Legalization of marijuana??

[jtdesigns]

I don't smoke, I have socially before, but I do not now. I do see marijuana as a very stable economic stronghold if legalized.. I just would like your opinions....

[jpdocdave]

this got beat to death a while ago, and i was the only one who stood up for the degredation of society, and the crap that comes along with it.

 

i've done it, don't care to do it anymore.

 

i've worked with, and employed weed smokers....wouldn't again. i'm gonna try real hard to make this my only post on this subject.

 

our society is going down the crapper, this would not help.

[OSHAGNASTY]

i think alch kills more ppl than

weed ever has i don't smoke.

when was the last time you heard

someone dieing from it or overdosing?

[Eagle]

:sigh:

 

Yet another incomplete poll. Whatever happened to "No opinion" or "Undecided"?

[Eagle]

i think alch kills more ppl than

weed ever has i don't smoke.

when was the last time you heard

someone dieing from it or overdosing?

Three soldiers two bunkers away from me in Vietnam were killed by NVA infiltrators because the guy who was supposed to be awake and on watch was high on Mary Jane. Don't EVER try to tell me weed hasn't ever killed anybody.

[aemsee]

i think alch kills more ppl than

weed ever has i don't smoke.

when was the last time you heard

someone dieing from it or overdosing?

Three soldiers two bunkers away from me in Vietnam were killed by NVA infiltrators because the guy who was supposed to be awake and on watch was high on Mary Jane. Don't EVER try to tell me weed hasn't ever killed anybody.

 

Weed didn't kill him, his own stupidity did. That is like saying guns kill people. It is just too bad he took others with him. Not advocating, just making a point.

[DirtyComanche]

i think alch kills more ppl than

weed ever has i don't smoke.

when was the last time you heard

someone dieing from it or overdosing?

Three soldiers two bunkers away from me in Vietnam were killed by NVA infiltrators because the guy who was supposed to be awake and on watch was high on Mary Jane. Don't EVER try to tell me weed hasn't ever killed anybody.

 

 

Indirectly, yes... From actually having an 'overdose', no, I don't think so. Laced weed is another matter.

 

 

Just like getting drunk, there is a time and a place for it if you're going to do it. And just like getting drunk, if you do it at the wrong time or place it can and will have dire consequences.

 

I think it's a pretty stupid drug; although most are. But sure, legalize it. But they need to come up with an on-the-spot and surefire test to see if somebody is under the influence (comparable to a breathalyzer for BAC) so they can nail all the dip$#!&s who smoke before/while driving, operating machinery, or doing other such tasks. While they're at it, the government should get their hands in the pot and make a few bucks, rather than the organized crime that does right now (a big part of the gang/weapons problem in metro Vancouver stems from selling drugs, with a large part of it being pot). I'm certain the government could provide a cheaper product that was safer and the profits of the sale of could actually go to some use. Of course, I have some socialist tendencies by nature, or maybe I'm a 'commie pinko' to most of my southern neighbours.

 

Oh, an FWIW, it's decriminalized here. NOT legal. But small quantities (I believe the limit is 20 or 30 grams, which is actually a fairly large amount but easily enough could be considered 'for personal use only') will only net you a fine with no chance of jail time or a criminal record. There was simply too many cases that would have to be run through court, and many cops had stopped bothering to do anything beyond confiscate product and send people on their way (small time dealers included).

[maddzz1]

I voted yes. I think it should atleast be decriminalized.

[jtdesigns]

See, I feel its that you can smoke it that makes it so bad... I mean the industrial applications for it are supercalafragalisticexpealadosious. There is so many different things that the "weed" can replace, reduce, and repair that I feel us as a society should try to strive for. I found an old hemp shirt I've had for years and its still looks good and is freaking tough. I know the Navy has rope made from it, and it would reduce pollution from paper mills if turned into paper.. Even heard that paper companies lobby against it just because hemp would out perform any paper product.. I'm just saying it should be legalized for industry, and brought into our everyday lives, not by being smoked, but by using products made from it.

[DirtyComanche]

They grow small quantities of 'hemp' (GM or crossbread plant that contains no THC) in BC, I don't know what all becomes of it. You can buy hemp clothing, but it isn't mainstream. Hemp rope can also be found. And hulled hemp seed is a great source of protein for vegetarians, or even regular people for that matter (tastes very nutty, pretty good on salad).

