Yes and followed by a huge rise in traffic deaths from stoned drivers.

morebits-How ridiculous. Find one traffic death based solely on MJ impairment? Go ahead I will wait. Won't happen because it doesn't exist.

Haha Those supposed studies are Government propaganda.

lastonehome: You keep pasting the same bullsh!t every time a pot article shows up. You're full of outright lies, deceptions, and 1050s-era paranoia. The funny part? EVERYBODY knows you're full of sh!t. So keep up the good work, and I'll send you a nice fatty when you've succeeded in getting it legalized.

Find is yourself you lazy SOB. The truth is clearly out there.

WTF? lol

As I have said before your ridiculous BS about menial labor means nothing to me. I don't demean anyones labor but I am a college grad, Net Admin and own a dispensary as I have stated. DNA? Oh boy. Your DNA clearly shows your daddy and aunt are your parents.

How does it feel to be the only abortion that lived?

Trolls are funny!

Umm... lastonehome I have a 4 year degree in information technology and numerous certifications. I certainly do not have a menial job. I don't smoke pot anymore but I smoked a LOT of pot when I was in college, so did many of my friends (many of whom also have very distinguished careers).

You are describing a stereotype about stoners as portrayed by Hollywood as stupid losers who do nothing but sit around, smoke weed, play Nintendo and eat Cheetos. And while, yes there are pot users out there who are like this, many users live perfectly normal and productive lives. And I know far more people who have had alcohol ruin their lives, one way or another than pot. Furthermore, I have also seen far more lives ruined by legal gambling than pot. (I live in Vegas BTW)

I am tired of paying taxes to keep harmless pot smokers in prison. I would say to legalize it and cut the massive drain on the tax payers. Deal with the people who abuse smoking pot (i.e. people who smoke and drive) the same way we deal with people who abuse alcohol (people who drink and drive)... individually.

lastonehome..you sound like a somewhat intelligent 5 year old about to have a temper tantrum.

Wow lastonehome. I have not seen that much false crap come out of one person in a long time.

Lets all play a game here. Based off of the cut-and-paste propaganda, lets try to guess whether lastonehome works for A) big pharma B) the private prison lobby or C) the cartels.

Well I graduated from UNLV...

However I choose to abstain from providing any personal information on a public web site. Nor do I really care if you can verify my credentials or not.

Just out of curiosity... what is YOUR Real name, Address and educational institution of choice? What is YOUR highest degree of education received?

Lets all play a game here. Based off of the cut-and-paste propaganda, lets try to guess whether lastonehome works for A) big pharma B) the private prison lobby or C) the cartels.

I am going to go with option D) Generic Internet Troll

and could you please just say the same things you've been saying through this whole thread a few more times for me cause i guess i'm just TOO STONED to understand your babbling :]

BINGO!

Wow is all I can say

Midnight Toker 4+20

morebits-How ridiculous. Find one traffic death based solely on MJ impairment? Go ahead I will wait. Won't happen because it doesn't exist.

How about 400 per year. The unanswered question; does pot smoking severely retard the ability to use Google or most cognizant functions?

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/MISC/driving/s14p1.htm
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_Number_of_traffic_deaths_due_to_Marijuana

nibor, I think we can all agree that if you are going to smoke pot, you shouldn't drive as it certainly impairs your ability to operate machinery. But 400 out of 40,000... Alcohol is still responsible for the overwhelming majority of DUI related accidents and deaths. Why aren't you and lastonehome out trying to get alcohol prohibition reinstated? (after all it worked so well last time...)

Well anyways... I have had enough news vine trolls for one day. I am going to go home, pour myself a large glass of Single Malt Scotch on the rocks, pop a few Zanex, get myself a large bag of snacks overly saturated with fat, maybe stop by a McDonald's on my way home (those are all LEGAL ways for me to harm myself right?) and fire up my minecraft server. Creeper hunting season is OPEN! And I am going to install the Minecraft Cannabis farming mod just for YOU lastonehome. In my world, pot is perfectly legal after all... Internet Trolls will be fed to Ghasts though...

Isn't it curious that Big al, midnight toker , ksells and redwizard show up again and again in favor of getting stoned. They are all unable or unwilling to learn or read about the effects of marijuana. And who are going to be crying years from now when their children are unable to learn and can't go to college or some member of their family is harmed by someone under the effect of a prohibited substance.

All you are fish in a barrel and by defending marijuana proves the concrete points that marijuana affects the senses that would clearly show you that you are affected by it.
All cancer victims do not know when cancer first starts growing in their bodies. Usually it is too late and more than half die in five years after discovery.
And all drunks say one more can't hurt them.
And marijuana smokers swear that it is harmless and that it should be sold freely and legalized.
Sounds real familiar eh?

And Big al, midnight toker , ksells and redwizard, I don't give a damn about you or your families and friends. I do want to provide the alternative, the truth about a dangerous product and let the people know what business you are in.

The devil is in the detail. 1% TESTED positive for use not impairment. THC testing life is 3 months. This is not proof.

Does being an anti-MJ troll inhibit the ability to decipher nuance? Clearly. Another false accusation based on lack of knowledge. So I assume if a driver kills himself a month after drinking its drunk driving?

Smarten up boy.

I hope the prohibitionists are not anti-corporal punishment too, because Midnight just gave you a spanking.

You know i drove stoned before and not proud of it btw, did it only once. It took me 4 hrs to get home, if i was sober it would had taken me only 45 minutes. I never was violent or verbally abusive while stoned. Everyone I knew that smoke aren't either. We actually giggle a bit too much and eat a bit too much. I know lots of doctors both med doctors and doctorate majors who smoke, so no, pot doesn't make everyone stupid. Stupid people are already academically challenged prior to smoking pot.

Drinking alcohol even red wine or smoking tobacco are bad for your health and impaired your judgement as well but because it is legal its ok to do it. Alcohol consumption by pregnant women can cause birth defects too so what an ass people are to legalize that as well right? (sarcasm here).

Too much of anything isn't good. Lastonehome you you document all the bad side-effects of extensive marijuana use, but look at the side effects of extensive tobacco and alcohol use. Hell, look at the effects of too much sugar in your diet! And yet these three things are perfectly legal.

Am I saying marijuana is completely harmless? Of course not. Everything carries with it some kind of risk, which is why you should do things in moderation. Out of the almost hundred-something times I've been offered to partake by my friends, I've only tried marijuana four or five times. And as someone who's never smoked anything in his life, the worst thing about it for me was inhaling the actual smoke. That was about it.

"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

I guess that makes you omnicidal, since you have NO knowledge of what you speak.

There's nothing that you stated that I did not hear about marijuana. The point I was trying to make is that extensive use of legal substances is also harmful in other ways. It's sort of hypocritical of you to list all the harmfull effects of long-term marijuana use while conveniently ignoring the harmfull effects of long-term tobacco and alcohol use. Most of the people out there who smoke, or have smoked, have done so in moderation.

And not to nitpick, but it should be "A lack of knowledge is a dangerous thing." By saying "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing," you're implying that the gaining of knowledge is dangerous.

The quoted correct saying is "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". If you want to enter a discourse know the proper terminology. Little knowledge is what gets people in trouble. No knowledge means that they able to learn and if moderately intelligent can form correct assumptions. The druggies on here heard that marijuana is not a dangerous drug. Ergo they have a little knowledge. Had they no knowledge then they would be open to education.

As is your case. I stated that cigarette smoking is dangerous and as abuse of alcohol. It has been proven scientifically "ONE" glass of "RED WINE" is beneficial. The red in the grapes has a component that is beneficial to your health. Not "WHITE WINE".
And I have a lot of experience with drunks and all forms of alcohol. At my grandfather's autopsy , cirrhosis of the liver was determined the cause of death and his liver was the size of your fist.
And you are aware of the stupid legal fight about changing the packaging on the cartons of cigarettes. All because 400 years ago some white men saw some indians shove some hollow lighted sticks up their noses with tobacco in them.
If it didn't cost me so much in health insurance and car insurance premiums I wouldn't care if they shoved cigarettes up their asses.

Fine, I'll accept your argument regarding proper terminology, though to be fair the term was coined in the 18th century, and I was taught to write in late 20th/early 21st century terminology. Most people do not speak in the former manner these days. Part of me wishes they do though, considering what the internet is doing to the English language.

And though you probably won't accept it from someone who you personally see as "stupid" based on a few of my online posts, you have my condolences and sympathy for the loss of your Grandfather. My grandfather on my father's side of the family died of heart failure due to years of drinking and cigarettes, as did the father of a good friend of mine only a few days earlier. And (believe it or not) I agree with you how cigarette cartons are labeled: having worked as a cashier for a while, I found it difficult to identify which "flavor" of cigarette people wanted.

But ultimately the problem is that people don't like being told by the government what they can and cannot put into their bodies. People who want marijuana are going to get it, legally or otherwise. The question that's being discussed more and more these days is this: Should the money that people spend on marijuana go into the pockets of violent, black market criminals who murder and terrorize in order to achieve their goals, or into the pockets of legitimate businessmen and farmers in a regulated market?

IMO, the reason why people have the attitude towards weed - despite whatever side effects scientists have documented - is that compared to weed, the amount of health problems resulting from alcohol, tobacco, and obesity is far greater. And marijuana may double the risk of getting into a fatal car accident, but according to the very same link you posted in post #1.3, marijuana accounted for only 2.5% of the 10,748 fatal crashes between 2001 and 2003.

Considering that almost half of all car fatalities involve alcohol, and the cancer rates among tobacco users, one could see why marijuana could be seen in a better light.

lastonehome you must be related to Nancy Reagan. Bet your ass using a cell phone is more dangerous to others in vehicles. The amount of crime people like you have created by your foolish belief you can prohibit the use of a drug is almost unbelievable. The same thought processes took place in the 20's and 30's and look what that got us. A large influx of organized crime.

lastonehome==DEA Agent terrified of the writing on the wall.

No, abusing ANY drug is not good for you, but as Americans, we supposedly have freedom, including the freedom to partake in a VASTLY SAFER drug than alcohol or tobacco.

Alcohol KILLS 75,000 Americans/year

Tobacco KILLS 450,000 Americans/year

Cannabis kills ZERO Americans/year

Why are you railing against pot again?

Thanks nibor,

1.1% LOL

This is from the "study" lastonehome gave a link to:

The researchers estimated that at least 2.5 percent of the 10,748 fatal crashes studied were directly caused by the use of marijuana.

Directly? I doubt that. Because THC was still in their system from a joint they smoked two weeks ago that was the direct cause? BS.

The number of highway deaths contributed the smoking pot were significant, even though they were dwarfed by the number caused by drinking alcohol. Of the drivers involved in fatal accidents, 21.4 percent tested positive for alcohol consumption.

lastonehome, it's funny how you left this little fact out of your copying/pasting. And notice they said "tested" which leads me to believe the only reason they blame weed as a direct cause is because those people involved in fatal accidents "tested" positive for THC which we all know (except for you) stays in a persons' system for 30 days or more. So weed was made the scapegoat to support more BS government propaganda.

But I guess your feeble mind can't grasp that and you can't seem to think for yourself and drink the "kool-aid" without question. Shame.

The "study" continued:

The French research found that 2.9 percent of drivers involved in fatal crashes tested positive for both marijuana and alcohol. Men were more often involved in fatal crashes than women and were more often tested positive for both marijuana and alcohol.

There it is folks. "Both marijuana AND alcohol".

LOL Here is the link to the actual study lastonehome is getting his info from:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1309644/

I didn't read all of it, but when I got to this statement I didn't waste anymore of my time reading it:

However, the low number of drivers positive for Δ⁹tetrahydrocannabinol and the common association of cannabis and alcohol hamper the detection of effects entirely attributable to cannabis.¹³

^{lastonehome try doing a little more research before you start quoting studies to support your government propaganda stance on marijuana. You would be doing us all a favor.}

OneDirtyRat: Feel free to ignore the troll, his ignorance has been exposed more often than Lindsay Lohan's hooha.

LOL

I know. It's just a matter of time before I hit the ignore button. I know it is a waste of time debating this relic because he will never see the light.

Drivers who test positive for marijuana or reported using marijuana and then driving have double the risk of being involved in a vehicle accidents, compared to drivers who are not under the influence, researchers from Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health, New York, reported in the journal Epidemiologic Reviews.

NOT propaganda, toker.

How about take the money out of the equation altogether. I don't support commercialized legalization. It only moves the corruption from one pocket to another. I COULD support growth for personal consumption.. sort of like moonshine personal consumption law. 1)With a permit that confirms that you aren't a felon etc. 2) Limit on number of plants allowed per year (say about 5) subject to inspection. 3) Absolutely no sales whatsoever with stiff penalties. 4) Permit to be withdrawn if stoned in the workplace or driving. Must declare to employer. No public transit jobs.

Just like being around a drunk... I don't care to be around the stoned. If stoners can't control themselves (and historically they don't) then don't expect support.

And if only prostitution were legal, spouses wouldn't cheat.

And if only murder were legal, divorces wouldn't be so costly.

And of only selling cigarettes to 5 year olds were legal we could establish jobs and a tax base for years to come........

Since most of you want to legalize drugs, what say we just legalize cocaine and heroin also? That way we could get all that tax money and do away with the cartels in one fell swoop. That's what I'm talking about!!

lol... comments by people sitting at their computers smoking it up... So stoned they can't even think straight...LMAO

You guys sound like a bunch of loser alcoholics, whining for his beer with all your 'legalize it' nonsense.

They have a saying, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

You guys got us in Colorado to legalize it; whining about your medical ailments, and sure enough, you proved it was a farce all along. Now that we see through the lies, let's de-legalize it now.

All this legalize crap is just about a bunch of losers who can't handle life and want to zombie through it on a marijuana high.

Since you people are directly responsible for financing the murders in Mexico through your constant purchasing of Marijuana, I'm more for the death penalty for the pushers of this drug and a thorough thrashing for those that use it.

http://j70141.newsvine.com/_news/2011/07/12/7070552-argument-against-the-purchase-of-marijuana

If you aren't going to read the above link, then don't bother replying.

If marijuana sales were legalized, the Congress would want to tax the business. Marijuana distributors wouldn't make as much money as they do now. It would take all of the fun out of it. My guess is, they don't want to see marijuana legalized. It would cut into their profit margin. Heck, if potheads are willing to spend ridiculous amounts of money on 1/8 ozs and 1/4 ozs, not to mention if they'd actually buy a whole pound of the stuff, there's no good reason to legalize marijuana - at least not from the growers'/distributors' point of view.

Let's see," lastonehome ", I took my road test stoned in 1977 and have never caused an accident.

Some of the most succesful people in the world are/were pot smokers:

Steve Jobs. Yeah that's right. Computers. Internet.

Paul McCartney. Yeah, that's right. The Beatles, most $ucce$$ful musician IN HISTORY. Even wrote a song about pot called "Got To Get You Into My Life". (You always liked that song too. Probably not any more, though........)

Barack Obama. Yeah, that's right. The guy YOU elected president. The guy who luckily never got caught smoking pot, because if he did, he would never have qualified for the student loans that got him his college degree and paved the way for him to be THE MOST POWERFUL MAN ON EARTH! Hypocritical in the eyes of most reasonable folks.

Micheal Bloomberg. Yeah, that's right. The mayor of New York City and one of the most $ucce$$ful people in America.

Bill Gates. Yeah, that's right. Computers. Internet. Richest person ON THE PLANET.

I'm sure some of the posters here who understand the utter fraud of cannabis prohibition can chime in with a few more examples and shine some more light on your lies, your ignorance, and let's not forget, your stupidity.

