# Weed--will the feds end the madness?



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

NYT created something of a stir yesterday by coming out, and in full force, against marijuana prohibition and calling on the federal government to repeal marijuana laws. They're following up with a week's worth of stories on the issue. Reminiscent of what the Seattle Times did a few years back--after the paper's editorial board argued for legalization, voters passed an initiative that did exactly that. My guess is that the federal ban will end within a decade. Am I wrong?


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

That dépends on who has control of the government over the next 10 years. I can see the cons going for a reversal and complete enforcement. Depending on whatever issues arrise, much of the blame will fall on pot from the cons & they'll try to spin it as if prohibition is the only true way "forward". The democrats don't seem to care much either way and there are few of them that have come out in favor of existing laws and regualtions.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

I can certainly see an easing of anti-marijuana laws, especially where medically prescribed, but there's a lot of money invested in the "war against drugs", so a total lifting of prohibitions, no. Two examples immediately come to mind: "seizure" of really nice vehicles and the D.A.R.E. program funding. These make local police depts. large and small, everywhere, _very_ happy, and if marijuana is off the board, they'll pretty much wither.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

No.

Lawlessness will continue to breed more lawlessness.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

I think that DARE is pretty much over, but I could be mistaken. Study after study showed that it was useless. As for cons being anti-pot, I'm not so sure that's the case. There are polls out there that indicate R's are more in favor of legalization than D's.

The problem, of course, is that the industry is bound to attract criminals because it is, by necessity, an all-cash business because banks won't do business with pot growers or retailers, even in states where it is legal. When banks sought clarification from the Obama administration, they got none--it boiled down to, use common sense, and you'll be OK, but we still consider pot to be illegal. Well...

Properly timed, I think that it could be done with little or no political backlash as well as bipartisan support. If the next president acted early in his (or her) term, he (or she) wouldn't be punished come reelection time because after two or three years of legal pot, people would see that no one grew hair on their palms, the crime rate didn't change and there was more room for rapists and robbers in prisons now that potheads weren't getting arrested. Or, Obama could push for it now, given he's not going to be running again.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> The problem, of course, is that the industry is bound to attract criminals because it is, by necessity, an all-cash business because banks won't do business with pot growers or retailers, even in states where it is legal. When banks sought clarification from the Obama administration, they got none--it boiled down to, use common sense, and you'll be OK, but we still consider pot to be illegal. Well...
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> If one is allowed to smoke pot, are they also not allowed to grow it? After the wrinkles get ironed out, I would guess many of the "regular" smokers would have a plant or 2. While there are a few shops here that will sell baggies of the stuff, many people are "hobbiests" and grow their own. It costs less and they know how it was grown (pesticides, etc).


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

justonemore said:


> 32rollandrock said:
> 
> 
> > The problem, of course, is that the industry is bound to attract criminals because it is, by necessity, an all-cash business because banks won't do business with pot growers or retailers, even in states where it is legal. When banks sought clarification from the Obama administration, they got none--it boiled down to, use common sense, and you'll be OK, but we still consider pot to be illegal. Well...
> ...


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

It's not lawlessness if the laws are changed!

I for one hope they do. Alcohol is legal, so should marijuana. Where does one draw the line? I'm not sure, but marijuana is no more debilitating then alcohol, and might, in fact, be healthier for you (though the jury is out on that one). Just tax the hell out of it.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Pentheos said:


> It's not lawlessness if the laws are changed!
> 
> Alcohol is legal, so should marijuana. Where does one draw the line?


1) If the law said the law is whatever the King says it is, that's lawlessness and many people object to it.

2) If alcohol is used and one exceeds a BAC of .08 in most states and kill someone while driving it is a serious crime. When that threshold is established and backed up by precedent in court for weed, I'd consider decriminalization.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) If the law said the law is whatever the King says it is, that's lawlessness and many people object to it.
> 
> 2) If alcohol is used and one exceeds a BAC of .08 in most states and kill someone while driving it is a serious crime. When that threshold is established and backed up by precedent in court for weed, I'd consider decriminalization.


Dangers of stoned driving are greatly exaggerated--in fact, some studies indicate a stoned driver is a safer driver. Whether that's true or not, I don't know, but I do know that there has been no increase in traffic fatalities/accidents in states with liberalized marijuana laws. Here's one article on the subject: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/18/health/driving-under-the-influence-of-marijuana.html?_r=0

The salient point is, researchers have been trying like the dickens to show that marijuana negatively impacts driving performance but have been unable to make that link. Remember, also, that not all drugs make you a bad driver. If that was true, they wouldn't give amphetamines to Air Force pilots to keep them alert while in control of multi-million dollar aircraft. But drivers under the influence of amphetamines can, and have, been charged with DUI. Where's the sense in that?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Grass is dangerous....FACT! Regardless of any of the so called facts that the legalize lobby put forward. Independent medical research in many countries has shown the long lasting damaging psychological and physical effects of cannabis.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> Dangers of stoned driving are greatly exaggerated--in fact, some studies indicate a stoned driver is a safer driver. Whether that's true or not, I don't know,


I do. 

How did they measure how stoned the driver was??


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Pentheos said:


> It's not lawlessness if the laws are changed!
> 
> I for one hope they do. Alcohol is legal, so should marijuana. Where does one draw the line? I'm not sure, but marijuana is no more debilitating then alcohol, and might, in fact, be healthier for you (though the jury is out on that one). Just tax the hell out of it.


Alcohol and marijuana are completely different chemically as well as their psychoactive effects. Alcohol consumed in sufficient quantities can be dangerous and fatal obviously but the question is regarding the long term use of marijuana.

Marijuana is a psychoactive drug affecting mood, memory as well as inducing hallucinations. It's effect both In the short term and long term are completely different. Just because it would make life easy to legalize doesn't meant that we should.

Furthermore, alcohol is something that as a society we have come to grips with and know how to control. Yes people do become alcoholics, but we have socially integrated it quite well.

Legalizing pot will cause it to find it's way even more pervasively into the hands of children and the effects on their growing bodies and not to mention their not yet plasticized neural pathways would be incredibly dangerous. As I mentioned, pot and alcohol work completely differently in the CNS.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> I do.
> 
> How did they measure how stoned the driver was??


