away from the moon shiners. How can a gang or mob compete with a company like Anheuser-Busch and still make a profit? They can't and that is why we don't have speak-easy's today with illegal liquor.
6. As you pointed out, those using won't increase because they are going to use it, legal or not. Most of them don't care about the legality in the first place.

Bottom line is that the demand is there, but right now the black market is the only market profiting. Demand won't increase, and may not decrease, but for sure it is not going away so why not educate the public and profit from those who chose to use it? How much power would the cartels in Mexico have if their entire demand for cannabis dissapeared?

That is my point exactly. It was decriminalized and legalized in CA, and the usage is increasing, albeit, slowly.

This is the time to jump on it and get it sorted because USE will go up, I promise you that.

And as usage goes up, there will be an increase in problems specifically related to usage.

So we need to nip that shit in the butt now while we have the American's attention.

Your number points I somewhat agree with.

Violence will not necessarily go down.

As you can see from my above post, violence + MJ is real and exists.

The people like Toycar who smoke and hold down a job are not necessarily the ones who will be violent.

Now in that study it was noted that a lot of the violence has to do with the sale and distrbution of narcotics, so once it is legalized and not an item that can be sold anymore on the black market, then violence specifically related to sale and distribution will go away, but that doesn't account for domestic violence or any of the other 1000s of crimes commited under the influence that has nothing to do with selling or buying of illegal goods.

[toycar]

I think studying demographics paired with drug use is a poor example of accomplishing anything.



African American culture is different all together. Im not being racist, Im being honest.


Bill Cosby wrote a book that was considered offensive by many African American people, but was pure fact and statistics.


The fact is, marijuana use or not, the most likely cause of death for an african american male between ages 15-29 is another african american with a gun.


2/3 African american males are either in prison, in jail, or on parole/probation.

So, to me that study is whack from square one.



Did you get a chance to read any of the studies I posted links too?


Ill go quote some awesome, gov funded 'science' and get right back to this.

[deevergote]

Any study is going to be skewed. As someone with a science degree (and a "soft science" at that), I can say that with absolute certainty. It's almost impossible to conduct such a study without bias one way or another. Used in this context, it's merely a puffed up way of arguing opinion!

[toycar]

so I just copy and pasted this;



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


9) HEAVY MARIJUANA USE AS A YOUNG ADULT WON’T RUIN YOUR LIFE: Veterans Affairs scientists looked at whether heavy marijuana use as a young adult caused long-term problems later, studying identical twins in which one twin had been a heavy marijuana user for a year or longer but had stopped at least one month before the study, while the second twin had used marijuana no more than five times ever. Marijuana use had no significant impact on physical or mental health care utilization, health-related quality of life, or current socio-demographic characteristics. Eisen SE et al. Does Marijuana Use Have Residual Adverse Effects on Self-Reported Health Measures, Socio-Demographics or Quality of Life? A Monozygotic Co-Twin Control Study in Men. Addiction. Vol. 97 No. 9. p.1083-1086. Sept. 1997

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

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


6) PROHIBITION DOESN’T WORK (PART II): DOES PROHIBITION CAUSE THE “GATEWAY EFFECT”?): U.S. and Dutch researchers, supported in part by NIDA, compared marijuana users in San Francisco, where non-medical use remains illegal, to Amsterdam, where adults may possess and purchase small amounts of marijuana from regulated businesses. Looking at such parameters as frequency and quantity of use and age at onset of use, they found no differences except one: Lifetime use of hard drugs was significantly lower in Amsterdam, with its “tolerant” marijuana policies. For example, lifetime crack cocaine use was 4.5 times higher in San Francisco than Amsterdam. Reinarman, C, Cohen, PDA, and Kaal, HL. The Limited Relevance of Drug Policy: Cannabis in Amsterdam and San Francisco. American Journal of Public Health. Vol. 94, No. 5. May 2004. p. 836-842.


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

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

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

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

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



And all of those studies are real. I made the study information in bold if anyone is interested in actually reading up on them. If you look up the study you can find a plethora of information regarding the study and conclusions.



My opinion, nobody really knows all of the in's and out's but for sure, nobody has died from MJ use alone.



People die from energy drinks for christ sakes. The nature of the conversation about MJ has got to change.

[AAPOQ]

^Toycar

[Ralphie]

A bunch of shit

Please show me where I or Scott decided that your opinion/life did not matter and that our's were worth more?


Im right here with you buddy, but Im shooting out hard facts and theories and your talking about a whole culture in the shadows.

Cmon?

Ill gladly await them to come out show me otherwise, but All I have to go on right now is the studies that have been done and the people I have interacted with.


Im not trying to impose on your life and I don't expect you to impose on mine.

Ive said from the beginning im with you on the legalization.

I don't think or claim that you or anyone else want's a free ride or pass to get high and do stupid shit.

Just because you claim your going to behave and everyone else who can handle their weed, doesn't mean there aren't ten people for everyone one who can't handle their shit.

Just like alcohol.

I don't know where you lost me but I think that your perception is off a bit and your getting frustrated because you don't have the power to show anyone otherwise.


It is ok, Rome wasn't built in a day.

Change takes time so don't sweat it.

