All those worried about driving
 

I have not heard one person complaining about people driving on prescription drugs which actually impair a driver considerably more than cannabis does. I hear lots of opinion, see very little facts from the contingent that is advocating the continued prohibition. Pharmaceutical Drugs prescribed by doctors legally kill many americans daily just through accidental overdose. Cannabis has killed 0 people due to overdose. Violence due to its illegal status is more likely to impact an innocent person than getting stoned from second hand smoke outside when it is illegal to smoke it in public. Not seeing the big call for making the world a Grateful Dead concert. Like I said previously, and my friends in Denver have confirmed, these homeless were homeless prior to the legalization .They just came to Denver, many are nomadic Rainbow gathering style people. They are not homeless because of weed but they are in Colorado because of legal weed. When it starts getting cold they will migrate somewhere else and some will be back when the weather changes. As for the gateway argument again studies have debunked this myth, alcohol and prescription drugs have in fact been proven to be true gateway drugs. As I stated above I was prescribed cannabis and it helped me greatly. I am thankful to the doctor that prescribed it and do not really care if those that do not like it think less of me. I think others should be afforded the same opportunity I was. Lets let doctors prescribe medicine as they see fit. I have no medical degree nor do I pretend to have one. Let's get science from scientists, medical opinions from doctors and nurses, and education from teachers, seems logical to me.

+1

There is just so much misinformation in this thread. From the guy who thinks cannabis has more carcinogens than tobacco (which is processed in poison), to the guy who thinks you'll get unwittingly high from standing next to people theoretically smoking outside.

It seems as though the people who are against legalization really have no idea what legalization means, much less a real understanding of marijuana in the first place.

Legalization would mean greater access to medically prescribed marijuana, the ability to carry and purchase medical marijuana, and the ability to medicate yourself at home.

Your visions of some kind of free for all where the country is now free to smoke wherever and whenever they want are way off base. The same regulations would apply as they do for alcohol: you must be a certain age to purchase, you will get fired for reporting to work on drugs, it will be illegal to operate a motor vehicle while under the influence, it will be illegal to smoke in public, just like it's illegal to carry an open container.

Then re-read post #225

I did all you said was what if....

Your post is based on the assumption that legalization means you have full authority to smoke whenever and wherever you want and you are ignoring all of the positive aspects of medically prescribed marijuana and the people whose quality of life would go up exponentially. Your views are old world. The people who need medical marijuana are not teenagers in a tree house. They are cancer patients, patients with issues like anxiety or insomnia and people in pain who would prefer not to get addicted to dangerous medications like Oxycontin (medically prescribed heroin).

We can treat these people with a medication that is natural, cheap and devoid of any harmful side effects, which is exactly the opposite of all the medications we are currently prescribing. Read the side effects label of any anti-anxiety, sleep aid, or painkiller medications. I don't want to put that into my body.

You're right, all I said were a bunch of "what ifs?"

But that's what you're saying as well. Your posts make as many assumptions as mine.

AND your posts are full of false information. You say you can't get THC from second hand smoke. That's absolutely false. It usually don't show up in urine tests or, if it does, it's trace amounts that usually won't make you fail, but it absolutely will be detected in a hair follicle test and you will fail.

You don't think second hand smoke can make you fail a drug test? Google Cheryl Hale of Washington and read her story. There are millions more just like it.

Here's another "what if" for you. What if all these medical marijuana patients you talk about take another kind of pain reliever? Problem solved.

Listen, I'm no scientist but athletes use the "second hand" excuse all the time to explain away their failed tests. Maybe you have more faith in them than I do.

And like I said in my edited post, read the side effects label on prescription pain medication and tell me if you'd rather put that into your body than a natural alternative devoid of any harmful side effects or addictive properties. You may not be aware, but people overdose and die on prescription painkillers every day.

Here's post #225:

No offense David, but this is a very uninformed "worst-case-scenario" for several reasons:
1. It would still be illegal to fly while impaired or smoke at work or operate heavy machinery while impaired. Marijuana is essentially a mild form of alcohol.
2. A person who is willing to do a high risk job while impaired on weed is probably already doing so illegally. Just because alcohol is legal does not give a pilot the incentive to get loaded before a flight.
3. A person who "lights one up" does not suddenly become a bumbling idiot incapable of decision making or basic motor skills. An example, Doc Ellis throwing a no-hitter on LSD.

The worst case scenario would be unknown medical side effects (such as lung cancer) that have not been found as of yet.

I'd much rather have people give their money to American small businesses than drug cartels and the government. I've always been an advocate for a smaller federal government and more responsible spending, so legalization is right up my ally.