NOT propaganda, toker.

How about take the money out of the equation altogether. I don't support commercialized legalization. It only moves the corruption from one pocket to another. I COULD support growth for personal consumption.. sort of like moonshine personal consumption law. 1)With a permit that confirms that you aren't a felon etc. 2) Limit on number of plants allowed per year (say about 5) subject to inspection. 3) Absolutely no sales whatsoever with stiff penalties. 4) Permit to be withdrawn if stoned in the workplace or driving. Must declare to employer. No public transit jobs.

Just like being around a drunk... I don't care to be around the stoned. If stoners can't control themselves (and historically they don't) then don't expect support.

Some common sense. Who'da thought it. Just add that they can't smoke it within 200 feet of a public facility, including motels and hotels, and you got yourself a deal.

It'll never pass though... they want their fix unconditionally.

It's always funny, the paranoia caused by pot, with all their 'its propoganda' and 'its untrue' and 'they just want to protect and fund their jobs'. Then after they throw out the actual scientific surveys, they take the 'tabloid sciences' saying that it is as safe as asprin... Uh sir, you forgot to take off the tin foil hat.

Anyone who grew up smoking weed knows full well what the damage is. We all know "burnouts"who smoked too much when they were young and now they are suffering from diminished mental capacity. The damage is fairly pronounced in early puberty. Good quality bud is SO much stronger than what we smoked in the 80's, that stuff will make you retarded after a couple bowls. Then you get bored with the weed amd decide to try a little acid, or some shrooms. Then hey, why not a line of coke or meth? Boom, next thing you know you are strung out and the only thing you care about is getting your tweak on. There is a small % of people who don't go on to try harder drugs, but we all know the results once you get to that point. If you like smoking a few bowls at home as an adult, all the power to ya. Legalizing it is NOT for the masses. I'm really curiouswhy people would but that Mexi dirt weed though?

The real problem is all the meth ans heroin they are bringing across. Alot of folks are getting hooked on Oxycontin and then when they can't afford it, they start using the Heroin. I've lost two friends in the last few years to that.

The real problem is BIG PHARMA wanting to be the only drug dealer in the 'hood.

I'm pretty tired of everyone tearing down the crazy dude who's against pot. It's not his job to compare pot statistics to statistics of cigarettes and alcohol. instead of spending your time bitching that he's making a stand against it, why don't you spend your time standing up for making cigarettes and alcohol illegal along with pot? just because there are things that are worse, doesn't mean that bad things should be legalized. That's like trying to legalize carrying a giant knife because guns kill more people. just stupid. It's all dangerous! I'm down for making it all illegal. I'm certainly in favor of KEEPING pot illegal.

also note that just because 'really smart' people smoke pot, doesn't make them smart for doing it. there's several posts about doctors and people with successful careers being potheads. this doesn't make it OK. those people are human like the rest of us. Many doctors are more unhealthy than the patients they treat, this was a huge discussion in Intro to psychology course I took, so there is medical documentation of this fact. Just because they do it, doesn't mean that it's alright or healthy no NOT damaging. and yes i do understand that a majority of these comments were in response to the crazy dude's generalization that all potheads are of low income, it's the additional info that i'm referencing.

At least the crazy anti-pothead guy is standing for something reasonable. good lord

I grow tired of reading lastonehomes babbling. Constantly repeating yourself and asking for everyone's personal information for your own personal gratification isn't going to get your opinion noticed. All you're doing is getting attention you so desperately crave. No, I do not smoke pot, nor will I. What people do on their own is their own problem. If you smoke pot, just don't drive, that's all. Smoke it when you get home so you can relax from the day. Do I think they should legalize it, well, I'm not a government official. Yes I believe they could legalize it and make money off of it, but if they do that, then we will hear people pissing and moaning about making prostitution legal.

Does smoking pot make people stupid? I think not, there has been no proof that pot kills any brain cells. If you are smoking all natural pot with nothing added to it. Now, people will argue this point, but I do believe in my OWN opinion that pot IS a gateway drug (no I have not done any research on it) but I have seen friends who used to smoke pot all the time, then they got "used" to that high and wanted something better. Does everyone who smokes pot end up like that? probably not. I have seen it happen though.

Therefore lastonehome, stop your repeated babbling and go protest a war (that kills more people then pot)

A) MJ is not alcohol. Just because one is bad for you and legal and the other is bad for you but illegal doesn't mean both should be legalized. I guess as long as the government gets their tax on alcohol, they can overlook the number of deaths directly or indirectly associated with its abuse.

B) I totally agree that the drug war costs a crap-ton of resources and often yields results that don't necessarily justify the inputs (in terms of money, lives, etc). Unfortunately, I don't agree that legalization is the answer either. I don't have an answer, but I know that the current solution and the alternative proposed (legalization) aren't the answers.

C) I have two uncles who are perfect examples of what MJ can do to a person. The first was a straight A student in high school. Graduated and could have went to just about any college/university he wanted to as he was that bright. He decided to do his civic duty and do some tours of duty in Vietnam. He got caught up with the potheads over there and hasn't been of any significant use to anyone ever since. As a matter of fact, the last time I saw him, he threatened to put a bullet through my mother's brain (his own sister) if he ever saw her again. Definitely not the Uncle I remember so fondly from growing up. The other Uncle was a hard worker. Was out walking one night and got smacked in the backside of the head with a lead pipe. He was lucky (or, I guess depending on how you view the rest of this, unlucky) that he didn't die immediately. After a considerable amount of rehab, he started having panic attacks and the only thing that supposedly helped him was the MJ my other wastoid uncle gave him. Flash forward 20 years. He's lost his home (that was entirely paid for - all he had to do was pay the taxes). He has zero personal property and is currently in a state institution. He can recognize people to some extent, but can't mentally hold things together for more than 10 seconds or so at a time.

So - yeah. Anyone who wants to tell me how "harmless" MJ is can kiss my fat northern tush.

why is lastonehome too much of a p*ssy to admit his profession and education? hmmm...

If you aren't going to read the above link, then don't bother replying.

I read it, I refuted it.

Try again.

Your blaming MJ for your Uncles mental problems? Ya....Vietnam and being hit on the backside had nothing to do with it. Sheesh!

Nah. I'm blaming you... and a$$holes like you who glamorize a drug that isn't glamorous.

This smuggling case is further proof that our boarders are not secure from hostile intruders.. Replace the contraband with explosives, weapons and toxins along with a few motivated evildoers and you have a terrorist cocktail.. Invade Mexico already and make them the 51-55 states in the union.. Better yet just ask them to vote us in.. As 75% of their population is either here already or has a relative here they would be all for it..

If the detractors want to debate the health differences between marijuana and alcohol they loose.. If you look at the long term effects of drinking until you are drunk compared to consuming pot till you are high daily the boozers loose.. The brain damage from alcohol along with the ulcers, liver, kidney, intestine and circulatory damage not to mention the psychological problems are far and away higher risks.. While we are at it lets talk addiction and withdrawals, ever heard of the DT's or a hangover?? Lets compare car accidents or lost time at work caused by pot to those caused by drinking or even cell phones distraction and see which is higher..

Jason prostitution is legal and regulated in Nevada and some of those Ladies are tax paying millionaires..

You are already affected by marijuana. Just sit in your haze and go to your $8 an hour job and be the leach on society.

Too freakin funny~~~~~~~~~~~~

"users can experience the following symptoms:

Hallucinations
Delusions"

Dayum! U R smokin' better stuff than I am.

Share????

WOW. If you think drugs and alchohol are deadly, check out the stats on malpractice

"Find one traffic death based solely on MJ impairment?"

Won't happen; Doesn't exist.

"I hate having my health insurance, car insurance premiums go up to pay for your reckless.........."

Alcoholism.
Get help.

Tiredofstupidity said:

He decided to do his civic duty and do some tours of duty in Vietnam. He got caught up with the potheads over there and hasn't been of any significant use to anyone ever since.

Stop blaming pot for what VIET NAM DID TO HIM.

The other Uncle was a hard worker. Was out walking one night and got smacked in the backside of the head with a lead pipe. ...................... After a considerable amount of rehab, he started having panic attacks and the only thing that supposedly helped him was the MJ my other wastoid uncle gave him. Flash forward 20 years. He's lost his home (that was entirely paid for - all he had to do was pay the taxes). He has zero personal property and is currently in a state institution. He can recognize people to some extent, but can't mentally hold things together for more than 10 seconds or so at a time.

Stop blaming pot for what a whack in the head did to him.

@Stand and Deliver,

"I have not seen that much false crap come out of one person in a long time."

I think this is my ex. He's talking about himself here:

"But then people like yourself never let facts get in the way of your opinions."

It seems like he & his h0e are back on da crack again. (rolling eyes)

Thanks Mark. I truly think that Tiredifstupity's stories are just that, stories. Either made up on the spot, or someone in your family was ignorant enough to contribute smoking weed to your uncles potential PTSD, or was a crappy person to begin with. And by the way, IF your uncle was indeed smoking something overseas, it was opium/heroin. Of the little amount you can find, weed is really poor quality in Vietnam, and opiates are overly abundant. Marijuana use was prevalent in USA during Vietnam.

"Am I saying marijuana is completely harmless? Of course not. Everything carries with it some kind of risk, which is why you should do things in moderation."

Ya'll remember a guy named Joe Jackson (not related to Michael) who did a song called "Steppin out"? This came from the same album:

"There's no cure.
There's no answer.
Everything gives you cancer."

"DEA Agent terrified of the writing on the wall"

More recently:

"You ask any DEA man, he'll say: 'There's nothing we can do'."

;-)

the only people that should smoke pot is the federal goverment and the elected pres.

LastOneHome,

So, if everyone who drinks, smokes, or uses (or has used) any illegal drugs (shouldn't we include the legal prescription drugs, too? They do a lot of killing and damage, and are voluntarily consumed...) should sign a waiver saying that they will not receive taxpayer, or insurance, money for ANY health-related costs they can't cover, then I presume they would be also waived from the requirement to pay the taxes, or insurance premiums (esp. Obamacare) that would cover OTHER people's care, including yours, right?

If that were the case, who is going to pay for your medical expenses? You would be denying a very large percentage of the U.S. any health care whatsoever because of lifestyle choices that you don't condone.

How much time do you spend on roads every day? Certainly you are at greater risk for being injured, breathing toxic engine exhaust, UV exposure, muggings, etc. than an old lady who never leaves her house. Should she have to pay premiums on her insurance (or taxes) to help cover your comparitively risky behavior? Why shouldn't you pay more for constantly putting yourself at risk everyday?

Life is risky. If we went your way, health insurers would run our lives, how much exercise we HAVE to get, the foods we MUST eat, the weight we MUST maintain, and care related to any genetic disorder your children may end up with would NOT be covered because YOU made the decision to have children in the first place and risk their well-being with the knowledge that they stand a good chance of developing that disorder.

Either health insurance covers everyone involved, regardless of their lifestyle choices, or it becomes one of two possibilities: 1) health care is reserved for those who don't even NEED it, and refused to those who DO need it based on some rationale or another, including "lifestyle choices" or 2) the insurance companies, or government, dictate what we MUST and MUST NOT do in our lives based on a monetary figure and presumed "risk," leaving freedom DEAD in the gutter.

Your posts citing some studies that support your personal opinions while ignoring the countless studies refuting those claims or touting certain BENEFITS of the components of cannabis suggest that you have alterior motives for your arguments. You seem hell bent on attacking people who disagree with you, and that usually belies a weak argument or a weak person, or both. I know at least one of those two things are weak...

Bottom line, you don't make a good argument by casting all those who disagree with you as "druggies" or "addicts" it just makes you look desperate and irrelevant.

The World Health Organization did a 25 years study of Pot smoking cultures, to gauge any harmful effects on humans over the long haul. They found none. These are people who have smoked it for generations, in large amounts. Rastafarian's were one of the groups. This study was asked for and funded by the DEA I believe, much to their chagrin.

As for the issue of impairment, MJ has no impairment of motor skills what so ever. In fact they may improve them slightly, since people tend to concentrate better on one thing when high. Whether its the task of driving or studying the sprinkles on a donut.

"or studying the sprinkles on a donut."

LOL

Tired of Stupidity-

he wanted to as he was that bright. He decided to do his civic duty and do some tours of duty in Vietnam. He got caught up with the potheads over there and hasn't been of any significant use to anyone ever since......

The other Uncle was a hard worker. Was out walking one night and got smacked in the backside of the head with a lead pipe....After a considerable amount of rehab, he started having panic attacks ....He has zero personal property and is currently in a state institution. He can recognize people to some extent, but can't mentally hold things together for more than 10 seconds or so at a time.

So let me get this straight your blaming all of their problems on marijuana use?

Nah. I'm blaming you... and a$$holes like you who glamorize a drug that isn't glamorous

They are not trying to glamorize anything, they are stating the facts that show that marijuana is harmless. There has not been a single death from simply smoking marijuana. I think your delusional about what caused your uncles problems.

To all those against Legalization of Marijuana:
I think you need to look at independant studies from the rest of the world, not the US. The US is biased because it has put so much into the drug wars, its hard to admit that all the time and money spent was wasted. Look into societies where marijuana is more accepted, and more objective studies can be implemented.

I smoked weed for 35 years, and drove ALL of those years and NEVER ever had an accident where i hit anybody or anything....I have been rearended and have been backed into, but NEVER have i hit anything.....as a matter of fact one of the THREE times i have been rearended, it was a drunk lawyer...i later called him to thank him for my very expensive brand new Kirby vacuum cleaner as well as other things.

J in Colorodo

You guys got us in Colorado to legalize it; whining about your medical ailments, and sure enough, you proved it was a farce all along. Now that we see through the lies, let's de-legalize it now.

There's just one problem: it isn't legal in this country. At all. Anywhere! It was decriminalized in small amounts in the city of Denver: adults 21 and over can carry up to one ounce of weed in the city. But they can't grow it, sell it, or smoke it in public. They can, however, smoke in the privacy of their own homes.

No just force a quake and flatten all the tunnels.

Hahaha Deeedadeeee. WTF?

But the Mexicans don't want their national IQ lowered either.

This is a first. I have ignored an author on Newsvine.
I'm a patient person and love to participate in a good argument, but one can only take so much. The personal attacks, the nonsensical logic, the repetition of disproven information, it's too much. The argument is so much shorter and enjoyable without lastonehome's asinine comments and 1950's rhetoric. I do hope he got all the attention he felt he needed. Maybe I would have more patience for this poor guy if I could go smoke a bowl.

They won't be able to legalize it, there are too many retards driving/walking around without being stoned. Imagine if the tweakers were legally stoned, chaos.

Looks like "lastonehome" is off his meds again. Listen LOH, your just full of cr p my friend. There have been studies in England ranking "stoned" drivers against "drunk drivers" and their is NO comparison. The stoned drivers drove slower than the speed limit, and were extremly cautious, while the "drunks" were speeders and reckless. Fact not fiction. Why can't you just leave people alone, and let people make their own decisions? Oh I forgot, your right and everyone else is wrong. Damn I forgot. Anyone so damn sure their right, like you my friend, is very dangerous. Hitler had the same mindset you do, he was sure he was right.

sell stupid somewhere else pal, were already full up on here. Clown the county fair is in the spring OK?

Does the b s in your name stand for "big stoner"?

What makes you think that I want to drive behind a slow 'stoned' driver?

Here's the proof. Driving stoned is perfectly safe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TtO5ZWSIXY

Imagine if the tweakers were legally stoned, chaos.