[wildBill83]

What I am talking about is laws and regulation from the Fed agencies. Im not talking about black markets or the cartels. They don't get a say.

Black market has more say in what is on our streets than the gov't does anyday. They do get a HUGE say in the matter.

Eh im not so sure about some of these claims. I have no idea what Jimson weed is, but I won't argue about it being part of our "society" since the days of Washington. It has NEVER been a part of our culture. Society and culture are two different things.

Pre-America, the natives smoked it (and still do) that makes it part of their culture. Pre-reefer madness, it was a good chunk of a culture for certain groups. Hell even hippy culture since the 60's involved it, so yeah it is a part of some cultures in the US, just not your specific culture. Hell lest go back even further, it was used in the old testament and new testament, it was just named canna bosom, this makes it part of that culture too.

Jimson weed, Jamestown weed or night shade is a plant grown in the south and produces strong halucinations and upto death. It is used in native cultures for spiritual expansion. Google it, it provides a good read.

Education is a wonderful thing.

Agreed 200%

See I never discounted it, I just didn't have a reason to read them. Then once you brought up some points, I had a reason to go back and read them. That is being open minded.

It was part of the conversation, it was pertinent information, even before I brought up the points again.

That is my point exactly. It was decriminalized and legalized in CA, and the usage is increasing, albeit, slowly.

This is the time to jump on it and get it sorted because USE will go up, I promise you that.

It has not been legalized for recreational use, it is a perscription drug. Has oxy use increased? Yes, but it is perscribed and legal as well. Legality has no bearing on usage. Those that want it will get it.

And as usage goes up, there will be an increase in problems specifically related to usage.

What problems related to usage do you see increasing?

Violence will not necessarily go down.

As you can see from my above post, violence + MJ is real and exists.

Did you miss my post that is to a study that states MJ is NOT linked to violence? http://www.cb7tuner.com/vbb/showpost...&postcount=140

Now in that study it was noted that a lot of the violence has to do with the sale and distrbution of narcotics, so once it is legalized and not an item that can be sold anymore on the black market, then violence specifically related to sale and distribution will go away, but that doesn't account for domestic violence or any of the other 1000s of crimes commited under the influence that has nothing to do with selling or buying of illegal goods.

Have you looked at the number of marijuana related domestic violence cases compared to alcohol? I can assure you that the number of alcohol cases GREATLY outweighs cannabis in every study.

[deevergote]

Most violence related to marijuana is often associated with the illegality of it (dealers, non-paying customers, etc...)

However, due to the fact that, like alcohol, marijuana DOES alter your state of mind... violence IS a possible outcome. Generally, marijuana mellows people out, but so does alcohol. Still, violent behavior as associated with marijuana is a pretty weak argument against the legalization of it. That argument can be made against television, video games, and music as well.



I do want to thank you guys for keeping it civil. I don't think we've ever had a thread about a controversial topic make it to 8 pages without people getting banned, and the thread being locked.
A discussion like this proves that perhaps this community IS capable of having an intelligent conversation.

I do ask that it remain civil.

[toycar]

nah, not frustrated at all. And its not personal, sorry if I came across that way.




It seems as though your feelings are based upon a fear that we smokers are going to go rampant if it is made legal.


By expressing that you have expectations, I am forced into a position that I must listen to your demands. Maybe my words are strong here, so bare with me.


Either way, by asking me not to effect your life, you are in fact extending yourself into mine with your expectations. I mean, you wouldn't express this stuff without an expectation that some or all of your feelings be respected.


Your opinions actually do matter to me.


I like Ralphie alot. Probably my favorite person to shoot the shit with on the forum.



But as a citizen talking to a citizen, where does a non smoker get off thinking they have any right dictating how my smoking habit should be handled? if we can agree that my smoking should not influence your life, why can't we agree that your expectations should not interfere with mine.


Thats my point. By having expectations you create a situation that we need to abide or comply with what you want. Your expectations are being driven off of an unreasonable understanding of my habit.


So, like I said. At what point did your opinion or expectations or life become more important than my own?



Im not taking it personally, im trying to articulate my point.





People are currently in the same turmoil over hot topics such as abortion, the war, public funding etc..




Where the compromise with weed?




The "facts" that non smokers quote are a mochery of what being a pot head really is. Anyone that smokes weed knows this.


So, not only are the "facts" far from accurate, they are also repeated by people day in and day out that have no clue about MJ.


For users of MJ, we are controlled by this situation.

Constantly coined as living in the fog, being disconnected from reality, just defensive about itor being labeled as the exception to the rule.



The perception of MJ is the problem and what Im trying to shed light on here.



Not only is the percieved effects of MJ blown out of proportion, people fail to realize that expressing their feelings so strongly alienates people like me.

People being so unwilling to negotiate over the "facts" makes it nearly impossible to have a productive conversation about the truth.



Not to mention, that the common theory about MJ users is insulting and completely innaccurate.



People are so sensitive about their own lives that they fail to realize that there are MILLIONS of people smoking weed every day and function in life without any issues at all.


All of the falacy that leads to missinformation being repeated and claimed as fact is just plain difficult to digest as a smoker. Especially when you have been smoking as long as I have and know better.