Jason

I've also never used, but was sort of the safety guy for my HS friends who did. Designated driver, voice or physical restraint of reason....No, you really shouldn't climb that tree when walking is a challenge. NO you're NOT going swimming to see if you can smoke through the snorkel......Somebody had to do it.

I've become somewhat ambivalent about it, if someone is having real medical issues and it helps, sure go ahead. Of course there will be those who find a doctor who'll rubber stamp some excuse, that was done for alcohol during prohibition.

I recently read an article about the very different experiences of Colorado and Washington. Colorado put pot growing/selling/etc under the same agencies that already cover other stuff - I think agriculture? Don't recall the exact department. The result was excellent organization of licenses, permits etc, and the whole local legal system being consistent. Washington basically just opened it up at the state level with little organization. And has had a load of problems with the confusing "legal in Wa, but not federally" issue. And the federal justice system has been inconsistent, some areas they basically go with local law, others take the hard line on the federal laws. The opener for the article was a person legally allowed to grow for medical reasons even before legalization being busted federally for allowing his relatives - also allowed to grow legally - to grow on his land because they lived in the city.

Here in Mass, as I understand it DUI is under the influence of anything. So it's covered. I think we've also decided not to pursue cases for possession of small ammounts.

Like anything else, some people will overdo it.

I don't buy the "it's harmless" argument. People around fires are taken to the hospital every day for smoke inhalation. If you want to do that deliberately, well ok I suppose. I'll pass.

Determining when someone had had "enough" of anything is hard. With alcohol I've seen the legal limit reduced from .10 to .08, and they're considering making it even lower. Some people are somewhat impaired at .08, for some it's not apparent. And personality is very different. Some drinkers get feisty, some mellow, some think they're "better drunk" when they're not. (I usually get mellow, when I actually drink more than one which isn't often lately. ) I have a friend who shows few outward signs of being drunk until way after the point where I've decided I'm not leaving the recliner. Another is pretty much done after one beer.

That's why we've fallen back on a technical number after field tests.

I'd imagine pot is the same way, affects people differently. There will no doubt be a few years of figuring out how to tell, and maybe eventually a simple test.

Steve B

You obviously know nothing about chronic pain management. The same drug may not work for different patients with the same pain source. And there are some who get relief with only a single specific drug. Medical fact.

While I completely agree that some are using medical marijuana as an excuse, I will wager anything you like, that just like other pain medication, there are quite a few who get relief ONLY through marijuana.

You might want to rethink your wager. You can argue all you want, but your statements are false and foolish.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/20...-alternatives/

From the article...

According to the American Lung Association, marijuana smoke contains a higher amount of carcinogens than tobacco smoke. (Packs disputed that statment in one of his earlier posts).

A report published in the "British Medical Journal" that reviewed nine trials that compared marijuana with other pain medications found that marijuana was no more effective than codeine in controlling acute, chronic, or cancer pain.

Cancer patients in treatment with chemotherapy or radiation and other people suffering from nausea may reach for marijuana due to its anti-nausea properties. There are several other prescription options for nausea relief, such as Zofran, that do not carry the damaging risks of marijuana.

Come on, you need to check your sources. It says there are more carcinogens than tobacco and then the article goes on to list none of them nor does it cite any sources.

I read the Cheryl Hale story and am not convinced. She sounds like the woman who tells her husband she got VD from a dirty bus seat.

You cite prescription drugs but don't take into account their side effects, addictive properties or the fact that marijuana is a natural supplement that doesn't need to be smoked.

Here is just a sampling of the 7,000 chemicals and carcinogens in tobacco:

Acetone – found in nail polish remover
Acetic Acid – an ingredient in hair dye
Ammonia – a common household cleaner
Arsenic – used in rat poison
Benzene – found in rubber cement
Butane – used in lighter fluid
Cadmium – active component in battery acid
Carbon Monoxide – released in car exhaust fumes
Formaldehyde – embalming fluid
Hexamine – found in barbecue lighter fluid
Lead – used in batteries
Napthalene – an ingredient in moth balls
Methanol – a main component in rocket fuel
Nicotine – used as insecticide
Tar – material for paving roads
Toluene - used to manufacture paint

David
 

many people who use medical cannabis use a vaporizer or edibles. Where is your cancer argument then? When using a vaporizer the thc is ignited prior to the cellulose material. The THC does not contain any carcinogens. They are located in the cellulose of the plant material. Edibles are not smoked no cancer. There are also beverages that contain THC which can then be drunk. Cannabis need not be smoked like a joint or bong things have progressed. There are also oils and waxes that contain no to trace elements of carcinogens. The other statement you made is also highly flawed, I did not use it for chronic pain I had another medical use and it worked for me. I don't care if the fact that it helped me offends you or not. It worked for me and that is was I care about.