You make it sound like there would be MORE people driving around high than now. You couldn't be more wrong. Anyone who wants cannabis, CAN GET IT. The prohibition has done NOTHING to lower the availability, aside from the occasional bust.

NO, people should not drive high (although doing so is statistically FAR safer than driving drunk), but believing that legalization would unleash a VAST torrent of new stoned drivers is simply a pipe dream.

Are you going to rush out and get high and go driving? Neither will anyone else. Those who want to, already are. If you don't believe that, you have swallowed the DEA's rhetoric hook line and sinker, and you owe it to YOURSELF to open your eyes, and recognize the futility of the War on Drugs.' It's failed, in every respect, for FORTY YEARS.

Never seen a price jump because of a bust. Then again, here in OR we do things a little differently :)

Mexican schwag is definitely not the "good stuff". This is a small amount that will not even register with a price increase.

Don't worry Way2go!, most of it will be back on the street in a few weeks.

Lol who even buys this crap anymore lol Schwag sucked in the 80s and 90s heh It's the lazy growers crap from south of the border 8p

Jeremy I really hope you plan on not having children. But then we always will need janitors and sweat shop workers.

Or founding fathers, Ipad developers, Presidents, Astronomers, Musicians, Scientists ect.. Get a clue lastonetoreality.

I comprehend just fine although you seem to be barely able to read. Hooked on Phonics look into it. First time someone named lastonetoreality outfitted in a straight-jacket brought up mental health that I know of anyway.

Quite a bit more than you about many topics I see. Go aheand cut and paste another one of your tired lines about DNA, US IQ ect..

See that's the difference between you and I. I never claimed its completely harmless. Its safe in comparison to Alcohol, Aspirin or Caffeine ect.. I am not wasting my time cut and pasting knowledge about MJ to some corporatist blinded troll. I will just have fun with your ignorance instead.

Their DNA "might be affected"?

Cannabis has been PROVEN to prevent certain cancers and diseases like Parkinsons and Altzhiemers. So by your logic, pregnant women might be doing their fetuses more good than harm.

Careful whatcha propagate there, Sparky.

They'll never legalize it, for one simple reason. If they legalized it, they'd have to pay for their weed like everyone else instead of smoking the confiscated stuff.

look who is the retard, your brain has gone to jelly from usage. so, why should it be made legal? it would just make obama gloat at his accomplishment of more lost jobs. you are a fool to think that by making drugs legal that would solve the problem.. it just compounds the problem with more american deaths from overdose and morons like you getting behind the wheel of a vehicle and killing someone...

Jeremy is right,

Not only would the taxes get this country out of dept but legalizing the Herb Marijuana would ultimately open up fund for the dea to go after the hard drugs, open up massive space in jails and prisons for the criminals (including space for Lindsey) and would stop smugglers from smuggling a what will be legal hence no smuggge. Sure legalizing such may piss off some drug cartels in Columbia and Mexico could such would help put them out of BIZ---all positives---so what the arguement against legalizing such-----there is none

You canno use excuses that it would get into kids hands when actually legalizing such would help get it OUT OF KIDS HANDS!

Legalize it and watch our medical costs go up from soaring traffic accidents due to stoned drivers. Duh.

Really? Cannabis has nothing to do with medical costs. Its the for profit system of insurance companies and HMO's. Traffic accidents? Not one attributed solely to MJ EVER. Legalization doesn't increase use. NEXT?

Midnight put brain in gear before putting mouth in action.

The researchers concluded that the risk of being responsible for a fatal crash increased as the blood concentration of THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, increased. Even small amounts of marijuana could double the chance of a driver suffering an accident, researchers said, and larger doses could more than triple the risk.

If you must be stoned all the time, move to Mexico.

more2bits: You should team up with lastonehome, neither one of you has a clue.

lastonetoreality- My brain is always in gear as anyone who has one can tell by my postings. Now you seem to be having trouble with telling the difference between fact and fiction. Which is your problem.

Researchers? haha Who funded the study? What were the controls? Give me a break. Studies are only as good as who funds them. FYI I or any responsible user never suggested to drive high SFB. Just like I don't advocate drunk driving but don't think alcohol should be illegal. Deeedadeeee

Eugene just because you can find the keyboard, doesn't mean you are intelligent. My 6 year old niece can type on the computer. And your lies anyone can make them up.
You want to look up the researchers and the study. Find the article and spend several days doing the work. Either you don't have the mental capacity or are too lazy. You are the person questioning them so you do the work challenging them and disproving them. The rest of the scientific and medical society has accepted the results.

But you know better than all the researchers, scientists and people in the medical society so it is up to you to disprove them.

Pot make druggies, THINK they are smart. LOL

Hey eugene if you are going to legalize marijuana, why stop there, legalize all the drugs in the U.S. the legal drug manufacturers would love you. First since you did the legalization of all drugs then you would be responsible for all the torts. The price of drugs would go down. Then we could do away with doctors who prescribe the drugs. You are so intelligent, you can write the book on how to self prescribe. Then as people self prescribe in huge quantities...............the price of drugs would go further down. Hey eugene you are onto something. Write your senators, the president, your congressman and the drug companies, get them lined up behind you!

Arizona Tumbleweed: Congratulations, you've finally earned a spot beside lastonehome and more2bits on the retard list.

You should read the books on the Dumbing Down Of America. You must have been interviewed for at least one of them. You fit the outline so well!
Chemical Dumbing Down of America
Stupidity - Dumbing down of Society
The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America
The Dumbing Down of America

What's really odd is that many, not all, but many people who support this rediculous prohibition are the same tea-baggers that are bitching about smaller government and less regulation. You want smaller cheaper government, lets release the 20,000+ people who are in jails and prisons solely on pot charges. I'll wait for the frenzied reply from the private prison industry rep.

Another druggie lie:

NO ONE is in prison for JUST smoking pot.

Thank you Eugene. I worked hard for that spot.

Stand and deliver, a few more people might listen to you if you learn to spell or learned to use the free spell checker in the comment box. The word is not rediculous but ridiculous. That little red line you saw under rediciulous meant that the spelling was wrong.
Now since you don't know what the tea party is all about I will explain it to you.

The Tea Party movement (TPM) is an American populist political movement that is generally recognized as fiscally conservative and libertarian, and has sponsored protests and supported political candidates since 2009. It endorses reduced government spending, opposition to taxation in varying degrees, reduction of the national debt and federal budget deficit, and adherence to an originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution

Now what part of the tea party platform are you against?

And while you are at it, and don't know why many drugs are not allowed to be sold freely like antibiotics and many other prescription drugs why don't you campaign for all drugs to be sold without prescriptions and write a book on self medication and state your name and address and that you are the one to be sued for any accident or illegal deed done by someone under the effects of marijuana?

HAHA! The comedy keeps coming from you. The Tea Party are nothing more than corporatist peasants who are funded by big business. They are propagandized (like you) to vote and support candidates and ideas that are against their self interests.

Keep your Gov. hands off my medicare.

but of course, TOBACCO and ALCOHOL are "just fine" for consumption... (How many accidents are due to weed as opposed to ALCOHOL?)

Legalize weed and tax it - put the cartels out of business. Make it unprofitable to smuggle

Lastonehome, you speak with great emotion, but no real knowledge. You state what you call facts but only if they support your personal rant, and any report that doesn't support your rant, why, just aren't facts. You also mix what few (if any) facts in your rants with rumors, half-facts, out-right lies, and information from other papers on other drugs you WANT to be facts about pot. You only left one thing out of your rants, you forgot to say that God HATES pot, it says so in the bible. (It says no such thing), but I'm surprised you didn't say it anyway. You must be great at your job, whatever it is, if you really have one, as long as it doesn't have too many facts involved in it that may conflict with your emotions.

Just walk south and you can always renounce your American citizenship. And you can smoke and drink yourself to death as long as your renounce public and private health care and don't use health insurance to pay for the related illnesses and the costs of treatment.

Nightwalker join the legions of nincompoops who can't do searches on the net and who don't get medical journals and don't attend conferences on the subjects you possess so little knowledge on. Your broad sweeping statements instead of pinpointing any specific point of debate only defines your lack of knowledge on anything.
You are going to state that all the scientists, all the researchers, all the doctors who have come up with thousands of studies on the harmful effects of marijuana are wrong.

There is a site that I was directed to on the "BENEFITS OF MARIJUANA" and unlike you I spent a few hours reading the articles written by scientists, researchers and doctors and the benefits were medicinal for dying people to ease the pain to reduce awareness of the environment for people who are nauseous etc. And there was not one paper on the benefits of recreational use.

Now run along and find me one article by a reknown scientist, researcher or doctor who says yes smoking marijuana is as beneficial as chewing gum.

You should read the books on the Dumbing Down Of America. You must have been interviewed for at least one of them. You fit the outline so well!
Chemical Dumbing Down of America
Stupidity - Dumbing down of Society
The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America
The Dumbing Down of America

Ever hear what the doctors are pushing on the public lately last?? And the results and side effects? Get a clue.

Arizona Tumbleweed said:

Another druggie lie:

NO ONE is in prison for JUST smoking pot.

Please repost a coherant reply if you come out of your drunken stupor.

What Tumbleweed is trying to point out is that it is the commerce and transportation that results in the imprisonment in most cases. As I have posted and provided sources for before, driving stoned doubles your odds of an accident. And a strong doobie leaves you stoned for a lot longer than you think you are stoned.

Screaming legalize is not a plan. It ignores the infrastructure of all the things that happen before and after you toke. Stoners view themselves as outside society (I say that with confidence as I have been there). Us and them. You and us. That won't get US anywhere. You are gonna have to consider the rights of all if you want to present a coherent plan for legalization. Otherwise, you deserve the pushback you are getting. Why should a church going mom of preschoolers support the right of her babysitter to run out back and get stoned? Or anyone who opposes a generally f*&ed up populace on the street? And YES, many stoners are toking in their cars on the way to work. And on the way home. Tumbleweed and many other people in this country (and in Mexico) are suffering for the actions of stoners. If you accept being governed by law, propose something realistic. If you don't, govern yourselves.

Henry Thinks:

driving stoned doubles your odds of an accident.

Here are studies refuting this claim that joe420er has posted on this issue:

STONERS AND DRIVING:

"[In] cases in which THC was the only drug present were analyzed, the culpability ratio was found to be not significantly different from the no-drug group."

REFERENCE: G. Chesher and M. Longo. 2002. Cannabis and alcohol in motor vehicle accidents. In: F. Grotenhermen and E. Russo (Eds.) Cannabis and Cannabinoids: Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Therapeutic Potential. New York: Haworth Press. Pp. 313-323.

"Cannabis leads to a more cautious style of driving, [but] it has a negative impact on decision time and trajectory. [However,] this in itself does not mean that drivers under the influence of cannabis represent a traffic safety risk. … Cannabis alone, particularly in low doses, has little effect on the skills involved in automobile driving."

REFERENCE: Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs. 2002. Cannabis: Summary Report: Our Position for a Canadian Public Policy. Ottawa. Chapter 8: Driving Under the Influence of Cannabis.

"This report has summarized available research on cannabis and driving.
… Evidence of impairment from the consumption of cannabis has been reported by studies using laboratory tests, driving simulators and on-road observation. ... Both simulation and road trials generally find that driving behavior shortly after consumption of larger doses of cannabis results in (i) a more cautious driving style; (ii) increased variability in lane position (and headway); and (iii) longer decision times. Whereas these results indicate a 'change' from normal conditions, they do not necessarily reflect 'impairment' in terms of performance effectiveness since few studies report increased accident risk."

REFERENCE: UK Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (Road Safety Division). 2000. Cannabis and Driving: A Review of the Literature and Commentary. Crowthorne, Berks: TRL Limited.

"Overall, we conclude that the weight of the evidence indicates that:
1) There is no evidence that consumption of cannabis alone increases the risk of culpability for traffic crash fatalities or injuries for which hospitalization occurs, and may reduce those risks.
2) The evidence concerning the combined effect of cannabis and alcohol on the risk of traffic fatalities and injuries, relative to the risk of alcohol alone, is unclear.
3) It is not possible to exclude the possibility that the use of cannabis (with or without alcohol) leads to an increased risk of road traffic crashes causing less serious injuries and vehicle damage."

REFERENCE: M. Bates and T. Blakely. 1999. "Role of cannabis in motor vehicle crashes." Epidemiologic Reviews 21: 222-232.

"In conclusion, marijuana impairs driving behavior. However, this impairment is mitigated in that subjects under marijuana treatment appear to perceive that they are indeed impaired. Where they can compensate, they do, for example by not overtaking, by slowing down and by focusing their attention when they know a response will be required. … Effects on driving behavior are present up to an hour after smoking but do not continue for extended periods.
With respect to comparisons between alcohol and marijuana effects, these substances tend to differ in their effects. In contrast to the compensatory behavior exhibited by subjects under marijuana treatment, subjects who have received alcohol tend to drive in a more risky manner. Both substances impair performance; however, the more cautious behavior of subjects who have received marijuana decreases the impact of the drug on performance, whereas the opposite holds true for alcohol."

REFERENCE: A. Smiley. 1999. Marijuana: On-Road and Driving-Simulator Studies. In: H. Kalant et al. (Eds) The Health Effects of Cannabis. Toronto: Center for Addiction and Mental Health. Pp. 173-191.

CRASH CULPABILITY STUDIES

"For each of 2,500 injured drivers presenting to a hospital, a blood sample was collected for later analysis.

There was a clear relationship between alcohol and culpability. … In contrast, there was no significant increase in culpability for cannabinoids alone. While a relatively large number of injured drivers tested positive for cannabinoids, culpability rates were no higher than those for the drug free group. This is consistent with other findings."

REFERENCE: Logan, M.C., Hunter, C.E., Lokan, R.J., White, J.M., & White, M.A. (2000). The Prevalence of Alcohol, Cannabinoids, Benzodiazepines and Stimulants Amongst Injured Drivers and Their Role in Driver Culpability: Part II: The Relationship Between Drug Prevalence and Drug Concentration, and Driver Culpability. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 32, 623-32.

"Blood samples from 894 patients presenting to two Emergency Departments for treatment of motor vehicle injur[ies] … were tested for alcohol and other drugs.

… Based on alcohol and drug testing of the full range of patients … alcohol is clearly the major drug associated with serious crashes and greater injury. Patients testing positive for illicit drugs (marijuana, opiates, and cocaine), in the absence of alcohol, were in crashes very similar to those of patients with neither alcohol nor drugs. When other relevant variables were considered, these drugs were not associated with more severe crashes or greater injury."

REFERENCE: P. Waller et al. 1997. Crash characteristics and injuries of victims impaired by alcohol versus illicit drugs. Accident Analysis and Prevention 29: 817-827.

"Blood specimens were collected from a sample of 1,882 drivers from 7 states, during 14 months in the years 1990 and 1991. The sample comprised operators of passenger cars, trucks, and motorcycles who died within 4 hours of their crash.

… While cannabinoids were detected in 7 percent of the drivers, the psychoactive agent THC was found in only 4 percent. … The THC-only drivers had a responsibility rate below that of the drugfree drivers. … While the difference was not statistically significant, there was no indication that cannabis by itself was a cause of fatal crashes."

REFERENCE: K. Terhune. 1992. The incidence and role of drugs in fatally injured drivers. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Report No. DOT HS 808 065.

ON-ROAD PERFORMANCE STUDIES

"Marijuana's effects on actual driving performance were assessed in a series of three studies wherein dose-effect relationships were measured in actual driving situations that progressively approached reality.