One was done in Germany in a nightclub district where subjects were asked to self-report what they had consumed just prior to being put on a driving simulator. Not necessarily the most scientifically rigorous course. I think another was done in Israel, but I'm not certain about methodology. The consensus seems to be that stoned drivers are aware that they may be impaired and so compensate by driving more slowly, which could explain why they might actually be safer when stoned than straight. The important point, though, is that if someone was able to objectively demonstrate that pot smokers are bad drivers, they would have done that by now. That researchers haven't been able to show that leads me to believe that the myth of stoned drivers causing mayhem on the highways (no pun intended) is just that, a myth. I'm a big believer in going by what can be proven, not what is assumed, especially in the criminal justice system.

I think that SG's points are well taken, but I will disagree with him nonetheless. Pot is now so widely available that there are no real barriers to anyone who cares to indulge, regardless of age. I think that cigarettes are much more dangerous, as is alcohol, and I suspect that SG would likely agree with me--if nothing else, both cigarettes and alcohol have a greater addictive potential than marijuana. I disagree with SG that marijuana causes hallucinations--I'm not sure where he's coming up with that, but it sounds like an old wives' tale. I disagree that we as a society have come to grips with controlling alcohol. We do an OK job with that at best, I think, and we would do well to toughen DUI laws as I understand is the case in Europe. And I don't see how legalization will make pot more available for kids than it already is.

End of the day, it's a balancing test, as are so many other things. The negative impacts of marijuana prohibition outweigh the positive impacts, in my opinion, and so we should end prohibition. Simple as that.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Business newspapers in the midwest US have editorialized in favor of legalizing marijuana. I believe it will likely be legalized on a federal level within the next 10-15 years, leaving individual states to decide on their own how to regulate the stuff.

None of this means weed is safe for the young, but compared to backyard swimming pools it's relatively harmless. :devil:


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

32rollandrock;1580312 QUOTE said:


> There is a lot more to growing pot than planting a few seeds and letting Mother Nature have her way. My guess is that most folks are going to opt to pay $10 for a small bag every few weeks rather than shell out for the equipment and electricity required to grow quality marijuana.


I've "heard "that there are some pretty nice outdoor grown buds coming through the area come harvest time. Is it as potent and as pretty as the indoor? No, but it's not that compressed ditch weed full of stems and seeds you'd find in the states 25 years ago either. You can get a hybrid seed/plant that does best outdoors or when potted on your balcony & it's still a decent smoke without high investments in time and equipment.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> One was done in Germany in a nightclub district where subjects were asked to self-report what they had consumed just prior to being put on a driving simulator. Not necessarily the most scientifically rigorous course. I think another was done in Israel, but I'm not certain about methodology. The consensus seems to be that stoned drivers are aware that they may be impaired and so compensate by driving more slowly, which could explain why they might actually be safer when stoned than straight. The important point, though, is that if someone was able to objectively demonstrate that pot smokers are bad drivers, they would have done that by now. That researchers haven't been able to show that leads me to believe that the myth of stoned drivers causing mayhem on the highways (no pun intended) is just that, a myth. I'm a big believer in going by what can be proven, not what is assumed, especially in the criminal justice system.
> 
> I think that SG's points are well taken, but I will disagree with him nonetheless. Pot is now so widely available that there are no real barriers to anyone who cares to indulge, regardless of age. I think that cigarettes are much more dangerous, as is alcohol, and I suspect that SG would likely agree with me--if nothing else, both cigarettes and alcohol have a greater addictive potential than marijuana. I disagree with SG that marijuana causes hallucinations--I'm not sure where he's coming up with that, but it sounds like an old wives' tale. I disagree that we as a society have come to grips with controlling alcohol. We do an OK job with that at best, I think, and we would do well to toughen DUI laws as I understand is the case in Europe. And I don't see how legalization will make pot more available for kids than it already is.
> 
> End of the day, it's a balancing test, as are so many other things. The negative impacts of marijuana prohibition outweigh the positive impacts, in my opinion, and so we should end prohibition. Simple as that.


On hallucinations:

https://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/mari.html

https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleID=152424 (abstract only)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0920996408005069 (abstract only)

On dependence:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3660143/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3636166/

Cigarettes and alcohol are much more prevalent in our society. Were pot to be as ubiquitous, I believe your views on what is more dangerous would change.

While I understand the debate for legalizing pot, we should at least understand what it does to our brains. As for addiction, there is no argument as to dependence, and while not technically and medically addiction, it is nonetheless as destructive. The reason is, as I stated earlier, marijuana works on different types of neuroreceptors and simply acts on us differently than either alcohol and tobacco.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> On hallucinations:
> 
> https://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/mari.html
> 
> ...


It already is ubiquitous in some states. In Washington, which has legalized for recreational use, it is not at all unusual to smell pot smoke wafting through the air as one enjoys a glass of wine on the backyard deck (this from a friend who lives there). I agree that it is a different drug than alcohol or cigarettes. Is it as habit forming? I don't think so. Even heavy users routinely abstain for the requisite 30 days so they can pass pre-employment drug tests. Cigarette smokers can't do that, nor can alcoholics.

The issue is, or should be, what is the best way to convince folks to make good decisions regarding their health. In my opinion, we would be much better off treating drug use as a health issue instead of a criminal issue. The latter clearly has not worked. We would be better off if we spent all the money that is now being spent on cops and prisons and courts on treatment that is now difficult to obtain for many people who want and need it but do not have access. The only way they get treatment is if they get busted, and that rarely works because it is sword-over-your-head treatment. There are going to be hardcore drug addicts no matter what we do. Why should we limit drug treatment to those who do not want it?

I should add that most of us, if we are typical, know people who smoke marijuana. Most of us have probably tried it ourselves. It is very difficult to put personal experiences and observations aside and conclude that pot rots brains and causes people to jump off buildings and hallucinate. I'm sorry, but that is Reefer Madness stuff. I think that we would do well to follow the example of Portugal and legalize everything. The sky hasn't fallen there and it wouldn't fall here. There are vested interests that will argue otherwise, but those are vested interests. Of course drugs are harmful. But criminalizing everything that is harmful is a fool's errand.