Funny how people can just make stuff up on the internet for all to believe. Check my sources? How about the American Lung Association? Will this source suffice or do you want more?

http://www.lung.org/associations/sta.../marijuana.pdf

"Like tobacco smoke, marijuana smoke contains
cancer-causing chemicals. There are 33 cancercausing
chemicals contained in marijuana.
Marijuana smoke also deposits tar into the lungs.
In fact, when equal amounts of marijuana and
tobacco are smoked, marijuana deposits four
times more tar into the lungs. This is because
marijuana joints are un-filtered and often more
deeply inhaled than cigarettes."

You're still reaching. The numbers are 33 potential carcinogens vs. 7,000 in tobacco. That information is also steeped in the "war on drugs" perspective of use and propaganda against it.

Either way, smoking is only one method of consumption and your argument is still flawed. Your position is not based in concern over people getting cancer.

Let's just agree to disagree. How about that? :)

So use of marijuana poses some health risks. So what? That's no reason to make private use by adults unlawful.

Heavy smokers who go through say two packs a day will smoke forty cigarettes in that time. Even a chronic pot smoker might only consume one or two joints a day. So there is no actual way for a potsmoker to inhale that many carcinogens. Nobody can smoke forty joints.

Also please keep in mind that pilots, surgeons, workers in chemical plants, and others who do what might be considered dangerous work generally are responsible enough not to consume alcohol while they are working. It's unlikely your cardiologist will have a couple of martinis before he does your open heart surgery. Likewise, a pilot will know not to take out his bong before taking off with a planeload of passengers.

I believe that nearly all resonsible people will figure out that there is a time and place for using marijuana. Legalizing it doesn't give people license to act like jerks.

Not an easy read but very informative
 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1277837/


this part was particularly interesting.

"Recent work by Roth et al. demonstrates that THC treatment of murine hepatoma cells caused a dose dependent increase in CYP1A1 gene transcription, while at the same time directly inhibiting the enzymatic activity of the gene product [23]. Thus, despite potentially higher levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons found in cannabis smoke compared to tobacco smoke (dependent on what part of the plant is smoked), the THC present in cannabis smoke should exert a protective effect against pro-carcinogens that require activation. In contrast, nicotine activates some CYP1A1 activities, thus potentially increasing the carcinogenic effects of tobacco smoke [24]."

Please show me anywhere in my post where I mentioned SMOKING marijuana. But what I said is a fact and jives with personal experience as well (from my wife who has chronic back pain).

"The same drug may not work for different patients with the same pain source. And there are some who get relief with only a single specific drug. Medical fact."

In my wife's case, there is only a certain combination of drugs that provide any relief, none of them being marijuana (FWIW). Even the drugs that are geared toward her condition don't work.

BUT... all this isn't even the point. Why do you insist on restricting someone's right to something that DOES work if it isn't harming anyone else? The only arguments I have seen are "what if" straw man scenarios, which don't address the core issue (IMO).

best reasoning
 

This is the best argument to me so far for legalization. I want too so leave me alone. Really, I can agree with that.

I agree. Plus, folks in these sensitive positions can be tested for impairment. Not a test for THC in one's blood which, as I understand the current state of science, can yield positive results in perfectly sober people due to use days before the test. But, instead perhaps a test of manual dexterity, something akin to field sobriety tests, upon reasonable suspicion of impairment.

I think the two most troubling problems with legalization would be the potential for increased instances of driving under the influence and access by minors. But, I believe these problems can be effectively addressed by appropriate legislation. Will such legislation be perfect? No, but legislation rarely is. I was closely involved in the federal legislative process for more than 10 years and I can attest that all controversial legislation entails compromise and tough line-drawing issues. This is no different.

There are people out there, young people, old people, who are suffering needlessly from a variety of afflictions that don't need to be suffering at all. Here's one such example where nothing else helped this child.

Alex Echols, Boy With Autism, Gets Medical Marijuana To Manage Self-Destructive Rages

All this...PLUS it's really fun to be high.

Less non-violent offenders in jail, useful for a number of ailments and it's super fun.

Seems like a win/win/win.

If this is the biggest problem facing our nation (and its not) we should be OK. It might as well be legal because its about as easy to get as a six pack of beer. I'm with Barry -- tax it, regulate it, reel in the income, recover all the money spent on the "war on drugs" that can't be won and make legal money off it. Seems like a no brainer to me.

Any smoke put into the body is bad. The thing is, you don't have to smoke it.

Edit: Edibles

Yes mon...legalize it!!!!!

yay-ahh...yay-ahh!

whats next
 

Toad licking of course