… THC's effects on road-tracking after doses up to 300 µg/kg never exceeded alcohol's at bacs of 0.08%; and, were in no way unusual compared to many medicinal drugs. Yet, THC's effects differ qualitatively from many other drugs, especially alcohol. Evidence from the present and previous studies strongly suggests that alcohol encourages risky driving whereas THC encourages greater caution, at least in experiments. Another way THC seems to differ qualitatively from many other drugs is that the formers users seem better able to compensate for its adverse effects while driving under the influence."

REFERENCE: H. Robbe. 1995. Marijuana's effects on actual driving performance. In: C. Kloeden and A. McLean (Eds) Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety T-95. Adelaide: Australia: HHMRC Road Research Unit, University of Adelaide. Pp. 11-20.

"This report concerns the effects of marijuana smoking on actual driving performance. … This program of research has shown that marijuana, when taken alone, produces a moderate degree of driving impairment which is related to consumed THC dose. The impairment manifests itself mainly in the ability to maintain a lateral position on the road, but its magnitude is not exceptional in comparison with changes produced by many medicinal drugs and alcohol. Drivers under the influence of marijuana retain insight in their performance and will compensate when they can, for example, by slowing down or increasing effort. As a consequence, THC's adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small."

REFERENCE: W. Hindrik and J. Robbe and J. O'Hanlon. 1993. Marijuana and actual driving performance. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Report No. DOT HS 808 078.

TABULATED SUMMARY OF ROAD TRIALS OF CANNABIS AND DRIVING
Table compiled by the UK Department of Transport (2000)

DRIVING SIMULATOR STUDIES

"Overall, it is possible to conclude that cannabis has a measurable effect on psychomotor performance, particularly tracking ability. Its effect on higher cognitive functions, for example divided attention tasks associated with driving, appear not to be as critical. Drivers under the influence of cannabis seem aware that they are impaired, and attempt to compensate for this impairment by reducing the difficulty of the driving task, for example by driving more slowly.

In terms of road safety, it cannot be concluded that driving under the influence of cannabis is not a hazard, as the effects of various aspects of driver performance are unpredictable. However, in comparison with alcohol, the severe effects of alcohol on the higher cognitive processes of driving are likely to make this more of a hazard, particularly at higher blood alcohol levels."

REFERENCE: B. Sexton et al. 2000. The influence of cannabis on driving: A report prepared for the UK Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Road Safety Division). Crowthorne, Berks: TRL Limited.

And here is a statement from the very study you are getting your info from:

However, the low number of drivers positive for Δ⁹tetrahydrocannabinol and the common association of cannabis and alcohol hamper the detection of effects entirely attributable to cannabis.¹³

So you can stop the fear mongering when it comes to driving while high. I'm not suggesting anyone should do this or it should be legal. But it's pretty clear this is a non-issue in the legalization of weed.

It ignores the infrastructure of all the things that happen before and after you toke.

Can you please clarify this statement?

Stoners view themselves as outside society

The reality is people who smoke weed are apart of society. They range from people of all walks of life, from every age, and from every vocation from the lowest paying jobs right up to the presidency.

You are gonna have to consider the rights of all if you want to present a coherent plan for legalization.

How is this an issue? If weed were regulated like alcohol the rights of everybody would be addressed.

Why should a church going mom of preschoolers support the right of her babysitter to run out back and get stoned?

Who said it would be OK for the babysitter to be high on anything when she is responsible for the safety of the kids in her care? Again, this is nothing but more fear mongering and absolutely ridiculous.

Or anyone who opposes a generally f*&ed up populace on the street?

If weed were regulated like alcohol it would be illegal to be intoxicated in public. And what makes you think the "populace" would all be "f*&ked up" with the legalization of weed? You are exaggerating and again fear mongering.

And YES, many stoners are toking in their cars on the way to work. And on the way home.

Again, if weed were regulated like alcohol, this activity would be illegal and those caught doing this would be charged with a crime. But if this were an issue, where all the accidents from all these stoners toking up behind the wheel?

Tumbleweed and many other people in this country (and in Mexico) are suffering for the actions of stoners.

The reality is people are suffering from the draconian laws. It's drug prohibition that is causing the damage. It is the illegality that has given power to the cartels and gangs in nearly every city and created a huge black market associated with drug trafficking.

If you accept being governed by law, propose something realistic.

Tax and regulate marijuana like alcohol. What could be any more realistic than that proposal?

Awaiting your response to my questions.

WebMD Health News

Dec. 1, 2005 - People who drive after using marijuana are nearly twice as likely to be involved in a fatal car crash.

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051201/marijuana-raises-risk-of-fatal-car-crash

Marijuana use is much more dangerous than believed and hundreds of young people die each year in "accidents" caused by their prolonged use of the drug, according to Britain's most senior coroner.

http://alcoholism.about.com/b/2003/11/02/marijuana-causes-many-deaths-reported-as-accidents.htm

Drivers who test positive for marijuana or reported using marijuana and then driving have double the risk of being involved in a vehicle accidents, compared to drivers who are not under the influence, researchers from Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health, New York, reported in the journal Epidemiologic Reviews.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/236036.php

Yes and No. We already are dealing with the red eyed giggler with it illegal. At least most of your post at least accepts SOME responsiblility for public intoxication. Many who post here do not. I am not "fear-mongering". I am disagreeing. There is a difference. I have buried friends. Checked friends into rehab. And over and over loaned them 20 bucks I couldn't spare. I have dealt with their truly profound mood swings. Done them favors and listened in disbelief at their juvenile attitudes. given them rides to discover we are going to "score". Have had my car impounded by letting someone ride with me that stupidly couldn't be without it for a day. So finally did myself a favor and won't tolerate them around me. And there is the deal. I don't want the mentality around me and I do have that right.

At first I totally opposed any legalizaton whatsoever. I have relatives in Mexico who have been killed, terrorized and kidnapped. This is a total lack of responsible consumerism that destroys real people. Why cater to that? Most stoners want unconditional legalization. Bull. this won't solve anything but the buzz. The only thing I have seen so far that I can even tentatively support is allowing a personal consumpton indoor grow license with no sales whatsoever. Only to nonfelons and subject to restrictions and inspection.

That is as far as you will ever get me to go. I have had my friendship abused. I have been stolen from. And I have had enough of the selfishness. So you see, we have suffered from the actions of stoners, but I doubt you will get it until the cartels kidnap someone in your family. And you weep over draconian laws....over your percieved right to get a buzz. Good grief.

The driving issue we will have to agree to disagree. You re-posted the same studies which I could do the exact same thing which means we will be going in circles over that debate.

...And over and over loaned them 20 bucks I couldn't spare. I have dealt with their truly profound mood swings. Done them favors and listened in disbelief at their juvenile attitudes. given them rides to discover we are going to "score". Have had my car impounded by letting someone ride with me that stupidly couldn't be without it for a day...

So you see, we have suffered from the actions of stoners, but I doubt you will get it until the cartels kidnap someone in your family.

Sounds like to me you are blaming pot when you should be blaming the character of the people you have associated with. Pot didn't make someone a thief; they were thieves to begin with. And, again, because of marijuana prohibition we now have powerful greedy cartels that will do anything and everything in pursuit of profit. It is because of drug prohibition we have the violence and deaths associated with illegal drug trafficking. Pot didn't kidnap your family member, drug cartels did.

And you weep over draconian laws....over your percieved right to get a buzz. Good grief.

Yes I weep over draconian laws that have ruined lives. I weep over a drug war that has killed thousands. I weep over the non-violent pot smokers who are locked up with hard core felons and have their lives ruined with marks on their records that will follow them the rest of their lives. I weep over the fact that we have spent over a trillion tax payer dollars for over 40 years with meager results in curbing drug trafficking and drug addiction. Etc. Etc. Etc.

You make it sound like all I care about is the right to catch a buzz which couldn't be farther from the truth. Please understand I want fair and just laws and the current policies only serve to support the profits of industries like the prison industrial complex and have nothing to do with protecting the safety of the people. This drug war has done nothing except bring more government intrusion into our lives and funneled gross profits to organized crime. The time has long since passed for a change in how we deal with the drug problem.

So I would appreciate it if you didn't belittle my opinions with the notion that all I want to do is to be able to get high legally. It goes much much deeper than that and goes beyond the selfishness that you perceive I have. Thank you.

Because of your experiences you have decided to keep the pot element out of your life which is your right. More power to you.

The only thing I have seen so far that I can even tentatively support is allowing a personal consumpton indoor grow license with no sales whatsoever. Only to nonfelons and subject to restrictions and inspection.

But that doesn't give you the right to dictate to others how they should live their lives and you are doing this by saying you only agree people should be allowed to grow it indoors and only to non-felons. Are felons not allowed to drink alcohol and smoke tobacco? Why would you restrict them from weed? And do you know how expensive it would be to only be able grow indoors? You are excluding many people who are poor and would not have the means to have an indoor grow operation. And if you dictate no one or no company could sell weed you are basically giving more fuel to the black market.

It sounds like because of your negative experiences with the people who smoke weed you blame the weed and want to put limitations on others. I'm sorry for your bad luck but that doesn't give you the right to take out your frustrations on others.

No Dirty Rat, I kept an open mind until multiple "druggies" closed it for me over a period of 30 plus years. And I DO have the right to state my opinion. I don't think the US should emulate Holland or Potugal. I am against it. I am fighting back and I most definatively HAVE THE RIGHT. Get it?

Never ever on the street. Only indoors and it never walks out with you. So, what exactly is wrong with that . Why wouldn't that satisfy your "rights". Because you don't just want what you say you want. There is something MORE, yes?

You think you should be able to travel with it? Perhaps make a little money on the side with it? Perpetuate the current state of corruption with it. Expand the stoner subculture? I say NO. It may not be up to me. But my VOTE and my VOICE is NO.

Hes not suggesting that personal sales be made legal. If regulated and sold to only persons of 21 years or older, like alchohol, then it would be automatically be a controlled substance. If legalized personal sales of mj should be a crime, the same as trying to sell moonshine.

Perhaps make a little money on the side with it? Perpetuate the current state of corruption with it.

But the sale of pot would not be a problem. If people were allowed to grow on the own property, yes they should be able to use the sun to grow their plants as that is FREE, then they would not have the need to buy. Also this would make pot ultimately worthless, as everyone could grow their own. There would be no profit to try and sell it.

Never ever on the street. Only indoors and it never walks out with you. So, what exactly is wrong with that .

As far as smoking it in public, Ill agree with you that you should not be able to toke up in public. But lets say friends are having a party. Why should I not be able to take some with me to the party to share with my friends? Assuming that Im not driving impared, I should be able to transport it from one private home to another, without worrying about going to jail.

Ok, now this is a conversation.

Assuming not driving impaired

If it stays in the home regulation and enforcement is greatly simplified.

If legalized personal sales of mj should be a crime, the same as trying to sell moonshine.

Home consumption makers of moonshine aren't allowed to drive to a party with it for very good reasons. I think it is a good parallel and a proven paradigm. If you wanna smoke a bowl at home and not hit the streets fine. But keep it there. Have the party at your house and no one drives home who partook until... when exactly? I used to smoke and absolutely could still feel strong affects next morning. Folks who STAY buzzed will disagree because they don't ever quite get to that state of utter sobriety. It is also medically irrefutable that different people have extremely different physical reactions to thc. Please don't try to bs me on this. I am not an innocent bystander. Don't even want to tell folks things I have done thinking I was straight. At least until the propaganda is definatively put to bed with facts on reaction time curve per universally accepted medical proof.... how long until a potsmoker is safe on the interstate? Until then keep it in the house.

yes they should be able to use the sun to grow their plants as that is FREE

I could probably accept it being within a certain number of feet from your back door or window.... but the grower has to accept strong penalties for the 12 year old who harvests your unsecured plant. If you think about it... it might oughta stay inside as the grower is responsible for the consequences of contributing to the delinquency thereof.

Any interest I have in limited legalization is to solve social ill, not perpetuate it. If there isn't a solution for all inside legalization, it won't get my support. That may not matter much, but I suspect I am not the only one who feels that way.

The problems of legalization will need to be addressed for it to be successful, don't you think?

Home consumption makers of moonshine aren't allowed to drive to a party with it for very good reasons.

Making moonshine is illegal period, so your analogy is off.

If it stays in the home regulation and enforcement is greatly simplified.

So would drinking of all alcohol would it not? But there are already enforcement procedures in place for driving under the influence. Its not that much of a stretch to suggest that these same guidelines and enforcements could be used for any type of impairment.

Have the party at your house and no one drives home who partook until... when exactly? I used to smoke and absolutely could still feel strong affects next morning. Folks who STAY buzzed will disagree because they don't ever quite get to that state of utter sobriety. It is also medically irrefutable that different people have extremely different physical reactions to thc. Please don't try to bs me on this.

Your right that it affects everyone at different levels, but so does alcohol, correct? Yet they found a specific level of blood alcohol to be considered drunk, even though some show no affects of alcohol at that stage of consumption and others show great signs of impairment.

Tolerance levels also have a big impact on how much you are impaired. For example, my uncle is a big drinker, so for him a few shots of whiskey in a matter of minutes doesnt really have an affect on his motor skills. Where as Im not much of a drinker outside of social settings, so three shots of whiskey would make me a little tipsy.

At least until the propaganda is definatively put to bed with facts on reaction time curve per universally accepted medical proof.... how long until a potsmoker is safe on the interstate? Until then keep it in the house.

As OneDirtyRat has said, you will have to agree to dis-agree with me on this one as well. As with alcohol, getting stoned out of your mind and trying to drive is not very smart and could be fatal. On the other hand, if I smoke 5 joints and go to the store, im not swerving all over the road. Its not the same impairment that a drunk experiences. All those studies you sited are talking about reaction time being diminished. Everyones reaction times are already different. I play alot of sports, and my reaction times are pretty fast. So lets just say that if I smoke 1 joint my reaction time diminishes by 10%(which is unlikely). Now lets look at a 80 year old driver, my grandfather for example. His reaction time is horrible and would not compare, even I were to smoke 5 joints. Not all elderly are affected by age the same. Ive seen older people drive just fine, but we have all seen the ones that shouldnt be on the road for everyones safety.

To be clear, my argument is that a stoned driver isnt any more dangerous than an elderly driver, even though they both exhibit a varying range of diminished reaction times.

I could probably accept it being within a certain number of feet from your back door or window.... but the grower has to accept strong penalties for the 12 year old who harvests your unsecured plant. If you think about it... it might oughta stay inside as the grower is responsible for the consequences of contributing to the delinquency thereof.

Yes this is an obvious point. First of all, the 12 year old would have to face the penalties of trespassing, theft, property damage, and a list of others crimes he would be committing to get his hands on the plant. Remember, hes commiting a crime not the grower. I would think that there would have to be some rule/law that your plants can not be in view of the public. That way the only people that know it exists are you, the govt, and your friends that know you smoke. I say the govt because I think there should be a flat tax paid for growing a controlled substance. This pays for the oversight and maintenance needed to make sure laws are followed properly, plus some for the states coffers.

Also remember that even while its illegal, its easier for a 12 year old to get ahold of pot than it is alcohol. So if you really are worried about the kids, legalization and controlling the substance is more effective than leaving it illegal.

Any interest I have in limited legalization is to solve social ill, not perpetuate it. If there isn't a solution for all inside legalization, it won't get my support.

Thats fine with me, this shows that your are open to solving the problems that this drug war is causing. Where others simply try to place the blame on all users for the senseless murders being committed, and the only solution is to support prohibition no matter how many people die or how much it costs. 40 years, over $1 trillion, and who knows how many lives later, there is still little to no impact on the illicet drug trade or availablity of drugs.