----------



## gaseousclay (Nov 8, 2009)

One thing is certain, marijuana legalization will be a boon to the Doritos industry


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

The most recent take by NYT:

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/29/...n-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=0

I think that the point can be made even more strongly. I think that we are placing the lives of law enforcement officers at risk to enforce silly marijuana laws. Case in point: A jury not far from where I live recently acquitted a man on charges of attempted murder of a police officer. The cops raided his house at 6:30 a.m. after receiving a tip that he was selling weed. They knew that he had been the victim of a home invasion a month earlier. They knew that he was armed. He had barricaded his door for fear the robbers would return. When the cops tried breaking his door down, he fired through the closed door--at knee level--then immediately called 911 to report that he was being robbed. When the dispatcher told him it was the cops, he didn't flush the drugs down the toilet, he immediately opened the door and apologized.

Cop ended up with an ankle wound from the gun aimed through the door at below the waist. Turns out there was no evidence that the shooter was doing anything more serious than giving pot away to friends--they found a measly amount. He's 33 and was gainfully employed at the time of the incident but is now facing a minimum of 15 years in prison because he was convicted of burglary at age 18, so he wasn't supposed to have a gun. There were several trumped-up enhancements with mandatory minimums that the prosecutor is using to maximize his time in prison. Was he wrong? Yes. Should he be punished? Yes. Should I and other taxpayers have to pay to incarcerate him for 15 years? I say no. That's the problem with criminalizing drugs. The cops end up doing stupid stuff like raiding the homes of low-level dealers who don't present a threat to anyone and who have no history of violence and no motive to shoot at the police and a cop gets shot and this guy's life is ruined over an ounce of weed. Incredibly, incredibly stupid.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

I don't really care, but I do care that people later on claim that they can't quit, that pot companies marketed it to young people, and everything else that happened with cigarettes. You want to smoke then they are your lungs. But every time you buy some, you have to sign something that says you promise never to sue if negative health effects every happen form ingesting smoke in your lungs. And driving stoned is as dangerous as driving drunk, so the penalties should be the same.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

vpkozel said:


> I don't really care, but I do care that people later on claim that they can't quit, that pot companies marketed it to young people, and everything else that happened with cigarettes. You want to smoke then they are your lungs. But every time you buy some, you have to sign something that says you promise never to sue if negative health effects every happen form ingesting smoke in your lungs. *And driving stoned is as dangerous as driving drunk, so the penalties should be the same.*


Peer reviewed evidence, please.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> Peer reviewed evidence, please.


I will try to find a couple of studies, however the laws are written as "driving under the influence" not exclusive to alcohol.

One could be on prescribed narcotics and still be convicted if he is driving while doped up on pain killers.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

The law is quite specific, the level of effect or type of effect is irrelevant. The UK Act also says, "driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs"


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

MaxBuck said:


> None of this means weed is safe for the young, but compared to backyard swimming pools it's relatively harmless. :devil:


Don't get me started on trampolines and pit bulls!!


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Don't get me started on trampolines and pit bulls!!


Seems like a harmless enough passtime to me:


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> I will try to find a couple of studies, however the laws are written as "driving under the influence" not exclusive to alcohol.
> 
> One could be on prescribed narcotics and still be convicted if he is driving while doped up on pain killers.


Correct. However, it is not a one-size-fits-all. I know of a case in which a school bus driver was charged with DUI and vehicular homicide. She had taken prescribed opiods for back pain before getting behind the wheel and getting into an accident. While the level of drugs in her system was fairly high, the defense successfully showed that she had developed a tolerance and so the amount of drugs in her system, while high (no pun intended) for you or I was not a big deal for her. She was acquitted.

It's not a popular notion, but the same logic can apply for alcohol. A .08 BAC in an alcoholic is much less likely, I think, to result in poor driving than a .08 in someone who rarely drinks. Alcoholics are accustomed to being drunk, and so they can drink more than the average person and still be safe on the road. A friend fits this description well. Before he moved on to prescription painkillers, he was a huge boozer. There was a point where he could not safely drive, but I usually felt safer with him behind the wheel than his wife, a teetotaler who was simply a poor driver and had no end of fender benders caused by her lack of driving skill. I am not advocating driving while drunk--not at all. Just saying that drugs and alcohol have different effects on different people.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ I think some of this is done so as to present an object and clearly defined criteria as to what is and is not impairment. I understand your point though, the same level of drugs will effect people differently.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> The law is quite specific, the level of effect or type of effect is irrelevant. The UK Act also says, "driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs"


The law is screwy and internally inconsistent. Case in point is DUI law in Arizona, where it is illegal to drive if "impaired to the slightest degree." That is, essentially, a zero tolerance statute for driving after having consumed any alcohol. A person at .04 is ever-so-slightly impaired, and so that qualifies as DUI under the statute. Like every other state, Arizona also has a .08 BAC threshold. They should make it one or the other. Either toss out the .08 standard and prosecute everyone who has consumed any amount of alcohol before getting behind the wheel or toss out the "to the slightest degree" language and go with .08. They could also change the language so that it reads something like "impaired to a degree sufficient to negatively and substantially affect driving skills," or something along those lines. As mentioned previously, you can be convicted of DUI if under the influence of drugs, such as amphetamines, that make you a better driver. No one wants motorists on the road who are so whacked out of their minds as to pose a danger to the public, but DUI laws sometimes go too far.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> ^ I think some of this is done so as to present an object and clearly defined criteria as to what is and is not impairment. I understand your point though, the same level of drugs will effect people differently.


It's "affect," not "effect." Second time today that you've been caught allowing your electronic device to think for you...:devil:


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Shaver said:


> Seems like a harmless enough passtime to me:


It's always shits and giggles until someone gets paralyzed THEN mauled!!


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> It's always shits and giggles until someone gets paralyzed THEN mauled!!


_Au contraire_. I rather enjoy the mauling part of it...


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> It's "affect," not "effect." Second time today that you've been caught allowing your electronic device to think for you...:devil:


No, I meant effect. Affect being an emotional response. Effect being the effect the drug has on one's nervous system.

edit:
https://grammar.yourdictionary.com/style-and-usage/affect-effect-grammar.html


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> The law is screwy and internally inconsistent.


Imagine how greatly it would be improved if there were no standard of intoxication at all!!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Imagine how greatly it would be improved if there were no standard of intoxication at all!!