[jpdocdave]

to me, legalizing it all together, and medicinal are two different things. the poll wasn't about medicinal, it was legalization. which means anyone can buy it. i am undecided about prescription use, i'd be more willing to be swayed that medicinal uses are a good thing. but you can't go buy prozac, or whatever weird drugs are prescription only.

 

making it plane ole, legal means anyone can get it, maybe an age restriction would be placed, who knows. i know if it were legal i would have tried it sooner, and more often.

[Akula69]

Christ - didn't we discuss this already?

 

However, I'm not suprised with the poll results considering the liberal bent of the country at this point :roll:

 

Anyone who is inclned to research this will easily find that marijuana is more harmful to the human body then cigarettes are, not withstanding the lead poisoning Eagle's buddies got in Vietnam.

[JeepcoMJ]

I want to try, but can't/won't because it's a jeopordization of my job and my future.

 

that said, I only want to try BECAUSE it is illegal.

 

legalization gives us the chance to tax it, which turns weed smokers into an aid to society...taking them 180 degrees from where they are now. they'll still do it, but they'll actually pay in on it. yes you could still acquire it from other means but that's the same with everything else we consume.

 

 

Furthermore, if it's illegal, people are more enticed to smoke. legalized, the fun is taken out of it.

 

example:

 

I drank A TON before I turned 21. now 3 beers is more than enough, and more than once a month is uncommon for me.

 

being legally able to drink toook the fun out of it. now, if I get caught, big deal as long as I'm not disobeying the other laws associated with it.

[wolfpackjeeper]

Legalize it, tax it, and sell it at the ABC store. Set it up like beer and wine where you can produce your own but only up to a certain point, then you pay taxes on it. Regulate it just like Alcohol and any other substance. Establish a limit for driving and enforce it. If I catch an Airman or subordinate high I will tear them apart just like they were drunk on the job. Trying to fight its widespread use is nothing more than pissing in the wind.

 

 

/doesn't smoke pot, has no desire to spoke pot

//underground cigarettes are going to be where the money is in the future...

[lostissues]

"grow up and do coke like an adult!"

[jpdriver1]

had to vote against on this one --- we live in an area where you can get "medicinal" marijuana. what you get is doctors that will "proscribe" this as easily as valium and other feel good pills were proscribed back in the 70's & 80's. you can also get growers permits that allow several plants to grown for your own proscribed use. generally a commune gets together and grows large amounts for sale. this legalization has not eased up on the illegal trade --- just a couple of weeks ago the county, state & feds busted several hundred persons and destroyed approx 200 tons of weed. so no it is not a good idea.

[wolfpackjeeper]

had to vote against on this one --- we live in an area where you can get "medicinal" marijuana. what you get is doctors that will "proscribe" this as easily as valium and other feel good pills were proscribed back in the 70's & 80's. you can also get growers permits that allow several plants to grown for your own proscribed use. generally a commune gets together and grows large amounts for sale. this legalization has not eased up on the illegal trade --- just a couple of weeks ago the county, state & feds busted several hundred persons and destroyed approx 200 tons of weed. so no it is not a good idea.

 

It has not done anything for the illicit trade because the very trade is still proscribed. For it to work it would have to be widespread. At least to a state level if not a regional. It would be like prohibition allowing certain places to have alcohol, there would still be usage elsewhere.

 

Modern Example: Dry counties. I have seen a few, and a political boundry does not seem to stop people from drinking when they want to. The consequences just go up.

[JeepcoMJ]

the phrase "resistance is futile" comes to mind.

[jpdocdave]

had to vote against on this one --- we live in an area where you can get "medicinal" marijuana. what you get is doctors that will "proscribe" this as easily as valium and other feel good pills were proscribed back in the 70's & 80's. you can also get growers permits that allow several plants to grown for your own proscribed use. generally a commune gets together and grows large amounts for sale. this legalization has not eased up on the illegal trade --- just a couple of weeks ago the county, state & feds busted several hundred persons and destroyed approx 200 tons of weed. so no it is not a good idea.

 

It has not done anything for the illicit trade because the very trade is still proscribed. For it to work it would have to be widespread. At least to a state level if not a regional. It would be like prohibition allowing certain places to have alcohol, there would still be usage elsewhere.

 

Modern Example: Dry counties. I have seen a few, and a political boundry does not seem to stop people from drinking when they want to. The consequences just go up.