Sorry but you are wrong. Making moosnshine is not illegal period. In 2 states that I know of, it is legal to make moonshine for personal consumption. Never to be sold. The people I have met that make it leave it right there at home. I thought you knew that. The analogy does work.

With alcohol there is a measurable standard of not driving. Maybe that is the holdup then. Too many loopholes and too much leeway. If you are for it, help define the standerd, cuz nobody impaired should be driving the schoolbus or driving next to it. Nobody impaired should be doing my taxes or working on my car engine. Nobody impaired should be answering the phone at the DMV or counting out my Mama's meds at the nursing home. Or even selling me popcorn at the theater. Not because I am a moralist, but because I am a realist. Impasse.

Henry Thinks:

And I DO have the right to state my opinion.

I never said you don't have a right to state your opinion. What I said was you don't have the right to tell others how to live their lives. And you do that by only supporting indoor grows because you are limiting others. Get it?

Only indoors and it never walks out with you. So, what exactly is wrong with that . Why wouldn't that satisfy your "rights"

Have you ever taken a bottle of wine to a social gathering? Have you ever taken a six pack over to a friends house to watch the superbowl? My point is it is perfectly legal to transport alcohol, why would you restrict weed?

You think you should be able to travel with it? Perhaps make a little money on the side with it?

Perpetuate the current state of corruption with it.

So now you think I want to be able to transport it because you think I'm a pot dealer, right? Well, no I am not and I find that offensive. You keep attacking me by thinking the only reason I am arguing these points is for selfish reasons. You couldn't be more wrong.

Expand the stoner subculture?

WTF!? Stoner subculture? What in the hell are you talking about? You must think all stoners are the same which is unfortunate. And I use the term "stoners" with much disdain knowing that it is basically a stereotype. Same goes with the word "druggies". Again, I'm sorry you have had such negatives experiences which have jaded your views of pot smokers but I can assure you that is not the norm. And if you think it is, then your mind has been closed and there is no reason to even discuss this with you.

Ok, now this is a conversation.

You said this to SmallTownPete but for some reason it felt like it was indirectly about our posts as if what we were talking about wasn't a conversation? Am I right or am I jumping to conclusions? Because if that is the case...

As for a sobriety test for people under the influence and driving may I suggest a field test to see if the driver is impaired and if they fail the test only then they should be charged with DUI. Right now as the law stands if a driver has smoked ANY amount they are charged with DUI which I find completely unfair. You can drink a beer and drive and as long as you pass the sobriety test you can go on your way. That is not the same with weed.

And you do that by only supporting indoor grows because you are limiting others. Get it?

Ok fine Dirty Rat. YOU DON'T ACCEPT LIMITS. And in that is your own defeat.

Back to the beginning. I don't support legalization for a group of folks who justify everything and are responsible for nothing. Limits are necessary for people like me to support what you want. It is a little (well a lot) childish to stomp your feet and demand NO LIMITS. We are done.

Sorry but you are wrong. Making moosnshine is not illegal period. In 2 states that I know of, it is legal to make moonshine for personal consumption.

What states is it legal to make moonshine in? Why do you not explain in your claims with showing proof? Im just suppposed to take your word for it?

In the US, distillation is illegal without a Federal permit.

By ’moonshine’, I assume you do not mean beer or wine, but the distillation of the fermented product.

Making beer at home is an issue left to the individual states, and in Washington it is legal to make your own beer and wine at home, but you can’t sell it.

Distillation, however, is federally regulated. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms (BATF), you can legally own a still no larger than one gallon and you have to use it for water purification or to extract essential oils from plants. If you do buy a still, the shop that sold it to you has to surrender your contact information to the BATF if they request it, and no warrant is required for them to get it either. You have to pay excise tax, get bonded, and on and on and on.

Distillation of alcohol without a permit is a federal crime and probably a state one too, so get a permit or don’t do it.

This ones from Wiki:

Moonshine (meaning illicit distillation, also called white lightning, mountain dew, hooch, and many other names) is an illegally produced distilled beverage.

The actual definition of moonshine is an illicit or illegal beverage.

So please if you have any evidence that its legal to make moonshine, please provide it.

With alcohol there is a measurable standard of not driving. Maybe that is the holdup then. Too many loopholes and too much leeway. If you are for it, help define the standerd, cuz nobody impaired should be driving

See this is where you are being the kid stomping your feet. What you seem to not be able to comprehend is that the impairment of alcohol is completely different than the impairment from pot. As I tired to explain above, which you seemed to ignore, is that marijuana affects driving differently than alcohol. Here is a study done comparing the two:

14. The results of this study indicate clearly that alcohol and marijuana
are distinctly different drugs. The effects produced on the performance
measures were qualitatively and quantitatively different. In addition, the
differences in the nature of the drug-induced subjective intoxication and
the self-reported changes in mood effects such as anxiety and alertness,
strongly suggested different drug actions.

15. The ability to discriminate and assess the degree of intoxication with
alcohol was not affected by marijuana. However, the ability to assess the intoxication due to marijuana was greatly affected by alcohol. The
subjective intoxication produced by marijuana appears to be of a more subtle nature than that produced by alcohol.

16. Evidence is presented which suggests that under the influence of
alcohol, subjects engage in a "speed-accuracy trade-off". They are prepared to make a hasty response to a question rather than to spend more time to ensure a correct answer. This effect could be related to a risk-taking behaviour. The results with marijuana on the other hand suggested a slower and more careful approach to the problem, though as with alcohol, an increased error rate in responses was recorded.

17. Evidence is presented which suggests that marijuana produces periodic attentional lapses.

18. The results strongly suggest that the performance deficits and mood
changes produced by alcohol are of a greater magnitude than those produced by marijuana.

Although cannabis intoxication has been shown to mildly impair psychomotor skills, this impairment does not appear to be severe or long lasting. In driving simulator tests, this impairment is typically manifested by subjects decreasing their driving speed and requiring greater time to respond to emergency situations.

Nevertheless, this impairment does not appear to play a significant role in on-road traffic accidents. A 2002 review of seven separate studies involving 7,934 drivers reported, “Crash culpability studies have failed to demonstrate that drivers with cannabinoids in the blood are significantly more likely than drug-free drivers to be culpable in road crashes.” This result is likely because subject under the influence of marijuana are aware of their impairment and compensate for it accordingly, such as by slowing down and by focusing their attention when they know a response will be required. This reaction is just the opposite of that exhibited by drivers under the influence of alcohol, who tend to drive in a more risky manner proportional to their intoxication.

Some studies even go on to say that marijuana makes drivers more cautious. While alcohol has the opposite affect, making drivers less cautious and becoming more of a risky driver.

“In conclusion, marijuana impairs driving behavior. However, this impairment is mitigated in that subjects under marijuana treatment appear to perceive that they are indeed impaired. Where they can compensate, they do, for example by not overtaking, by slowing down and by focusing their attention when they know a response will be required. … Effects on driving behavior are present up to an hour after smoking but do not continue for extended periods.

With respect to comparisons between alcohol and marijuana effects, these substances tend to differ in their effects. In contrast to the compensatory behavior exhibited by subjects under marijuana treatment, subjects who have received alcohol tend to drive in a more risky manner. Both substances impair performance; however, the more cautious behavior of subjects who have received marijuana decreases the impact of the drug on performance, whereas the opposite holds true for alcohol.”

REFERENCE: A. Smiley. 1999. Marijuana: On-Road and Driving-Simulator Studies. In: H. Kalant et al. (Eds) The Health Effects of Cannabis. Toronto: Center for Addiction and Mental Health. Pp. 173-191.

Here are some more studies, if you even care to know the difference. Or you can just stick your fingers in your ears:

This report has summarized available research on cannabis and driving.

… Evidence of impairment from the consumption of cannabis has been reported by studies using laboratory tests, driving simulators and on-road observation. ... Both simulation and road trials generally find that driving behavior shortly after consumption of larger doses of cannabis results in (i) a more cautious driving style; (ii) increased variability in lane position (and headway); and (iii) longer decision times. Whereas these results indicate a 'change' from normal conditions, they do not necessarily reflect 'impairment' in terms of performance effectiveness since few studies report increased accident risk.

REFERENCE: UK Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (Road Safety Division). 2000. Cannabis and Driving: A Review of the Literature and Commentary. Crowthorne, Berks: TRL Limited.

And another:

“For each of 2,500 injured drivers presenting to a hospital, a blood sample was collected for later analysis.

There was a clear relationship between alcohol and culpability. … In contrast, there was no significant increase in culpability for cannabinoids alone. While a relatively large number of injured drivers tested positive for cannabinoids, culpability rates were no higher than those for the drug free group. This is consistent with other findings.”

REFERENCE: Logan, M.C., Hunter, C.E., Lokan, R.J., White, J.M., & White, M.A. (2000). The Prevalence of Alcohol, Cannabinoids, Benzodiazepines and Stimulants Amongst Injured Drivers and Their Role in Driver Culpability: Part II: The Relationship Between Drug Prevalence and Drug Concentration, and Driver Culpability. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 32, 623-32.

In short, these studies show that marijuana does not have as much of a significant impact on driving as you claim and is not comparable to alcohol. Though they do say there is a measurable difference between sobriety and marijuana usage.

"On the basis of estimated annual travel, the fatality rate for drivers 85 and over is nine times as high as the rate for drivers 25 through 69 years old."

Gotta agree with Tumblweed on some things. If you want to claim that it is safe to drive stoned, then we have nothing to talk about. You are the guys comparing to alcohol prohibition (until it ceases to suit you) Define the limits or the Door is closed. I have no problem saying screw it. Don't legalise. If you won't accept responsibility and deny any problem, then don't count on me. This whole conversation just became moot. If your view of legalization does not accept caveates forget it. You can count my vote as NO.

I have already posted medical sources and studies that are apparently reputable showing that your chances of an accident stoned doubles. It is not open to debate. Stoned is impaired. Drunk is impaired. As long as you are looking for the loophole, you are demonstrating your denial and justification skills.

Tumbleweed, I just had to try to talk to a stoner one more time, but you were right. They will quote anybody who agrees with them and call it a fact. Through a fog of smoke and indifference, you see nothing but what you want. We are done. You blew it.

No Henry, you are taking a conversation with one or two folks, and extrapolating that to take their opinion as that of the entire community.

Many of us do NOT think driving stoned is ok. It IS SAFER than driving drunk (statistically there is no question of that), but it is NOT OK, NOR should it be legal when cannabis is legalized and regulated.

People shouldn't drive when they are impaired, PERIOD.

STP - I know you have your opinion (and few small studies to back it), and it MAY be borne out with more substantial studies, but in the absence of them, logic dictates that impaired driving is NOT allowed. As someone who lost a parent to a drunk driver at a very young age, there can be no equivocation on this point, IMHO.

marijuana does not have as much of a significant impact on driving as you claim and is not comparable to alcohol.

I meant that the statistical difference is immense and doesnt compare, that driving drunk is exponentially more dangerous than driving stoned. Im not implying that driving stoned is a good thing.

You are the guys comparing to alcohol prohibition

Comparing the different affects of the drug and alcohol has nothing to do with the repercussions of prohibition. There is a line there. On one side we are discussing the effect that prohibition in general causes and the things we can do to fix it. Then we started going off in the direction of legalization and the different rules and regulations that are going to come with that.

Society allows you to drink some alcohol and drive, as long as your not over a certain limit, correct? So why should the same not be true for a drug that has less affect on your motor skills than alcohol? Thats my point. That smoking some pot could be the equivalent to drinking a couple beers and driving legally. Where that limit is, I dont know... Thats one thing that would need to be addressed if it were legalized.

I have already posted medical sources and studies that are apparently reputable showing that your chances of an accident stoned doubles. It is not open to debate. Stoned is impaired. Drunk is impaired. As long as you are looking for the loophole, you are demonstrating your denial and justification skills.

If you dont understand that marijuana is still present in the system for 30 days after you smoke then we really are done talking and you can ignore me. But the truth of those studies is that they can NOT prove that the drivers were stoned at the time of the accidents, just that they have smoked in the last 30 days. That is not irrefutable, so yes its very open to debate. Im not trying to claim that stoned drivers dont cause accidents, just incase your going to say that next. Im just showing you that those numbers are grosly inflated due to the amount of time that marijuana stays in your system.

If you want to claim that it is safe to drive stoned

Where did I say its safe to drive stoned? All the things im saying show its not as dangerous as alcohol.

Though they do say there is a measurable difference between sobriety and marijuana usage.

I even admited your point, yet you act like Im trying to deny it. Im not saying that driving stoned is good. I said it before I posted those studies that driving stoned is not very smart and could be fatal. Please stop trying to suggest that im advocating that its a good thing. Im not sure how many times I need to point that out.

Fred Evil-

There are a whole lot more studies to back up the claim that marijuana is less of an impairment on driving than alcohol, I just didnt want to post page after page, knowing that Henry Thinks wont even read the ones I posted. I knew it would be a waste of time, but wanted anyone else following the discussion to see stats contrary to his claims of stoned driving doubles your chance of an accident.

logic dictates that impaired driving is NOT allowed. As someone who lost a parent to a drunk driver at a very young age, there can be no equivocation on this point, IMHO.

But imparied driving is allowed to a certain limit. Thats what the legal limit of alcohol is for. Im sorry for your loss, I lost 2 friends in high school to drinking and driving. I dont take it lightly, but the fact is you can drink and drive within legal limits. Im stimply trying to demonstrate that.

Now if we want to change all impairment laws, thats one thing. Im not against that idea, but if we allow people to have some alcohol and drive safely, how is that any different than allowing people to have some pot and drive safely?

You may be done but I certainly am not.

I have noticed you keep ignoring my questions. Are you afraid of answering them or is that you don't have any good answers for them? Oh wait, that's another question which I am sure you will ignore also.

Henry Thinks:

Ok fine Dirty Rat. YOU DON'T ACCEPT LIMITS. And in that is your own defeat.

You are twisting my words around. I never said there shouldn't be limits. I said we should regulate marijuana like alcohol. Wouldn't that put limitations on marijuana? What I said was you ONLY supporting indoor grows puts limits on others because EVERYONE CANNOT AFFORD INDOOR GROWS! That would mean poor people would not have the means to grow their own weed and thereby forcing them to get their weed from illegal sources like the black market which would defeat the whole purpose of legalization by ridding our society of the organized crime associated with illegal drug trafficking. Understand now?

I don't support legalization for a group of folks who justify everything and are responsible for nothing.

If we regulate marijuana like alcohol HOW would that be irresponsible? And your use of the words "group of people" is telling.

I have come to the conclusion that you want to stuff the "stoner subculture" (as you call it) under a rock somewhere because you want revenge on a "group" of people that did you wrong at some point in your lifetime. You are scared @!$%#less that, one day, people who smoke pot will have a legitimate place in society. Well that day is on the horizon and if you can't accept that, that is your problem and yours alone. Get over yourself.

It is a little (well a lot) childish to stomp your feet and demand NO LIMITS.

Once again you have insulted me, this time by calling me a child.

We are done.

Agreed. Welcome to my ignore list.

Sheesh! Debating this guy is like debating a politician who takes everything his opponent says out of context and puts words into his mouth and never gives a direct answer to a direct question.

If you have any idea that your sophomoric comments are or will be taken seriously, in this post or previous, you are deluded.

A) Tunnels at the level that these are at have no effect on seismic activity.

B) An earthquake that would collapse the tunnels would cause great damage to innocent and uninvolved people, homes and infrastructure.