Correct! It may be screwy but imagine if there was that much open to interpretation. If one is under the influence he is under the influence, period! How well someone can "handle" the high or the level of alcohol is not of consequence.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> No, I meant effect. Affect being an emotional response. Effect being the effect the drug has on one's nervous system.
> 
> edit:
> https://grammar.yourdictionary.com/style-and-usage/affect-effect-grammar.html


Sorry, but you used the word as a verb. I'll fight to the death on this one!


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Imagine how greatly it would be improved if there were no standard of intoxication at all!!


The best standard, really, is a zero standard. If any alcohol is in your system, you are guilty of DUI, period. That really is the only way to eliminate subjectivity and make it fair.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> The best standard, really, is a zero standard. If any alcohol is in your system, you are guilty of DUI, period. That really is the only way to eliminate subjectivity and make it fair.


So the same "standard" would be allied to THC levels??


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> So the same "standard" would be allied to THC levels??


No, because there is no evidence that THC impairs driving skills--not a single peer-reviewed academic study. Nada. Not the case with alcohol. There is abundant evidence that alcohol negatively impacts driving ability.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> No, because there is no evidence that THC impairs driving skills--not a single peer-reviewed academic study. Nada. Not the case with alcohol. There is abundant evidence that alcohol negatively impacts driving ability.


If you can't trust your government, who can you trust?? ;0

*Effects on Driving:* The drug manufacturer suggests that patients receiving treatment with Marinol® should be specifically warned not to drive until it is established that they are able to tolerate the drug and perform such tasks safely. Epidemiology data from road traffic arrests and fatalities indicate that after alcohol, marijuana is the most frequently detected psychoactive substance among driving populations. Marijuana has been shown to impair performance on driving simulator tasks and on open and closed driving courses for up to approximately 3 hours. Decreased car handling performance, increased reaction times, impaired time and distance estimation, inability to maintain headway, lateral travel, subjective sleepiness, motor incoordination, and impaired sustained vigilance have all been reported. Some drivers may actually be able to improve performance for brief periods by overcompensating for self-perceived impairment. The greater the demands placed on the driver, however, the more critical the likely impairment. Marijuana may particularly impair monotonous and prolonged driving. Decision times to evaluate situations and determine appropriate responses increase. Mixing alcohol and marijuana may dramatically produce effects greater than either drug on its own.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

32rollandrock said:


> Sorry, but you used the word as a verb. I'll fight to the death on this one!


"Effect" can be a verb. But you are correct. In this instance the proper word is "affect."

"Tomorrow we will 'effect' the merger, which will profoundly 'affect' our company."


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> Sorry, but you used the word as a verb. I'll fight to the death on this one!


https://www.biomedicaleditor.com/word-usage-affect.html


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> No, because there is no evidence that THC impairs driving skills--not a single peer-reviewed academic study. Nada. Not the case with alcohol. There is abundant evidence that alcohol negatively impacts driving ability.


https://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/34/1/65.short

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi...sCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457512002709


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> ^ I think some of this is done so as to present an object and clearly defined criteria as to what is and is not impairment. I understand your point though, the same level of drugs will *effect* people differently.


You are using the word as a verb. When it's a verb, it is 99.99999 percent of the time going to start with the letter "a," and that's the case here. Think about synonyms. "Impact" would be an appropriate synonym, but "impact" does not mean the same thing as "effect." Trust me.

If you didn't smoke so much pot, you wouldn't have these issues.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

SG_67 said:


> https://www.biomedicaleditor.com/word-usage-affect.html


You are correct that "effect" can be used as a verb, and such usage is especially common in the medical area.

"The proper dosage will 'effect' a cure, but should not 'affect' her nervous system."

In your post the proper word was "affect." "Effect" as a verb means "to bring about or cause."


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> You are using the word as a verb. When it's a verb, it is 99.99999 percent of the time going to start with the letter "a," and that's the case here. Think about synonyms. "Impact" would be an appropriate synonym, but "impact" does not mean the same thing as "effect." Trust me.
> 
> If you didn't smoke so much pot, you wouldn't have these issues.


Yes....I really should lay off the smoke! I'll defer to the wordsmith in this case.

99.9999%? So you're saying there's a chance? (paraphrasing Lloyd Christmas from Dumb and Dumber)


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> https://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/34/1/65.short
> 
> https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi...sCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false
> 
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457512002709


These studies are all wrong. I have to get some (paid) work done now, but will be back with studies of my own. Stay tuned...


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> Yes....I really should lay off the smoke! I'll defer to the wordsmith in this case.
> 
> 99.9999%? So you're saying there's a chance? (paraphrasing Lloyd Christmas from Dumb and Dumber)


I never saw Dumb and Dumber, but I did see Wayne's World and, yes, I suppose there is a chance that monkeys could fly forth from one's arse.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> These studies are all wrong.


That isn't what you said.



32rollandrock said:


> No, because there is no evidence that THC impairs driving skills--not a single peer-reviewed academic study. Nada.


Is what you said.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Legalise drugs? That must just remain wishful thinking for some. All self-respecting hashish eaters must realise they can exist only on the fringes of society.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> These studies are all wrong. I have to get some (paid) work done now, but will be back with studies of my own. Stay tuned...


Studies are studies. They're peer reviewed and I'm sure you can find studies that show that there's no impairment. Much comes down to the design of the study and it's overall validity.


----------



## pleasehelp (Sep 8, 2005)

SG - should we assume that you are opposed to legalizing weed for any purpose (medical or otherwise)?

I am not knowledgeable enough on the subject to have strong feelings about it, although I do lean towards allowing people to make their own decisions as a general matter (including stupid decisions) unless it poses an undue societal risk (e.g., I'm opposed to unrestricted access to drugs that would pose a risk of making drug-resistant bacteria). I do think a doctor's opinion is particularly interesting on this subject. It seems a bit strange to me that a doctor would not want to legalize a particular item for medical purposes but I'd be interested in your view.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ extract the active ingredients and put it in pill form. Like we do we opioids. 

Allowing a bunch of hippies to sell pot out of "marijuana dispensaries" is ridiculous! We have no idea of what's in the stuff, there are no FDA guidelines nor is it tested. Would you buy aspirin from someone who mixed it in his bathtub? Moreover, there's no standardization. Pot sold in one state or dispensary could, and likely is, completely different from that sold in another. 

By the way, just because something may be of medical value, it still must be weighed against the potential harm to either individuals or the public at large. 