 

my town used to be dry. doesn't mean you can't drink, simply means no liquor licenses to sell it. of coarse, that tradition was thrown in the garbage when they decided they wanted more money :dunce:

[MrSimon]

Weed is smoked almost exclusively for the purpose of getting high. High people act stupid, can't focus, can't work, shouldn't drive, and often do stupid things that endanger themselves and others.

 

Legalizing weed would requrie the gov't to establish complex quality control and regulation agencies - which would most likely cost more than the tax revenues on legal weed.

 

Weed is addicitve. Addicts get fat, horrible skin, yellow eyes, lazy, and unproductive.

 

Legalizing weed for adults means it will be more readily available to minors.

 

Weed causes lasting damage to the brain, heart, and respitory system http://www.nida.nih.gov/researchreports/marijuana/Marijuana3.html

 

So tell me again why the US government should spend MY tax money to legalize this substance?????

 

Oh, and for those of you who say things like, "Weed isn't any different than alcohol." Maybe you should re-think the impact that drunk people have on our society. For example, try these statistics on for size:

 

• Over 40% of fatal automobile accidents are alcohol-related

• Approximately 30% of Americans will be in an accident involving alcohol

• According to estimates, someone is injured in an alcohol-related accident every two minutes

 

Sheesh ..... if you really need to "mellow out and chill" ...... don't smoke .... go wrench on a Jeep for an hour!

[ocskipper]

Leave it be. The government isnt capable of a successful legalization IMHO.

[summerinmaine]

One big problem is that much of the conventional wisdom, both pro and con, about pot use is anecdotal; rigorous scientific studies have been hard to come by and are often agenda-driven. But here's a recent article from the Sacramento Bee, after The Governator suggested we look into legalization:

 

Legalize it? Medical evidence on marijuana blows both ways

 

smcmanis@sacbee.com

Published Sunday, May. 17, 2009

 

 

Sparked anew by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's call for the state to study the legalization of marijuana, both sides in the smoldering pot debate point to research to bolster their positions.

 

Such recitation of conflicting marijuana studies can be manipulated and selected buffet-style to serve whatever political and health agenda is being touted.

 

Even governmental findings can be contradictory. In 1999, for instance, the Office of National Drug Control Policy asked the Institute of Medicine to review evidence. The institute found that, "except for the harms associated with smoking, the adverse effects of marijuana use are within the range of effects tolerated for other medications."

 

Yet in 2006, the Food and Drug Administration ruled that marijuana has no health benefits and has known and proven harms. It is classified a Schedule 1 drug – the highest risk of addiction – in the Controlled Substances Act.

 

Wading through the medical literature, though, makes those conclusions less cut and dried.

 

"When I was a resident in Kaiser in San Francisco in 1978, I gave a lecture to physicians on marijuana, and I remember my conclusion at that time was that you can find in the literature whatever you were looking for," says Dr. Donald Abrams, a University of California, San Francisco, oncologist and leading medical marijuana researcher. " 'Marijuana is good for asthma.' 'Marijuana's bad for asthma.' 'Marijuana causes schizophrenia.' 'Marijuana (decreases) schizophrenia.' And, you know, the evidence is still like that."

 

There are many factors, of course. As noted by UCLA pulmonologist Dr. Donald Tashkin, who has studied marijuana's effects on the lungs for three decades, "That's just the nature of medical science. You have to deal with variability. The population studied may be different or the methods used to study may differ."

 

Yet when the arguments for legalization of marijuana, both for medicinal and recreational use, are put forth, solid medical science often gets clouded in an ideological haze.

 

"Although we like to say we separate politics from science, with medical marijuana, that's really difficult," Abrams says. "It depends on who does the study, where it's published and what their agenda is."

 

Bearing in mind those caveats, here is a look at the research on marijuana's effect in areas critical to health.

 

 

Lungs

 

UCLA's Tashkin studied heavy marijuana smokers to determine whether the use led to increased risk of lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or COPD. He had hypothesized that there would be a definitive link between cancer and marijuana smoking, yet the results proved otherwise.

 

"What we found instead was no association and even a suggestion of some protective effect," says Tashkin, whose research was the largest case-control study ever conducted. The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health.

 

Tobacco smokers in the study had as much as a 21-fold increase in lung cancer risk. Cigarette smokers, too, developed COPD more often in the study, and researchers found that marijuana did not impair lung function. Tashkin, supported by other research, concluded that the active ingredient tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, has an "anti- tumoral effect" in which "cells die earlier before they age enough to develop mutations that might lead to lung cancer."