C) Review the statistics on minor cannabis possession and use, the impact to families and society on trials and incarceration, the costs to taxpayers and law enforcement, for the use of something that is by far less dangerous than gin, bourbon, vodka or beer.

"C"

It may be a little less dangerous than falling out of a plane or being on a sinking ship also. What does that have to do with it?

WHY was weed criminalized in the first place? Anybody remember that Geo Washington (yes THAT Geo Washington) grew HEMP at Mt Vernon?? It was a MAJOR CROP

I don't know canary, I wasn't there. But if it's true, it doesn't make Washington a criminal. Pot (and many other items and deeds), hadn't been made illegal yet.

She asked why it was made illegal, Tumbleweed.

I have to point out that Hemp was used to make rope. The stuff "WE" smoke is a 1000 times more powerful. Hemp, "dirt weed" would give an elephant a headache, but that was before hybrids. The pot of today will knock your socks off and have you rolling on the floor begging for God to make it stop.

yeah, I am for legalizing it for people that are sick or old. I have seen too many of my friends that did not stop smoking pot die poor and unmotivated. They WERE smart kids, but decided not to follow the rat race and live a life of accumulation. No slam to them, but it you want to live life as a drop out that is great. Just don't expect me to pay your bills.

So according to you everyone who smokes weed is a drop out and don't accumulate?

I guess they weren't as greedy as you are, huh? And that's wrong?

And just exactly which bills are you referring to?

canary-in-the-coal-mine asked:

WHY was weed criminalized in the first place?

Arizona Tumbleweed replied:

I don't know canary, I wasn't there

EXACTLY. YOU DON'T KNOW SH!T!

Educate yourself. Start here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_J._Anslinger

Canary - It seems there were a few factors that prompted Cannabis/Hemp to be made illegal in 1937. Two of which stand out as having most influence and financial backing. These would be:

In 1933 when prohibition ended, there were a large number of agents working for the treasury in the "Bureau of Prohibition" (like Elliot Ness) that didn't have as much to work on anymore, Harry Anslinger was assistant director of "Bureau of Prohibition" and became director of the new "Federal Bureau of Narcotics" (FBN) in 1938. He brought many of his prohibition agents over to the new FBN. He was also a major part of the testimony against pot before congress leading up to 1937.

Also, in 1935, DuPont chemical invented and started selling Nylon, Nylons biggest competitor then was hemp since it was often superior and cheaper than nylon. Without hemp being illegalized, it would have been difficult (if not impossible) for Nylon to take the market share like it did. DuPont had congressional lobbyists and provided money for much of the media campaign before 1937.

I don't know about George Washington specifically, but many of the U.S founding
fathers did smoke Cannabis (however, back then it was almost 1000 times WEAKER than what is available today).

Interestingly, the AMA back in 1936-1937, was testifying in congress that pot didn't really cause death, drive people insane, etc.; counter to Anslinger's claims. However the AMA didn't have the influence or respect that it does today.

In addition to the FBN being formed in 1938, the treasury's "Bureau of Investigation" was also formed into our FBI in 1938. The FBN would change names a couple of times and eventually become the DEA that we have today.

I support legalization. There is NO lucid rational for not doing so, if you apply that arguement to a whole litany of other "questionable" personal preferences.

What I see here is a bunch of knee jerking, pedantic assumptions, and erronious claims.

I most certainly do not care to govern what others do in the privacy of their home.

The people I know that smoke pot:

Pay their bills, have good jobs..(more professional than janitors, as a matter of fact) Have well adjusted kids, OWN their homes, and are devoid of any criminal record.

So how is it, that through this unjust legislation, we turn otherwise law abiding citizens into felons?

To be perfectly honest, (as I have both friends who drink alcohol exclusively, and those who smoke pot exclusively,) I would rather hang out with the smokers. The conversations are more intellectual, there is no property damage, no violence, and I don't have anyone puking all over the place.

If some folks don't like it..I suggest they don't smoke it. But be careful about imposing your "morals" on others. The day may very well arrive when you will find that YOUR freedoms are no longer viable.....and that day is coming soon, if we don't learn to respect each other.

Pam Montgomery...The most lucid and intelligent comments so far. Uh Ra!!!

People take heed of what Pam says. We as a society are on the path to loosing our freedoms.

Based on the comments I have read so far by posters such as lastonehome, tumbleweed and more2bits their mindset is somewhat askew. They are not interested in true discourse, they prefer to engage mouth prior to engaging the brain.

Society cannot allow our Government to continue this sharade of a drug war. It continues to hurt all of us. If you toke or you don't toke doesn't really matter, what does matter is that there is so much mis-information out there that both sides fall for the crap. I firmly believe that what I do in my home is my business and no one elses. (BTW I would be considered very conservative by all the liberals out there and I support legalization). My biggest fear is people like lastone..., tumbleweed, more2bits forcing their morals and beliefs into my life... It certainly is not my wish to insert my morals and/or beliefs into theirs.

Again Pam Montgomery very well said!!!

I thank you, kind zzzz.

Here, here!

LASTONEHOME

I pray that one day you do not suffer the pain of cancer or glacoma!

Your ignorance and prejudice is what is preventing many from benefiting from this HERB> IT NOT A DRUG UNTIL PROCESSED.

Marijuana has been used for centuries for pain, comforts of the ill. And yes legalizingit just as Alcohol once was would help keep it out of the children's hands.

And BTW: there is no research indicating that smoking pot will cause birth defects on babies---but HEY T HAS BEEN PROVEN THAT ALCOHOL CAN!

Genesis 1: 29

Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you;

Just sayin'

Does that include poison ivy?

Actually, poison ivy does have purposes used by man:

http://www.wildmanstevebrill.com/Plants.Folder/Poison%20Ivy.html

Arizona, it is not my place to question G-d's wisdom. You ask Him. Let me know how that works out for you.

with your intelligence, you could be a RETHUG candidate for "presidunt"

If you live in the U.S. you can just walk south across the border and live without any Mexican immigration papers. Take up residence in a brick shack and smoke your life away. And since you haven't refuted scientifically or with any semblance of reason anything I said, you would be raising the IQ of the U.S.A. by leaving.

You want proof that weed affects the mind. Take that nurse in the marijuana clinic. She was selling "medical marijuana"on the street and was caught.

She was offered parole in exchange for a guilty plea and wanted a trial. She was found guilty and sentenced to 16 months in jail. EEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR see how smoking weed screws up your mind. She was so hopped up smoking her own weed, she screwed herself up into 16 months in the slammer instead of being home for thanksgiving.

It really takes a screwed up mental system to turn down parole to throw the dice on a 16 month jail sentence. I bet every one of you would have done the same thing!

Its getting reich wing kooky in here.

Sure does for that nurse to be so high, she preferred 16 months in jail than parole. Hey midnight toker, do the right thing and trade places with her. Her family really would like her home for thanksgiving and I am sure you can bribe the prison guards for a joint now and then in the joint!

I think a cell, you and big bubba would be something "right up your alley" so to speak. You corporate reich wing peasants need a job and a new hobby.

Shooting fish in a barrel is my hobby. Seeing you "FLOUNDER" for an honest reply is fun for me.

haha You need help from a mental health professional.

but last - you support continuation of selling alcohol? What's the DIFFERENCE? One chemical or another...

Can't come up with an anawer canary? I know, just change the subject.

You know why they brought canaries down into the coal mines? The canaries were the sacrificial goats. When they showed distress or died, the miners knew the air was poisonous.

Seems like canary has been taken down into the mines too many times and those poisonous gases have finally affected his bird brain.

Weed we got enough economic problems. Actually I think the illegals don't smoke weed. They get caught with a DUI and they get shipped back right fast.

The point is: If we could talk another country into legalizing pot, all our druggies would give up everything and move there.

No loss to us, our gain. LOL

All other countries are bound by treaty to keep MJ prohibition. We exported this ridiculous law. @!$%# kickers clearly can't comprehend reality.

Brillant idea weed! I wonder what kind of bribe North Korea would take?

Midnight Toker after all the weed you smoked, you wouldn't recognize reality if it slapped you in the face!

AZ Weeds, Do you have any idea that our marijuana laws are so backwards that we are the only country on earth where hemp is illegal? That's right, we are missing out on a $9 billion a year industry. That number would likely double if the US were involved. Alas, don't tell that to the industries that make synthetic versions of all things that can be created from natural hemp.

No country in the world has legalized marijuana.

Stand and deliver, you do know that people, who for whatever reason are mentally challenged are called backwards?
And that you desire to make Americans mentally challenged and future generations less intelligent than this generation are considered subversive? With all the knowledge about the toxins in marijuana and the proof that marijuana has a deleterious effect on DNA and future minds of children, your desire to legalize a harmful product is ridiculous. That you didn't take the time to read comments 1.3 and 1.4 and make asinine statements to harm people with your limited knowledge only indicate the harmful effects of the substance you want to legalize.

lastonetoreality talking about reality? haha ironic don't cha think? Simple minded trolls living in a bubble-got to love it.

AZ Weeds, The key word there was "hemp".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp#Countries_that_produce_hemp

lastonehome, The fallacy of appealing to authority only has a chance of working when you appeal to someone who actually has some. i.e... not yourself. Fallacy Ad Nauseam: Repeating false facts does not make them any more true.

And your ignorance is not being able to refute anything I stated makes them more reliable.

Whats the point for him to refute stupidity?

And the other big fallacy I was waiting for: Ad hominem. Honestly, you're not worth the effort.

refute what? Blatant lack of intelligence regarding the subject doesn't deserve refuting.

FINALLY WE GOT TO A TOPIC YOU ARE AN EXPERT ON!

And that topic is. .................DRUM ROLL!

Your Blatant lack of Intelligence!

?

Ahh the smell of stupidity in the morning... legalize it, tax it, treat it like alcohol. Several problems solved.

Arizona Tumbleweed said:

No country in the world has legalized marijuana.

Wrong again, and, as usual.

YESTERDAY, Nov 17, 2011 Switzerland just LEGALIZED GROWING 4 PLANTS FOR PERSONAL USE in an effort to stop people buying from the black market.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2062526/Swiss-cannabis-smokers-allowed-grow-marijuana-plants-stop-buying-drugs-illegally.html

The Netherlands "legalized" pot over 30 years ago and is easily and legally purchased in coffeeshops. I know, I've been there 4 times.

Portugal legalized possession of ALL DRUGS.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/health/addiction/huge-success-10-years-after-portugal-legalizes-all-drugs

NEWS FLASH: COPENHAGEN VOTES TO LEGALIZE CANNABIS!!!

http://www.marijuana.com/drug-war-headline-news/184808-us-copenhagen-votes-legalize-marijuana.html

Druggies continue to tell us LIES.

"

"This month marks the 10-year anniversary of Portugal's radical decision to decriminalize the possession of all drugs -- not just marijuana, but cocaine, heroin and everything else in Keith Richards' suitcase. Many experts predicted disaster -- a nation of drug abusers."

Note: Drugs HAVE NOT been legalized in Portugal, OR Copenhagen. Please note the word "decriminalized", NOT legalized.

More lies:

4 regions in Copenhagen, are voting to allow druggies to grow 4 plants each. It MAY pass the courts.

Copenhagen, has NOT legalized pot.

Read the link if you come out of your drunken stupor. Copenhagen will LEGALIZE UNCONDITIONALLY next year. ALL Drugs have been LEGAL TO POSSESS in Portugal for 10 years.

Although its capital is notorious among stoners and college kids for marijuana haze–filled "coffee shops," Holland has never actually legalized cannabis — the Dutch simply don't enforce their laws against the shops. The correct answer is Portugal, which in 2001 became the first European country to officially abolish all criminal penalties for personal possession of drugs, including marijuana, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

Looks like Tumbleweed might be right. There is a difference between legalization and decriminalization.

The article continues with some interesting statistics, including that the number of people on methadone has doubled. I had a close friend on methadone. It is NOT an improvement. It is trading your back monkey for a gorilla suit.

chaleepas easier if you are a smoker just to move you to the other side of the border. Its cheaper there and you won't have to read about it in the States.

Another druggie lie.

Cigarettes are legal, but taxed so much, many are bought and sold on the black market.

Legalizing drugs would NOT stop the smuggling.

You are right there weed, cigarette smuggling from Virginia where taxes are .30 a pack to the other states where it is $2.00-$4.35 in NY is at an all time high with the mafia in it big time. And if they can get and do get a distributor license, they pay no tax and just a bribe.

Really? The people of Amsterdam beg to differ. Take a look at the Dutch or the Canadians, there are viable alternatives somewhere between felony charges for possession and outright legalization. Advocating the status quo, especially during this recession, is just mindless. Think what you want of us pro-marijuana enthusiasts, we don't care. Smoking the reefer does not disqualify you from being a productive member of society and those of us who aren't narrow-minded ignoramuses know as much. All you people are really doing is holding society back

That statement proves your mind has been affected by marijuana. I can just see you buying a new car that was assembled on an assembly line of pot smokers!

WELCOME, ladies and gents, to the LASTONEHOME show! LOL

And for our opening act we have the one and only nightwalker who will mesmerize you with his double talk and remind you that smoking marijuana is as safe as mother's milk. Then we will have a man who guarantees you snakeoil that will cure everything under the sun and finally we have a man who has the Brooklyn Bridge for sale cheap.

And I would like to remind you to tune in next week when nightwalker will race a night crawler on stage. See it here with your very own eyes.

Jk3, take the time to read the posts 1.3 and 1.4 and do a little thinking. Then get back to me and say that you honestly do not find anything wrong with it. And then read one of the following books and articles:
Chemical Dumbing Down of America
Stupidity - Dumbing down of Society
The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America
The Dumbing Down of America

Just reading some of the comments from the druggies who printed their mental wanderings on line should inform you of the dangers of marijuana.

If your mental capacity represents sobriety I think more people will start smoking.

Sobriety would be the last thing you would know anything about.

Know plenty. What do you know about being intoxicated on cannabis? NOTHING!

lastonehome, I respect your feelings on the matter and you have obviously put a lot of effort into researching the subject material. I commend you for bringing an argument to the game, rather than spouting useless jabber.

Here's the thing though. Your 1.3 reads like a tobacco warning on WebMD. I think its safe to say everyone knows about the harmful effects of tobacco, which you have also correlated with marijuana. People choose if they want to smoke cigarettes and I feel people should be able to choose if they want to smoke marijuana. Just as much as they choose to drink alcohol. People are made aware of the harmful effects of tobacco every day through advertising, news articles, television etc. and you ask yourself why do these people continue to smoke and eat horrible food, get fat, when they know its bad for them, because they can and they choose too. Same goes for marijuana, advertise all you want about the harmful effects, educate the public, but I do not feel people need a "bloated body" a.k.a our current establishment, telling them they can't smoke something and or eat something that grows naturally.

Argument for it's not natural, it has chemically been engineered and altered to be more potent by some group of humans in a lab somewhere. Well, everything we consume in our daily lives from our breakfast, to our dinners, to our vegetables have been chemically altered somehow. Whether it be processed or "natural" growing. You hope that your plastic cup you are drinking out of isn't slowly migrating phthalates into your water. Or your tylenol bottle isn't releasing Butylated HydroxyToluene (BHT) into your pills.

Every knows they shouldn't smoke cigarettes while they are pregnant, same would go for marijuana. If the kid isn't planned and was born out of wed lock by some teen or early 20 something, as an example, it probably didn't have a great shot anyways and wasn't going to be the next Albert Einstein in the first place. Case in point, stupid people are going to make up most of the demographic anyways, why? Because they reproduce a helluva lot more vs. people who are doctors, scientists and or have demanding careers.