The DEA tightly regulates the prescription narcotic market. I have to register with the DEA and receive a DEA number in order to prescribe certain meds. If my prescription patterns are disproportionately higher than my colleagues in the area then I'm investigated for probable drug peddling. I'm not sure strictures are in place for "medical marijuana".


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> ^ extract the active ingredients and put it in pill form. Like we do we opioids.
> 
> Allowing a bunch of hippies to sell pot out of "marijuana dispensaries" is ridiculous! We have no idea of what's in the stuff, there are no FDA guidelines nor is it tested. Would you buy aspirin from someone who mixed it in his bathtub? Moreover, there's no standardization. Pot sold in one state or dispensary could, and likely is, completely different from that sold in another.
> 
> ...


Folks who do smoke for medical purposes will tell you that Marinol, the pill containing THC, simply doesn't work as well as smoking. For one thing, Marinol takes awhile to kick in. Relief is instant, or so I'm told, when patients smoke. I base this largely on the experience of a late friend who succumbed to bone cancer. He swore by marijuana, and I have no doubt that it really helped him. I think that marijuana is much less dangerous than prescription painkillers.

This said, the medical marijuana stuff is, largely, a fig leaf. No legitimate doctor will recommend in writing that a patient consume marijuana. To do so would jeopardize their DEA license to prescribe meds, which would pretty much put them out of the doctoring business. What has happened in states like Washington and California is that quacks who have managed to hold onto their medical license write "prescriptions" for pot, and that is all that they do. It's a pretty good business. They get $150 or so in exchange for writing a note saying that you need marijuana to relieve stress, headaches, depression, whatever it is you tell the "doctor" that you have. Cards are ubiquitous--whoever wants one gets one. I'm in favor of ending the hypocrisy. I am an educated adult, and I think that adults, educated or not, should be allowed to decide whether to smoke pot, just as they are allowed to decide whether to smoke cigarettes or drink whiskey. I'm also a taxpayer, and the amount of money that's being wasted on pot in the criminal justice system makes me angry.

As for what's in marijuana, I'm not too worried. It's a plant. There's no incentive or point to adulterating it. It's been used for thousands of years. I'd say the track record is pretty good.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> No legitimate doctor will recommend in writing that a patient consume marijuana.


I've never gotten an RX for anything else that said "take as much as you need whenever you feel like it!!"


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> Folks who do smoke for medical purposes will tell you that Marinol, the pill containing THC, simply doesn't work as well as smoking. For one thing, Marinol takes awhile to kick in. Relief is instant, or so I'm told, when patients smoke. I base this largely on the experience of a late friend who succumbed to bone cancer. He swore by marijuana, and I have no doubt that it really helped him. I think that marijuana is much less dangerous than prescription painkillers.
> 
> This said, the medical marijuana stuff is, largely, a fig leaf. No legitimate doctor will recommend in writing that a patient consume marijuana. To do so would jeopardize their DEA license to prescribe meds, which would pretty much put them out of the doctoring business. What has happened in states like Washington and California is that quacks who have managed to hold onto their medical license write "prescriptions" for pot, and that is all that they do. It's a pretty good business. They get $150 or so in exchange for writing a note saying that you need marijuana to relieve stress, headaches, depression, whatever it is you tell the "doctor" that you have. Cards are ubiquitous--whoever wants one gets one. I'm in favor of ending the hypocrisy. I am an educated adult, and I think that adults, educated or not, should be allowed to decide whether to smoke pot, just as they are allowed to decide whether to smoke cigarettes or drink whiskey. I'm also a taxpayer, and the amount of money that's being wasted on pot in the criminal justice system makes me angry.
> 
> As for what's in marijuana, I'm not too worried. It's a plant. There's no incentive or point to adulterating it. It's been used for thousands of years. I'd say the track record is pretty good.


Just because something is a plant or natural doesn't make it safe. Not to mention that the pot that is grown is not anything like it's naturally occurring cousin, no more so than an genetically engineered apple is anything like the apples from a few hundred years ago. Today's marijuana has been modified drastically from what it was even 20-30 years ago.

As for how easy it is to obtain, you've just pointed your finger right at the problem. Any hippie can go into a pot clinic and say he needs it for anxiety, headaches or whatever other ailment he claims for which marijuana is the only cure. There's no control, there are no safeguards to keep someone from going into different doctors and getting different prescriptions. I'm not even sure if someone needs to be a medical doctor to write said "prescription", but maybe that's the case in those states that have legalized it for medical use.

As for your friend, I'm sorry for your loss and I'm sure that he found relief with marijuana. Again, whatever potential health or medical benefits need to be weighed against the potential harm to the individual and to society as a whole. I'm ok having that debate on a serious and evidence based level.

What I don't like is having this notion that pot is safe crammed down my throat because there is ample evidence that it's not. By the way, I'm not suggesting that you're doing this. I'm just referencing the general belief amongst many who advocate for this.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> Just because something is a plant or natural doesn't make it safe. Not to mention that the pot that is grown is not anything like it's naturally occurring cousin, no more so than an genetically engineered apple is anything like the apples from a few hundred years ago. Today's marijuana has been modified drastically from what it was even 20-30 years ago.
> 
> As for how easy it is to obtain, you've just pointed your finger right at the problem. Any hippie can go into a pot clinic and say he needs it for anxiety, headaches or whatever other ailment he claims for which marijuana is the only cure. There's no control, there are no safeguards to keep someone from going into different doctors and getting different prescriptions. I'm not even sure if someone needs to be a medical doctor to write said "prescription", but maybe that's the case in those states that have legalized it for medical use.
> 
> ...


He was actually an amazing guy. Got fired from every job he ever had--he had a problem not saying what was on his mind. Went to law school late in life--his parents loaned him the money for tuition--and got fired from a summer clerkship by a judge who didn't take kindly to being told that he was wrong by a second or third year law student. No one would hire him when he graduated, but a lawyer took pity on him and offered him office space. First day at the office, a former psychiatrist for the state mental hospital stopped by looking for help on his wrongful termination case. A hearing on summary dismissal was scheduled in a day or two, and the guy, who was facing the entire staff of the attorney general of the state of Washington, didn't even have a lawyer--his own one had fired him, or something like that. He found a kindred soul in Ralph, who took the case no one else wanted. He not only got the case past summary, he won. Big time. The jury verdict was in the neighborhood of $10 million, at the time the largest such award in state history. The guy no one would hire made the cover of the state bar association publication, and the local newspaper, which had fired him from a job as a columnist before he went to law school, had to write a front-page story. That was his first case as a lawyer. He represented himself in his second case. He sued the state of Washington for the right to smoke pot to deal with his cancer, and he won, long before voters approved an initiative allowing marijuana for medical purposes. One guy without even a secretary.