 

However, the smoke from marijuana did swell the airways and lead to a greater risk of chronic bronchitis.

 

"Early on, when our research appeared as if there would be a negative impact on lung health, I was opposed to legalization because I thought it would lead to increased use and that would lead to increased health effects," Tashkin says.

 

"But at this point, I'd be in favor of legalization. I wouldn't encourage anybody to smoke any substances, because of the potential for harm. But I don't think it should be stigmatized as an illegal substance.

 

"Tobacco smoking causes far more harm. And in terms of an intoxicant, alcohol causes far more harm."

 

 

Cognitive function

 

A 2006 study in the journal Neurology found that speed of thinking, attention and verbal fluency were affected as much as 70 percent by long-term heavy use (four or more joints per week).

 

But a 2003 review of literature in the Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society found that marijuana smoking had a "small effect" on memory in longtime users.

 

However, users had no lasting effects in reaction time, attention or verbal function.

 

"Surprisingly, we saw very little evidence of deleterious effects," Dr. Igor Grant, researcher at the University of California, San Diego, School of Medicine, said in a statement.

 

Other studies: A 2002 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that heavy users did worse on recall memory tests. A 2006 study in Greece showed users had slower mental-processing speed than the control group.

 

Then again, a 2007 study at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland, published in Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, found that students who smoked marijuana had better grades than those who used only tobacco or those who did not smoke any substance.

 

In terms of brain development, a 2000 study in the Journal of Addictive Diseases found changes in brain structure in those who started using marijuana before age 17 but not in those who started at an older age.

 

A 2009 Children's Hospital of Philadelphia study used brain imaging to show that heavy adolescent users are more likely to have disrupted brain development in regions involving memory, attention, decision making and language.

 

But a 2008 Ohio State University study found that marijuana can reduce brain inflammation and perhaps reduce memory impairment that could delay Alzheimer's disease.

 

 

Psychosis

 

Yes, there is an increased risk in psychotic behavior and long-term risk of mental illness from marijuana use, according to a 2007 review of literature commissioned by Great Britain's Department of Health and published in the Lancet.

 

But the risk is small, because the risk of developing psychosis in the general population is 3 percent over a lifetime and rises to 5 percent for marijuana users, lead researcher Stanley Zammit told the Los Angeles Times. "So 95 percent of the people are not going to get psychotic, even if they smoke on a daily basis," he told the paper.

 

In 2005, New Zealand researchers studied a group of people with a gene variant the researchers believe predisposes that group to developing psychosis. Those in the group who smoked marijuana as teens had a tenfold increase in risk of psychosis than those who abstained.

 

 

Depression

 

A study published in 2001 in the American Journal of Psychiatry followed nearly 2,000 adults over 15 years. It found that marijuana users who had no symptoms of depression at the start were four times more likely than non-users of developing symptoms during that time frame.

 

In 2008, the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy stated that early marijuana use could increase the likelihood of mental illness by as much as 40 percent later in life.

 

However, researchers at McGill University in Montreal in 2007 reported in the Journal of Neuroscience that THC in low doses actually serves as an antidepressant similar to Prozac, producing serotonin. At higher doses, however, they found it could lead not only to depression but psychotic episodes.

[1990 Pioneer 4x4]

I don't smoke, I have socially before, but I do not now. I do see marijuana as a very stable economic stronghold if legalized.. I just would like your opinions....

 

wish i could have voted twice. ;)

[HOrnbrod]

One big problem is that much of the conventional wisdom, both pro and con, about pot use is anecdotal; rigorous scientific studies have been hard to come by and are often agenda-driven. But here's a recent article from the Sacramento Bee, after The Governator suggested we look into legalization:

 

Why not? Cali is dying economically and it would fit right in w. the lifestyle. Might as well let the state reap some of the bene's unless it ends up in some politico's pocket, which it prolly will. 8)

[TNT]

Screw smoking it. The THC can be extracted and taken orally eliminating almost all the side effects.

 

As for Valium and Amitriptline I take those daily(the 70's rock) along with my pain pills and one other muscle relaxer. Add some THC and I'm almost feel pain free.

 

THC capsules should be made legal to sell as a prescription. It has many worthwhile medical uses.