I'm not sure at what point personal responsibility, or proper parental guidance left this country, but if you think its bad, don't want to do it and your parents/societies advertising have steered you away from doing it, like they have tried with cigarettes, alcohol etc. then don't do it. It's that simple. Our country treats it as some crazy taboo and it's rather ridiculous. The problem is our government doesn't have the type of mind control it used to have on the public, like in the 1920's and 30's. You could make anyone believe anything via the radio back then, they were dumb as hell. People have greater access to information in the palm of their hands nowadays and are at a greater advantage than our forefathers. I'm not saying legalize all drugs; cocaine, heroine, meth etc. are all bad and should be illegal, but marijuana should have a green light all systems go in my eyes.

Basically in a nutshell, there will always be scientists, inventors, doctors, innovators etc. having marijuana legal will not change a damn thing.

But who pays for their medical care when they can't? If they need a lung or heart or liver transplant their paltry insurance payment doesn't pay the $200,000-$500,000 cost! It is the collective people's health insurance payment. Why should I pay for an idiot smoke or drunk's new lung or liver when as you say they know the risks? I don't smoke and I don't drink. If I didn't have to pay for their risky behavior, I wouldn't care how they chose to abuse their bodies.
It is through the scientists that you have these "super" vegetables and not only life expectancy but life quality has increased. In the last 50-70 years life expectancy has doubled and most of that is to medicine and better diets. There are microvitamins that have been found that scientists still do not know how they work but they do know that eliminating them in laboratory animals decreases life expectancy and quality. And these microvitamins are mostly in vegetables.
And no it doesn't work that way with intelligence. It is a recognized area of study, "THE BELL SHAPED CURVE EFFECT". Generally it is natures way of working out the betterment of the species. At one end of the bell are the strongest and at the other end is the weakest. GENETICS. And the same for people at one end are the geniuses and the other end the least intelligent. You might remember Obama who is considered to be a very intelligent person was conceived by a very young woman and a mystery man! (being facetious). So the rules are not hard and fast but even out.
And you have not recognized the dangers of cigarette smoking and marijuana smoking. And I have found out the longer the comment the less it is read. Therefore I did not put in the references in the comments 1.3 and 1.4.
If you sign a waver to damages and health care expenses, then I wouldn't give a sh*t how you abused your body as long as I didn't have to pay to save your neck.

And to verify that smoking pot affects mental ability, just read the statements from the druggies published on this thread. Besides not being able to use correctly the English language, spell, use the free spell checker, they don't make sense.

I get where your coming from with the increase in medical expenses and I agree it sucks we have to pay for it, but you are really fighting a useless battle when it comes to that type of government handout. Proving it was marijuana or tobacco related is inconclusive majority of the time.

Why do I have to pay for all the people on welfare? Why do they get perks like a cell phone or for having more kids? Which will more than likely create another generation dependent on the governement? Or all the people that rush the ER's in our country with drug problems, looking for a fix and the taxpayers get footed the bill. Why does my health insurance company, whom is techinically supposed to be there for you, constantly have that weird feeling they're always trying to find a way not to cover you? (Fortunately for me, my company provides 100% medical coverage for all employees, thankfully, sucks for the majority of the population). And Mr. Obama's new health bill really isn't making things cheaper for us either is it?

We have a nation full of people (damn near half) who are dependent already and have this false sense of entitlement. Not a lot of people take ownership anymore of there actions and strive to better themselves. That American drive is weaker, definitely.

All in all life isn't fair and I'm not going to stress over some possible pot smoker who may need a lung transplant, when it's more than likely it's inconclusive to be tobacco or not. When I already pay for a plethora of people's obeseness, welfare and bad life decisions. People can educate themselves and people can make choices, there will always be diversity.

I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who said that bad things happen when good people do nothing. And as there is a deduction on your health insurance if you say you don't smoke, drink etc. there should be more done.

I lived in Australia and their health insurance plans are much more affordable. We don't have to reinvent the wheel but obvious things have to be done. The government should allow companies to set up health insurance plans for people who have never smoked, drank alcohol or don't use illegal drugs. And doctors' insurance premiums should be reduced like the gun laws protecting gun manufacturers. You heard about those laws. And that law should be extended to drug manufacturers. It is definitely not in the interest of doctors and drug manufacturers to harm their patients and after all the schooling that doctors take and practice in hospitals prior to getting a private licence and the hoops and loops the FDA make drug companies go through the least the govt could do is protect them against the shysters and over zealous lawsuits.

Then you should do what I do call your senator and congressman and make a pain in the ass of yourself and tape their replies and send it to the newspapers, that they don't want to talk to you or that their representatives swear at you for telling them that they are public servants and you pay their salaries.

Nothing gets done if you/me/everyone accepts their sh*t! And 2012 better be a bell weather and clean every singleone out of D.C. That fuc*ing Biden threw $529 million to that Finnish company to build electric cars in Finland. He forgot to demand in the contract that he and Obama okayed that the $529 million be spent in the U.S. After the verbal promise, they took the money to Finland and created 1000 jobs there. Stupid Biden fell for the bait that the Finnish company told him that they were going to use an old GM factory in Delaware, Biden's home state!

@ Midnight Toker 4+20 I believe you are who you say you are above; college grad, good job etc.

The clever pun is in your name, after your long day of work for society, you sit back and "relax" at midnight.

http://norml.org/library/recent-research-on-medical-marijuana

According to your logic lastonehome we should make everything illegal that might cause someone harm and you might indirectly be paying for their health care.

So you must be against cheeseburgers, right?

Or skydiving?

Or, @!$%#, how about driving a car? That kills thousands every year, right?

Damn, better outlaw breathing for that matter, right? People get lung cancer and have never touched a cigarette in their lives, right?

Geez, I guess we should just forget about living, period.

Nailed it, OneDirtyRat!!

Not buying that anymore. Druggies point to someone elses pain as an excuse to get their crap legalized.

Cantankerous Old Tumbleweed, what say you about the government regulating the sale of tobacco and alcohol? What is your valid reason for continuing the criminalization of innocent pot smoking civilians? I need a good laugh right about now

Yep: Lets get rid of alcohol and tobacco also.

last time they tried getting rid of booze all that they managed to accomplish was to establish the MAFIA as an "association". Getting rid of tobacco wouldn't matter to me - I don't smoke

Grandpa wants fascism.

So a complete return to prohibition, eh? Interesting stance. From what I know that didn't work out so well the first time

Papa why stop with marijuana, tell your senators, president, the drug companies and your congressman that all drugs should be legal. And tell the doctors to take a hike. Write your own book on self prescribing, cut out the cost of doctors visits and just walk up to the drug store and take what you want off the shelf. Hell who is better to diagnose and dispense the medication you need than yourself.

Makes all the sense in the world or should to you in your stoned condition.

Are you suggesting that the system by which doctors prescribe drugs and the drugs themselves are flawless? There are more documented prescription drug-related deaths than marijuana-related deaths. Like I said, although you seem to be ignoring this point, there is a better way to handle drugs than the status quo. There is a happy medium between packing prisons with "druggies" and outright legalization. It's clear criminalizing drugs does nothing to reduce demand so I'm advocating a strategy of decriminalization and diverting money from the War on Drugs to preventative and rehabilitation programs

*crickets*

You forgot to add to that list "stupidity"!

Marijuana is bad because it's illegal, not illegal because it's bad. People have been using it for thousands of years. If I had to bet money I'd say Jesus smoked the reefer. Asbestos and marijuana ain't in the same ballpark, ain't in the same league, ain't even the same f_ckin' sport

Jesus another one stoned out of his mind! A first A RELIGIOUS STONER!

Good comeback. Care to argue pot has been smoked for thousands of years? Guess one of my facts got in the way of your rhetoric so you turn to personal insults (if you can call it that)

Romans and Egyptians used lead in their pottery for thousands of years and they never knew it was killing them. So with all the scientific knowledge we have today and the information that I provided in comment 1.3 and 1.4 you are going to say to everyone including children that smoking marijuana is healthy?

You remind me of the cigarette companies and those old commercials on I LOVE LUCY where they shilled for the cigarette companies saying that cigarette smoking was good for you.

I loved the interview with the cigarette shill, in which he was asked if he would recommend that his pregnant daughter should smoke. He refused to answer.

This is what really bother me about you anti-pot activists. You spew rhetoric and and twist the words of those of us in favour to suit your argument. I never said smoking pot was healthy and I certainly didn't say children should smoke. However, I believe marijuana is no more harmful than alcohol or tobacco, both of which are legal and easily accessible for adults who wish to use them. The fact that that is the case while marijuana possession is a criminal offence just boggles my mind and I think it needs to change

what's your point - legalization would provide badly needed space in JAILS for "real" criminals.

I make a distinction between someone who uses cannabis versus a crack head. Cannabis is NOT addictive.

Smack users can't wait for the next boomity-boom in the arm (and are a SIGNIFICANT source of HIV) Drunks kill thousands on the hi-way every year.

I think we scared of lastone with our logical posts

Canary go back to the coal mind. Marijuana is addictive. And your comment is so poorly thought out. Marijuana is expensive. And people use it in quantity as the druggies here have stated. Would a regular poor job that these druggies be able to get pay for the rent, food, necessities and luxuries of life and the huge amount of marijuana they consume. Of course not. They have to have illegal sources of money. And you can imagine it is anything from being a drug dealer themselves to stealing from their employers to breaking and entering.
And that is a large part of the problem. When you reduce the marijuana problem, you reduce the over all crime problem. And there are companies that have invented ankle bracelets to be worn by drug offenders to measure the drugs in their sweat. You have heard of alcohol DUI ankle bracelets now being used in over 200 municipalities?

Marijuana addiction is simply an uncontrollable urge to possess and use the drug. Those with marijuana addiction are not able to stop using the drug even if they wish. Often a person with marijuana addiction will make continuous excuses about why now is not a good time to stop using the drug. Such people are not alone. Marijuana addiction is a disease that affects millions of people every year.

cannabis is NOT addictive. Of course, with the utter bull@!$%# statements you seem to be fond of making, you may THINK you have some "credence" but, seriously, you're as significant as a fart in a HURRICANE

Marijuana addiction is simply an uncontrollable urge to possess and use the drug. Those with marijuana addiction are not able to stop using the drug even if they wish. Often a person with marijuana addiction will make continuous excuses about why now is not a good time to stop using the drug. Such people are not alone. Marijuana addiction is a disease that affects millions of people every year.

Denial is the first clue that someone is addicted.

Thing is that cannabis can produce a "psychological dependence" (not an "addiction"). But then again, so does alcohol.

Alcohol can and does rot the liver thru metabolization of ethanol into aldehydes. Cannabis has no such effects (other than the common particulates and slight carbon monoxide common with burning organic matter)

BTW - if the denial response is intended for me, I haven't indulged in a couple of years.. Usually when I'm in Southeast Asia... and I haven't been lately

.

lastone - I used to smoke multiple times a day but since the time I started I've been able to smoke as much or as little as I want whenever I want, so spare me the "marijuana is addictive" rhetoric. As for your thoughts on low-paying jobs, that's barely worth dignifying with a response. What a gross and misguided generalization that is. Smoking pot does not dictate your lifestyle and certainly does not disqualify you from being a productive member of society. I'm sure there are pot-smokers who are more successful and are better people than you ever will be

You know what one of the best things about living in a country not full of narrow-minded ignoramuses? When I get tired of your DEA-esque spewing, and I'm pretty much at that point, I can make myself a nice meal and light up a spliff. Then I can relax and forget about all the intolerant and short-sighted people like yourself in the world. Think what you want about me, I don't give a good God damn

That is the first statement from any addict. Go to an AA meeting and listen to the drunks. They do call themselves drunks even if they haven't taken a drink in years. They all say the same thing, 'WHEN I WAS DRINKING I SAID TO MYSELF I CAN DRINK AS LITTLE OR AS MUCH AS I WANTED!"

I still smoke pot but I have never NEEDED to. I do it on my terms and don't let it get in the way of more important things. Like I said, I don't care what you think of me. I know myself and you don't. You wanna call me an addict to make yourself feel superior in some way? Be my guest. I wouldn't want to discourage you from trying to gain come self esteem because it sure seems like you could use it. Peace

All addicts say that. It is your way of mitigating what you are doing. Just sign the paper relieving society from paying your medical bills or help you and you can do anything you want.

You really aren't very bright, and based on your logic you should be since you don't smoke the reefer. You don't have to pay my medical costs because I don't live in your God forsaken land. It's not like your country has any money to care for its sick any way. I'm not inclined to listen to you continue to slander me though. Consider yourself reported

LOH, your quote "Marijuana addiction is simply an uncontrollable urge to possess and use the drug. Those with marijuana addiction are not able to stop using the drug even if they wish. Often a person with marijuana addiction will make continuous excuses about why now is not a good time to stop using the drug. Such people are not alone. Marijuana addiction is a disease that affects millions of people every year."

That is a flat out lie. You know idiot, people like you who think they know everything make me sick. Your just a blowhard behind a computer screen writing your stupid nonsense because you can. Don't ever try to "package" pot users into one box, that exposes your complete ignorance, which is on this board for all to see. Many brillant people who have created the "dream" that is America, smoked pot everyday for decades. Great art, literature, music and other incredible breakthroughs were done under the influence of pot. Why don't you go "occupy" Wallstreet, or stand in front of an abortion clinic with a sign with a dead baby on it. Your so sure your right and everyone else is wrong, well your the buffoon my friend and completely laughable. Your pathetic rants about "you know what's best for everyone" are so incredibly ridiculous and shallow. Your "opinion" is here for all to see, but it's just that, an "opinion", it has zero credibility in my book. Sell your idiocy elsewhere.

Links between marijuana and mental health issues are established. Links between marijuana and cancer, something most people are more concerned about, are either inconclusive or have been refuted. Weed is not perfect, but neither are alcohol and tobacco. It should be all or none as far as I'm concerned but the narrow-minded individual will say differently for the sake of doing so

I have told multiple doctors that I smoke the reefer. While none will advocate it, none will tell me to stop immediately because I am doing irreparable harm to myself. I doubt I'd get the same response if I told them I drink a mickey or smoke a pack a day

Now all you druggies are going to tell me that the scientists, researchers and doctors above who published their work in recognized scientific journals and whose work has been duplicated again and again by other scientists, researchers and doctors are all in one big conspiracy to prevent you druggies the pleasure of getting high just because the whitehouse for the last 25 years has leaned on them and told them to get false results.

Only a spaced out druggie would expect anyone to believe that sh*t!

What in the hell are you talking about? If these "facts" were so accepted by the medical community then I believe one of my doctors would have informed me of them instead of telling me such studies are limited and inconclusive. While I don't believe in your conspiracy theory I do believe that any study authored or funded by a US federal institution will be biased towards that government's policy, which in this case is that weed needs to be kept illegal because it is harmful. Although, if you wanna talk academic studies, check this one out:

www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=large-study-finds-no-link

Don't you just hate it when your own logic works against you?

Papa g 2380005 you are not up on your research!

Furthermore, one of the most potent carcinogens in tobacco smoke, benzo(α)pyrene, is present in even greater amounts in marijuana smoke. As marijuana smokers frequently inhale and hold the smoke in their lungs, this increases the amount of tar deposited in the respiratory system by about a factor of four. No wonder, research shows that approximately 20% of regular pot smokers (and it only takes 3 to 4 joints a day) complain of chronic bronchitis, coughing and excess mucus (Tashkin, 2005
One study demonstrated a doubling in lung cancer for male marijuana smokers who also used tobacco. Another study found that long-term use of marijuana increased the risk of lung cancer in young adults (55 and under), with the risk increasing in proportion to the amount of marijuana smoked.