The pot verdict was overturned on appeal and the award in the wrongful termination case was reduced on appeal. But still. I'm not sure that he got the chance to try any other cases--he died way too young. I was invited to a dinner party at his home the night that he succumbed and am eternally mad at myself for not going. I did see a video of him playing the cello for his guests, and it was classic. He couldn't play cello worth a lick--he'd taken it up only recently and was completely tone deaf. Didn't discourage him at all. The woman who was accompanying him on the piano finally gave up and stopped playing. She had no idea what he was doing or where he would go next. He just kept sawing on to conclusion. He went into a coma a few hours later, after everyone had left, and never woke up. Several state Supreme Court justices and legislators attended his funeral, which was standing room only. Most uplifting, feel-good public gathering I have ever attended. There were no end of stories about the guy who stuck to his guns no matter what and ended up on top. Would make for a great movie.

Sorry for the digression. Always makes me feel good to remember that guy.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Why must we demonstrate that marijuana is "safe" before legalizing it? Many unsafe things are legal, and IMO many more unsafe things that are illegal should be legalized. I'm fed up with the notion that we're such stupid children that government must act _in loco parentis._


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Although I'm not a libertarian, I have some pronounced libertarian instincts. That said, even libertarians appreciate that government regulation is appropriate to the extent it can address social costs or other third party effects. The extent to which marijuana use would entail social costs is certainly worthy of debate. But what surprises me is how few people seem to grasp the relationship between economic paternalism and social paternalism. The former necessarily invites the latter. Modern western societies typically offer an increasingly robust safety net designed to remediate all manner of social ills and discomforts. Ultimately, such an approach is not compatible with social libertarianism. You cannot tell people that they can do whatever they wish as long as they don't overtly hurt anyone else and simultaneously tell them that to the extent they hurt themselves (or others in nuanced ways) other people's money will take care of them (as well as any collateral damage). In the US today that is the path we are on, and it cannot be financially sustained. Too many Americans want the liberty to do as they please, but expect other people (i.e., responsible taxpayers) to bail them out of poor decisions. A libertarian approach to both social decisions as well as economic outcomes is not preferable in my view, but it is at least sustainable, as is a paternalistic approach to social decisions coupled with either approach economically. But the trend in the US is to concurrently foster an increasingly libertarian approach to social decisions (sex, drugs and rock & roll!!) and an increasingly paternalitic approach to economic outcomes (nanny state is good for you!). This can't and won't end well.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> Although I'm not a libertarian, I have some pronounced libertarian instincts. That said, even libertarians appreciate that government regulation is appropriate to the extent it can address social costs or other third party effects. The extent to which marijuana use would entail social costs is certainly worthy of debate. But what surprises me is how few people seem to grasp the relationship between economic paternalism and social paternalism. The former necessarily invites the latter. Modern western societies typically offer an increasingly robust safety net designed to remediate all manner of social ills and discomforts. Ultimately, such an approach is not compatible with social libertarianism. You cannot tell people that they can do whatever they wish as long as they don't overtly hurt anyone else and simultaneously tell them that to the extent they hurt themselves (or others in nuanced ways) other people's money will take care of them (as well as any collateral damage). In the US today that is the path we are on, and it cannot be financially sustained. Too many Americans want the liberty to do as they please, but expect other people (i.e., responsible taxpayers) to bail them out of poor decisions. A libertarian approach to both social decisions as well as economic outcomes is not preferable in my view, but it is at least sustainable, as is a paternalistic approach to social decisions coupled with either approach economically. But the trend in the US is to concurrently foster an increasingly libertarian approach to social decisions (sex, drugs and rock & roll!!) and an increasingly paternalitic approach to economic outcomes (nanny state is good for you!). This can't and won't end well.


Strictly from an economic stance, legalization is a no-brainer. We spend a huge amount of money arresting people, locking them up, etc., and studies consistently show that the majority of Americans use or have tried marijuana. In short, making pot illegal hasn't stopped pot use, not even close. If we legalized it, we'd not only save a lot of money on cops, prisons, courts, etc., we'd also have excise taxes. Spare me the, "But what about the increased costs of people who get in car accidents caused by stoned drivers" and the rest of that rubbish--no evidence that accidents or fatalities have increased in states such as California and Washington where pot has been de facto legal for more than a decade.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> Strictly from an economic stance, legalization is a no-brainer. We spend a huge amount of money arresting people, locking them up, etc.,
> 
> If we legalized it, we'd not only save a lot of money on cops, prisons, courts, etc., we'd also have excise taxes.


1) Please list common users who have been imprisoned for minor possession violations.

2) Like casino gambling was supposed to be a cash cow in Delaware??

https://www.delawareonline.com/story/firststatepolitics/2014/03/24/delaware-casino-bailout/6743357/Lawmakers have yet to put Delaware's proposed casino bailout into legislation, but it's worth breaking down the plan, which, if approved as proposed by a state panel, would cost taxpayers more than $20 million annually in lost tax revenue.
Here are the various components of the plan, and their annual cost as estimated by the Lottery and Gaming Commission. Members of the panel include lawmakers and state Finance Secretary Tom Cook.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Strictly from an economic standpoint, it makes sense to legalize most, if not all, drugs of abuse.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

MaxBuck said:


> Strictly from an economic standpoint, it makes sense to legalize most, if not all, drugs of abuse.


If you want to live in Pottersville, maybe.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Mike Petrik said:


> ... the trend in the US is to concurrently foster an increasingly libertarian approach to social decisions (sex, drugs and rock & roll!!) and an increasingly paternalitic approach to economic outcomes (nanny state is good for you!). This can't and won't end well.


I disagree that the USA is becoming increasingly libertarian socially. For example, abortion services are becoming increasingly difficult for women to obtain legally, and proscriptions against such things as smoking have become increasingly draconian. We have creeping paternalism socially in my view.

I'll admit that certain behaviors that once were frowned upon (such as homosexual behavior) are now accepted, but behaviors we find unacceptable are legislated against with ferocity.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

MaxBuck said:


> Strictly from an economic standpoint, it makes sense to legalize most, if not all, drugs of abuse.


This business of legalizing it and getting taxes from it would be offset by medical issues arising from abuse.

The Frito-Lay company may see a windfall but what about all the lost man hours and loss of productive labor due to everyone being stoned?


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) Please list common users who have been imprisoned for minor possession violations.
> 
> 2) Like casino gambling was supposed to be a cash cow in Delaware??
> 
> ...


Well, let's see. There's Roky Erickson, who was imprisoned for possession (this was quite a few years back) in Texas, ended up NGRI and had his brain fried by electro-shock therapy in a state mental facility. There's a guy in the next county who was prosecuted for distribution, despite having less than two ounces on his person--the charge didn't fit the alleged offense, I think. There's also this from Drug War Facts, which footnotes its stuff:

Do people in the US still get arrested for marijuana? Although the intent of a 'War on Drugs' may have been to target drug smugglers and 'King Pins,' according to the FBI's annual Uniform Crime Reports, of the 1,552,432 arrests for drug law violations in 2012, 82.2% (1,276,099) were for mere possession of a controlled substance. Only 17.8% (276,333) were for the sale or manufacturing of a drug. Further, nearly half (48.3%) of drug arrests in 2012 were for marijuana -- a total of 749,825. Of those, an estimated 658,231 arrests (42.4% of all drug arrests) were for marijuana possession alone. By contrast in 2000, a total of 734,497 Americans were arrested for marijuana offenses, of which 646,042 (40.9%) were for possession alone. - See more at: https://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Marijuana#sthash.Vur7thwK.dpuf

I don't understand the nexus between casinos and cannabis. At all.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> This business of legalizing it and getting taxes from it would be offset by medical issues arising from abuse.
> 
> The Frito-Lay company may see a windfall but what about all the lost man hours and loss of productive labor due to everyone being stoned?


Why do you think that everyone will be stoned all the time?

People tend to act in their own self interest. If it is not in their own self interest, they will likely not be stoned all the time. Why do you seem to not believe that it is possible to use marijuana responsibly and lots of people do exactly that? It is good to remember that the single most effective anti-drug step taken by the government in this country was passage of the Food and Drug Act about a century ago that required labeling so that people knew what was in patent medicines. Once people knew that patent medicines contained heroin and morphine and cocaine, they stopped taking them because they knew these were harmful, albeit legal, substances. The government didn't have to force them to act in their own self interest. They did it on their own.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ Just a little tongue in cheek perhaps! 

People will indeed act in their own interest and it's doubtful someone would all of a sudden choose to start smoking pot if they didn't already have a propensity to do so. 

I do believe, however, that the larger scale harmful effects if it is legalized further are being underestimated.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

WouldaShoulda said:


> If you want to live in Pottersville, maybe.


We may not agree politically or philosophically, but that's a heck of a photo! :thumbs-up:


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

MaxBuck said:


> We may not agree politically or philosophically, but that's a heck of a photo! :thumbs-up:


I would rather live in Pottersville than Bedford Falls.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ For all of Pottersville's ills, it's debauchery, gin joints and vice it managed to have a library!


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> ^ For all of Pottersville's ills, it's debauchery, gin joints and vice it managed to have a library!


One with Donna Reed. The women who work at the library here aren't half as hot.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> This business of legalizing it and getting taxes from it would be offset by medical issues arising from abuse.


...and out of control spending.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> Do people in the US still get arrested for marijuana? Although the intent of a 'War on Drugs' may have been to target drug smugglers and 'King Pins,' according to the FBI's annual Uniform Crime Reports, of the 1,552,432 arrests for drug law violations in 2012, 82.2% (1,276,099) were for mere possession of a controlled substance. Only 17.8% (276,333) were for the sale or manufacturing of a drug. Further, nearly half (48.3%) of drug arrests in 2012 were for marijuana -- a total of 749,825. Of those, an estimated 658,231 arrests (42.4% of all drug arrests) were for marijuana possession alone. By contrast in 2000, a total of 734,497 Americans were arrested for marijuana offenses, of which 646,042 (40.9%) were for possession alone. - See more at: https://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Marijuana#sthash.Vur7thwK.dpuf
> 
> I don't understand the nexus between casinos and cannabis. At all.


1) You didn't say arrested, you said "arrested, locked up, etc."

2) They are related in only the phony promise of economic well being and revenue.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/34110/title/Is-Cannabis-Really-That-Bad-/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...-marijuana-use-alters-teenage-brain-structure


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

WouldaShoulda said:


> ...and out of control spending.


Good point. I'm sure pols will say it's for the schools and the kids, but in fact we will just see more bike paths and other ridiculous spending initiatives.

Perhaps the money could be used to build more prisons and drug treatment centers when the crime rates start to go up.


----------



## pleasehelp (Sep 8, 2005)

Don't hold me to this, because I'm just vaguely (and perhaps inaccurately) recalling it from history class, but weren't similar arguments made against the end of alcohol prohibition?

I thought that drinking actually increased during prohibition and then decreased afterwards (although I don't know the long-term trends since then).

If the US legalized weed then we would have the benefits of the regulation of quality and we could somewhat reduce our spend on policing it on the consumption side. On the supply-side, one would assume that those engaged in the criminal enterprise would seek other enterprises to replace their income (which may also be illegal) so I don't know that we'd save much there in terms of policing, although perhaps we would.

For what it's worth, I have zero personal interest in legalizing marijuana for my own consumption, but I do find the issue interesting from a standpoint of what is best for society. I think the key question is whether legalizing it would, in fact, increase consumption and whether the harms of that increased consumption are worth it to our society relative to the other benefits of legalization.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ The difference between weed and alcohol is how they affect (for your 32RR) the CNS. Alcohol is not psychoactive, marijuana is. There's no debate about that. Both lead to impairment, but the long term effects of use are completely different. 

Furthermore, I mentioned this before and I'll mention it again, there is a question of how our culture has grown and accepted alcohol. The consumption of alcohol goes back to antiquity. As a culture we've learned how to deal with it and how to use it with care and discretion. Yes there are abuses and yes there are countries (Russia?) where the consumption of alcohol is a true public health issue, but here it is not. 