Like I said, marijuana has its negative effects, but so does just about anything you put in your body. Coughing and mucus is not much of an issue compared to lung cancer. I showed you a study that flat-out refutes most of what you just said. Please show me these studies you speak of, let me know where you completed your PhD, and share your explanation as to why no doctor has ever told me of these risks that seem to be common knowledge to you

Papa G you want to put 6000 chemicals in your lungs every time you smoke cigarettes and marijuana go ahead. I am for the freedom that you can do anything you want to your body with one proviso. You sign a declaration that you are so doing and that you refuse medical and hospital treatment paid by the government and private health insurance firms. That in the same document you state that you will pay out of your own pocket all damages, claims and health care needed by you for your smoking either cigarettes and marijuana. I don't want my health insurance premiums paying for your deliberate harming of your body.

papa g: When you can't come up with a logical answer, just change the subject. Maybe you could change it to alcohol or tobacco?

Papa g you didn't read the second paragraph a doubling of cancer. It is quite evident you don't understand how the chemicals in the smoke of cigarettes and marijuana affect the tongue, tonsils, trachea, bronchial tubes, lungs, esophagus and stomach. You don't understand about DNA and how genetics turns on and off certain genes at different times of life and how the carcinogens in the smoke minutely changes the DNA so that the orders from the genes create cancerous cells.

Once you understand that and review the parentage and history of a person, you will be able to give a better assessment of the likelihood of cancer in different parts of the body and what may influence the growth of cancer, heart disease and emphysema.
And you know nothing about precursors of cancer.

lastone - I don't smoke cigarettes, those are really bad for your health and cause lung cancer. You don't have to worry about paying for my health care costs though. Thankfully I live in the land of more reasonable marijuana laws and not your God-forsaken cesspool of a nation. I'm still waiting on those studies you referenced as well as the name of your med school alma mater. I don't really like off-topic conversations and I won't be able to continue here until I know at least those 2 things. If you want to come up with that explanation I asked you for that would be good too. Until then, have a nice life

Cantankerous Tumbleweed - If you'll take the time to actually read the comments you'll notice lastone stated some medical facts without offering anything to support them. Seeking clarification, I asked for the sources of those statistics and/or the name of the school where he earned his PhD

Wait a minute: You're one of those a-holes trying to tell us how to run our country?

Go back to your hole in the wall, and mind your own business.

Far be it from me to tell you how to run your country. You guys can figure that sh_tstorm out for yourself, you seem to be doing a real good job of it at the moment. I'm just thankful to live in my country and not yours

I'm thankful you're there too.

Must not be too proud of it. You didn't tell us which 3rd rate country it is.

You would be thankful that an open-minded and logical person doesn't live in your country. Get back to the firing range or to clearing brush or whatever it is you people do with your useless lives

just wait until the supercommittee can't come to any agreement and they take a chunk of HIDE out of every federal program. Just think of how much $$MONEY$$ could be generated by legalization (taxes) and reduction in jail space...

oh, and papa - I would be more interested in where lastone got his MD (since the medical claims seem to be right out of old UNSUPPORTED literature)

canary: You and I can argue, but if you want to bring a foreigner into it, I'll stop reading your posts.

How can I clear my brush with those damn foreigners here? Them with their sensible health care systems and strongly regulated financial sectors and working economies and low crime rates. Get 'em outta here, they're distracting me from realizing what a great country this Chinese colony is. Amurica, F_CK YA, freedom is the only way, Amurica, F_CK YA!!

doesn't matter furriner or NOT - I would expect that he's Canajan (eh!). You can stop reading whatever you wish, but that's YOUR CHOICE.

Myself, I prefer my cannabis as a green leafy herb on PIZZA, made into TEA or in Alice B Toklas style brownies. (smoking anything is bad for one's LUNGS)

Good for you canary!!

Canary figured you are a marijuana addict. First definite sign is an excuse saying you are not an addict. Just like cigarette smokers and drunks at an AA meeting. You should attend one. The first thing they all say is that they are drunks. The way to stay off alcohol is to admit you are an addict.
Tell me what city you are in and I will look up an AA meeting hall on the net and you can go tonight.

blah blah blah blah...blah? BLAH!! (blah, humbug)

It's not Christmas time. You're too stoned to realize. You can't start telling Christmas stories for two more months.

Capitalist America begs to differ...Christmastime starts the minute Halloween ends

Ok Lastonehome, your quote "As marijuana smokers frequently inhale and hold the smoke in their lungs, this increases the amount of tar deposited in the respiratory system by about a factor of four. No wonder, research shows that approximately 20% of regular pot smokers (and it only takes 3 to 4 joints a day) complain of chronic bronchitis, coughing and excess mucus (Tashkin, 2005
One study demonstrated a doubling in lung cancer for male marijuana smokers who also used tobacco. Another study found that long-term use of marijuana increased the risk of lung cancer in young adults (55 and under), with the risk increasing in proportion to the amount of marijuana smoked."

OK, liar your busted. First of all "pot smokers" homes don't smell, tabacco smokers homes do. Why? Because the tar sticks to the paint, that's why. Pot has much less tar than tabacco does, smart guy. 3 to 4 joints a day. LOL Your ignorant about pot obviously. If a person somked 3 or 4 joints a day with todays pot they'd be a vegatable, a non-functioning person. Funny I know lots of folks that smoke but have highly skilled and proffesional jobs that they do daily. Your a kook dude, a know nothing, who pontificates his rage on this board, professing to be an expert about something you obviously know nothing about. Check out these facts clown.

Marijuana contains 33% the amount of tar as tabacoo has in it. This is only a test of the bud not the leaf but who smokes the leaf, almost no one. This was also tested without the intervention of a bong. Also because of the psychoactive affects of cannabis (weed) you dont smoke as much. There has also been no document cases of lung cancer being directly linked to oral inhilation of cannabis.

LASTONEHOME, more facts. I could do this all day LOH, because I'm retired and have the time, but since everyone on here knows your a con job I won't waste my time. Get back on your meds my friend, you need them. Sorry if the Washington Post exposes your outragous fabrications and outright lies.

By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 26, 2006

The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.

The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.

"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."

the truth, instead of your lies.

Lastonehome, all your sources are government sponsored, thus they are biased, untruthful and WORTHLESS.

Wow jcb: That's quite a temper tantrum coming from a "mellow" druggie.

tumbleweed, I don't do drugs, but I hate lying buffoons who pontificate against others dozens of times on this thread, with flat out fabrications, and outright lies. Pot does not cause cancer, nor health issues, that is a fact not fiction.

or as has been said "Your right to swing your arm ends at MY NOSE!" (I don't care what you do as long as it doesn't affect ME)

Canary you sign a document saying that I am not responsible for any damage or any health care you may incur due to your marijuana, cigarette or alcohol intake and I will let you smoke marijuana, cigarettes and drink until you are falling down drunk every night.

Now you have to swear and put in legal form that you will pay from your own pocket all doctor, medical, medicine and hospital care and that you will not burden the public or private health care system with any illness that may be caused by your risky behavior.

I do not like paying sky high health insurance and car insurance rates in order to help you in your time of need when it is due to your clear choice to involve yourself in risky behavior. Then you can smoke and get drunk to your heart's content!

don't need to - don't smoke, rarely drink (8 hours minimum bottle to throttle) and my medical insurance is paid for.

Dare I ask you to attempt a airborne act of sexual gratification attempting to copulate with a revolving toroidal pastry?

You just proved you are stoned to the gills. Takes a lot of sense to speak such nonsense.

sorry lastone - that was an entreaty to attempt a flying fu ck with a rolling donut. I thought it was well beyond your "mental" powers of "discussion" to interpret hi-fallootin' words...

canary...That was beautiful! (wipes tears....THAT one will get me through the day!LOL!)

I'm a pacifist. I don't do the war on drugs

Yeah, if only you cut off the demand for the drug cartels' products by producing them here. Then they would have nobody to supply it to, the trade would shrink, and the War on Drugs would stop. That would make so much sense the US will never do it. Can you imagine if the US war machine stopped? All the money saved would cause mayhem and widespread panic

oooohhh but the JOBS lost.... the JOBS.... (never mind that the US spends more on so called "defense" than the next 8 countries COMBINED...)

Chuckitall you sum up everything perfectly. Pretty much my point to lastonehome in a discussion earlier.

Chuckitail, in other words you want society to accept your risk behavior and be completely responsible paying your hospital and rehab bills? You want everyone to look after you and pay the extra $500,000 for a lung transplant or the $200,000 for a liver transplant. You want to live off society and tell us to go fuc* ourselves and pay for you.
There are new insurance options and I took advantage of one of them.

Chucktail has turned tail and has shown what a selfish, self centered, egotistical person he is. I bet he hasn't donated one drop of blood in his lifetime or given $1 dollar to the march of dimes or any charity. Yet he expects the whole U.S. population to come to his aid in his moment of crisis!
Chuck it out the window. It doesn't fly with me.

I do not think anyone who has responded to your blabbering wants you or the rest of society to pay for their health issues, which is beside the point since cannabis is not known to cause any. (sorry, smoke can cause respiratory infections in some) For every study proving that it is harmful, there are several hundred thousands of people with anecdotal evidence pointing to the contrary. If you are curious as to why there are few studies (or at least difficult to come by) showing its safety and efficacy in treating myriad diseases, do some research into how one would go about conducting such a study! The short answer is that they cannot. Even when the FDA approves a study that may potentially shed light on how benign the substance can be, the researchers must also receive approval from both NIDA and DEA, both of whom will refuse access to any "marihuana." It's funny that they will only allow studies of the plant which are intended outright to prove that cannabis is harmful. Well not really funny, just completely unscientific. My guess is that you are one of the people with a clinical endocannabinoid deficiency and as such have the most polar opposite personality from someone who consumes cannabis that is chemically possible. In short, I believe you simply lack the ability to understand this herb or those who use it. Your reasoning that marijuana is bad because users have low paying jobs and that it is expensive is illogical when both are a direct and intentional result of its prohibition. No matter how many times you repeat the rhetoric of yellow journalism, nothing you have said will become true. I will leave you with a quote from former DEA administrative law judge Francis Young. "Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man." Now go eat your bigmac sucker.

Why??

Because we're all in this together, and not one of us is worthy to pick and choose.

Not when you decide to take on risky behavior and later say help me! A lung transplant is $500,000. And what have you done for me?
You are the one who wants to smoke marijuana, cigarettes, and get drunk, not me. You know the dangers and you want me to help you after you are in trouble.

Fuc* that shi*. I pay $8000 a year in health insurance for one person. And you drive up the premiums! Thanks for the help Pal!

We are not obligated to help each other in society. There are millions in the U.S. who smoke, over 23%. And there are millions who get drunk regularly. And there are millions who use marijuana. And a great percentage of those people get sick because of their risky behavior and demand that I help them. Which I do by paying $8000 a year in health insurance premiums for one person.
Now I never smoked, never drank, don't have aids, or ever smoked marijuana. Why should I help ridiculous people who deliberately indulge in risky behavior?

I paid tons of my companies' profits out in health insurance for my workers. What did I get back from all that health insurance premiums?

And again you don't know what you are talking about. The average American spends 9% of his salary on food. For example the average Mexican and Chinese spend 30% of their salaries on food and poorer quality. I have followed for a long time the food problem in the world and the efforts of seed companies to increase yields, produce plague resistant plants, plants that grow shorter and produce more grain, plants that can tolerate water with a higher salt content, and plants that can be less affected by handling and shipping.
American life span has doubled in the last 50-70 years through medicine and better diet. And crop yields have increased dramatically through American technology.
But I will not knowingly aid a person who perversely thinks that society has to be there to take care of him when he knowingly risks his health.

RU Fat? RU obese? I'll bet you are! All the "I NEVER DUN THIS OR I NEVER DUN THAT" usually are. Hilarious!

Holy Smokes lastonehome is THAT what is wrong with Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Gingrich, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Coulter, on and on? OMG I had no idea they were all damaged by weed toxins.

Here I thought they were just stupid... Silly Me!

You are, I agree. I diet, I eat a balanced diet. I exercise and I pay a huge amount of my after tax dollars for other people in over priced health insurance. People have to be responsible for themselves. I have a $5000 deductible.
If I can do it, why can't others. I bet that you smoke, drink, have someone paying for your health benefits and have an underfunded pension plan and sweating if you are going to outlive your pension. Millions on welfare, a government that taxes us so they can stay in office. Families that decide to have kids and then one or the other parent decides to abandon the kids before they are old enough to take care of themselves. Politicians against abortion so there is more irresponsibility to take care of. Politicians who increase welfare benefits so people stay home longer rather than go out and get jobs that "JUST DOESN'T SUIT THEM!"

I put an ad in the paper for salespeople and one person calls up and "TELLS ME" after I tell him that he has to come down in person and apply for he job and fill out an application form. He dun did tell me "LOOK MISTER I AIN'T GOING DOWN DER LESS I KNOWS I GOT THE JOB!"

I know the scam. He has to say he applied for so many jobs so he can get his weekly welfare check.
Read up on what Roosevelt said when he started Social Security and when welfare was started. It was to tide people over, not to make an entitlement class of people.
In Passaic, NJ there was a welfare scam with four generations living in the same house with the great grandmother aged 47. Each generation was getting rent money, food stamps, money for water, electricity etc and they all used the same bills. They were taking in $147,000 a year for the same house. And they declared each other as dependents.
And who had to pay unemployment insurance, and all those extra welfare taxes so these people could live in luxury?
I was young just married working a six day a week job and on line at a local supermarket. I was in back of a smartly dressed black lady who had sirloin steaks, and all the goodies in her cart. When it came time for her to pay, it was all food stamps and I watched her leave the store and get in a cadillac. I looked at my package of ground beef and vegetables and knew how the system worked. And I haven't forgot it. So you are barking up the wrong tree. I pay for my doctor's visits as I want my specialist to see me and I pay for my own medication, not the generics and I paid for my day in the hospital for food poisoning and I paid for my two days for a broken shoulder. It was under the $5000 deductible.
You are of a different "GIVE ME GENERATION"! I am of the self sufficient generation. You buy what you can afford for cash and don't borrow money and if you can't afford it don't touch it.

all that and racist, too (based on the stereotypical responses)

LOH, your needed in the emergency room ASAP.

Pretty obvious you are trying to make sensationalist claims about cannabis so it can remain your scape goat for everything you deem unacceptable in society. I think you confuse correlation and causality. Let me pose a hypothetical question. If a person is responsible, highly skilled, healthy, and uses cannabis, why should they have a lower paying job than you? Please don't short circuit trying to answer what to you must seem a contradiction. It seems to me that all of your reasons for hating marijuana would not exist if it was legal, so I laugh when you don't realize that in supporting prohibition, you are shooting yourself in the foot.

David, you are incredibly naive. If you want the best heart surgeon, the best cancer specialist and you don't have the plan that allows you to choose who you want when you need him, you life isn't worth sh*t. You get on the line and you wait. And while you wait, you are dying. If you didn't work hard and have the money, you get what the insurance company comes up with. Their doctors have agreed to accept a certain minimum payment. Then the hospital has agreed to a certain minimum payment. You want in on a new expensive drug. They are going to fight you because it is experimental. ETC. ETC. ETC.
I will be glad to watch you fight your insurance company every step of the way and watch you wait in line for mediocre treatment.