Marijuana is a product of the counter culture and there is still a sub cultural element to it. I don't give a damn what native Americans were doing 300 years ago! We're talking about today and today, pot is still considered a part of the counter culture and is, and will remain so, a gateway drug. People who use marijuana are more inclined to move to other drugs as well and that's likely not going to change if there is legalization. 

We can argue the relative merits of legalizing marijuana, but let's at least be honest and have an understanding of what it means. Most of the arguments for seem to center around failed drug policy and how people are being locked up for marijuana possession. There's also the argument, and a ridiculous one, that we can tax it and generate revenue from it. Then there's the medical advocates who claim it can treat and cure a range of health problems. 

No one seems to be willing to talk about the psycho-dynamic element or the potential pitfalls of increased usage because frankly, everyone is afraid of being on the wrong side of the issue.


----------



## pleasehelp (Sep 8, 2005)

SG - I'm certainly not proposing a view about the biological effects of marijuana or alcohol. I'm not qualified to weigh in on that subject. 

You seem very confident that legalizing marijuana will increase consumption. I don't know if that is the case, and I'd be interested in some analysis of experts around that point. It's undeniable that illegal drug use is very widespeak in the United States, and if it is part of counterculture then the counterculture is widespread. If you assume that marijuana consumption remains constant (both in terms of overall use and the particular people using it) if it was legalized then I assume you would be in favor of legalizing it.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> ^ The difference between weed and alcohol is how they affect (for your 32RR) the CNS. Alcohol is not psychoactive, marijuana is. There's no debate about that. Both lead to impairment, but the long term effects of use are completely different.
> 
> Furthermore, I mentioned this before and I'll mention it again, there is a question of how our culture has grown and accepted alcohol. The consumption of alcohol goes back to antiquity. As a culture we've learned how to deal with it and how to use it with care and discretion. Yes there are abuses and yes there are countries (Russia?) where the consumption of alcohol is a true public health issue, but here it is not.
> 
> ...


Bravo on "affect." Boo on the notion that marijuana is a product of the counter culture. That's a stereotype that I think is no longer true. Owing to its illegal status, it is closeted behavior by those with something to lose, to be sure, but marijuana is used by all socio-economic classes. Peter Tosh said it best:

Doctors smoke it, nurses smoke it
Judges smoke it, even the lawyer too
So you've got to legalize it, and don't criticize it
Legalize it, yeah, yeah, and I will advertise it


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ I'm not sure it would remain constant. I believe it would rise, if for no other reason that more kids would get their hands on it. The evidence is available to support both conclusions so I would argue that it's too soon to tell. 

One thing is for sure though; marijuana is a psychoactive drug and has different effects on the CNS than does alcohol. Just because the mob is yelling and screaming for its legalization doesn't mean that we should make it so.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> ^ I'm not sure it would remain constant. I believe it would rise, if for no other reason that more kids would get their hands on it. The evidence is available to support both conclusions so I would argue that it's too soon to tell.
> 
> One thing is for sure though; marijuana is a psychoactive drug and has different effects on the CNS than does alcohol. Just because the mob is yelling and screaming for its legalization doesn't mean that we should make it so.


Totally agree that alcohol, a depressant, is a different drug than marijuana. The nut, really, is potential for harm, and alcohol far surpasses marijuana in this regard. And it's not "the mob" that is screaming for legalization. Legalization is supported by Pat Robertson and David Koch, to mention just two, as well as the majority of Americans. Think about that: A Gallup poll taken within the past two years showed that 58 percent of Americans supported legalized marijuana, not just for medical use, but for everyone, and the numbers shoot dramatically higher when the question is whether it should be legalized for medical use.

NYT today published an editorial that I think makes the case for legalization quite eloquently, acknowledging that pot isn't harmless but that the health impacts are not a severe as alarmists claim: 
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/31/...p-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ Pat Robertson also wants creationism taught in the schools but no one's jumping on the band wagon with him. Just because a few, or perhaps even more, high profile people support it doesn't mean it's a good idea. As far as the polls go, that really shouldn't even be considered. Most people don't know enough about the subject to render a qualified opinion. Public polling is perhaps a good idea were the public educated. 

Instead we get this incessant drum beating from the media and other advocates who claim health benefits, tax benefits, and the overall public benefit of decriminalizing the possession and use of marijuana. 

Tell you what, let's let Colorado and Washington have at it. Let's give it a good 5-10 years and see how it effects high school graduation rates, the crime rate, homelessness and other social ills that, I believe, would flow from it. If it turns out that legalizing pot has no impact, then let's let the people decide what to do. 

As for the medical use question, like I said, fine! Let's put it in pill form or better yet, extract those chemical components that give the desired pharmaco-therapeutic outcome. If someone claims it doesn't work as well, then sorry. You may need heroin or to smoke hash to cure what ails you but that doesn't mean you're going to get it. Right now there is absolutely no control, FDA guideline or consistency in the growing and cultivating of marijuana or it's THC levels.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

It's a lot more than Robertson and Koch. In Washington, it was also the former U .S. attorney. There are a ton of other former law enforcement officials who, free to speak their minds, speak the truth: Their careers, at least so far as enforcing marijuana laws, were complete wastes of time and resources. Due respect, but you are an outlier on this issue. The public is sick of paying the cost of laws that don't work and would like to move on to more important stuff.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ I may be an outlier but that doesn't necessarily negate the argument. Law enforcement officials approach it from a standpoint enforcement and with that they are bound by the current laws. 

I realize it's a complicated issue. Drug policy for the most part seems to fail on many levels. But I don't think the wholesale decriminalization of marijuana is the answer. 

Like I said, pot is not going anywhere. Let's see what happens in Colorado and Washington after they've toyed with it for 5-10 years. Let's see what usage is amongst kids, test scores, academic performance, crime, homelessness, other drug use and all the other social ills that may come and weigh them against any perceived or real benefit with respect to tax revenue.


----------



## NoahNY (Sep 2, 2014)

All the same BS arguments are made anytime "legalization" is the issue. But, of course, government _IS _the problem, not the solution. Thus, all of New Jersey is still waiting to see the positive changes resulting from gambling revenues. And let's not forget Lotto and Lottery sales. Education? Down the crapper, rather.

And since when did law enforcement need a law to arrest someone?


----------

