Are you for legalization or against it? (marijuana)

[srellim234]

I'm not quite sure how you control the black market on it if you tax it like cigarettes. After all, MJ can be grown in the home relatively easily while you can't do the same with tobacco.

I would be more inclined to keep taxes low on it to keep the whole thing a little more honest. By taxing high and basically replacing the ignorance of one law (possession and use) with another (high taxation) we still just ecourage people to ignore a law.

Growing it then giving or selling it to your friends to avoid the high taxes, I think, would be a much bigger black market cottage industry than the people making beer or wine from home. Reasonable pricing and just collecting the regular sales tax and corporate income taxes should be enough.

[Sentientbydesign]

I know of somebody who has totalled 2 cars while high on weed. He lost 3 or 4 of his front teeth.

If Americans can't take responsibility for what they eat (fast food law suits), they are DEFINITELY not responsible enough to smoke weed legaly.

[Qwerty1942]

QWERTY, just to help you get some facts, from

ok, this is the fact you provide:

Quote »"One of the primary health issues with cannabis is the effect of smoke on the lungs. While the risks from long term cannabis smoking are not fully understood, it is assumed...[/quote]Ok, I think its understood that an assumption IS NOT a fact. Try again.

Quote »Acute effects can [/quote]Yeah, it can happen, but it doesn't mean it will. I have none of the adverse effects that you listed.

Quote »http://www.losangeles.com/history/

"In the fall o....[/quote]Plese, stop trying to change the subject.

[srellim234]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...9.htm

ScienceDaily (Feb. 14, 2007) — "Long-term exposure to marijuana smoke is linked to many of the same health problems as tobacco smoke, such as increased respiratory symptoms like cough, phlegm and wheeze, according to a new study by researchers at Yale School of Medicine...

...Tetrault and colleagues systematically reviewed articles from 1966 through 2005 identified from the MEDLINE, PsychINFO and EMBASE databases that evaluated the effect of marijuana smoking on pulmonary function and respiratory complications. Of the 34 articles that met selection criteria, 12 were classified as challenge studies because they examined the link between short-term marijuana use and airway response. Eleven of the 12 studies found an association between short-term marijuana use and relaxation and opening of the air passages.

The study's physiologic data failed to show an association between long-term marijuana smoking and airflow obstruction (emphysema). However, all 14 studies that assessed long-term marijuana smoking and respiratory complications noted an association with increased respiratory symptoms, suggesting obstructive lung disease. "

From Brown University:http://www.brown.edu/Student_S...a.htm

"Are there long-term consequences to smoking marijuana?

Respiratory problemsSomeone who smokes marijuana regularly can have many of the same respiratory problems as cigarette smokers. Persistent coughing, symptoms of bronchitis and more frequent chest colds are possible symptoms. There are over 400 chemicals that have been found in marijuana smoke. Benzyprene, a known human carcinogen, is present in marijuana smoke. Regardless of the THC content, the amount of tar inhaled by marijuana smokers and the level of carbon monoxide are 3 to 5 times higher than in cigarette smoke. This is most likely due to inhaling marijuana more deeply, holding the smoke in the lungs and because marijuana smoke is unfiltered."-----As for changing the subject, you stated, " btw, Los Angeles air quality is ok since the pollution rises above the city due to its sea level." I only pointed out that the inversion layer has been here, holding pollution down and not allowing it to rise for over 450 years. Your statement was incorrect. I did not change the subject.

[Soravia]

Fun police? Let's see how fun it is when someone smoking weed got a call from his wife to pick up the kids, and then T-bones your car at the light on the way back?

You think that's fun? Even with Alcohol, we have 16,885 dead in 2005. That's 4 times of Iraq war death in 4 years. Add weed to the mix and there will be more. Hell, even prescription drugs can be a danger to driving.

I maybe MR. Fun Police. But unlike you, my argument rest on the safety of other people including those who want weed and those who don't.As for yourself, it's all about having fun. AS IF there are no other way to have fun on this planet.

[Qwerty1942]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...9.htm

ScienceDaily (Feb. 14, 2007) — "Long-term exposure to marijuana smoke is linked to many of the same health problems as tobacco smoke, such as increased respiratory symptoms like cough, phlegm and wheeze, according to a new study by researchers at Yale School of Medicine...

...Tetrault and colleagues systematically reviewed articles from 1966 through 2005 identified from the MEDLINE, PsychINFO and EMBASE databases that evaluated the effect of marijuana smoking on pulmonary function and respiratory complications. Of the 34 articles that met selection criteria, 12 were classified as challenge studies because they examined the link between short-term marijuana use and airway response. Eleven of the 12 studies found an association between short-term marijuana use and relaxation and opening of the air passages.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...3.htm

Study Finds No Link Between Marijuana Use And Lung Cancer

"People who smoke marijuana--even heavy, long-term marijuana users--do not appear to be at increased risk of developing lung cancer, according to a study to be presented at the American Thoracic Society International Conference on May 23rd."

"The heaviest smokers in the study had smoked more than 22,000 marijuana cigarettes, or joints, while moderately heavy smokers had smoked between 11,000 to 22,000 joints. Even these smokers did not have an increased risk of developing cancer. People who smoked more marijuana were not at any increased risk compared with those who smoked less marijuana or none at all."

Quote »The study's physiologic data failed to show an association between long-term marijuana smoking and airflow obstruction (emphysema). However, all 14 studies that assessed long-term marijuana smoking and respiratory complications noted an association with increased respiratory symptoms, suggesting obstructive lung disease. "[/quote]This "suggestion" is NOT a fact. Quit trying to pass off suggestions and assumptions as facts, thanks.

Quote »From Brown University:http://www.brown.edu/Student_S...a.htm

"Are there long-term consequences to smoking marijuana?

Respiratory problemsSomeone who smokes marijuana regularly can have many of the same respiratory problems as cigarette smokers. Persistent coughing, symptoms of bronchitis and more frequent chest colds are possible symptoms. There are over 400 chemicals that have been found in marijuana smoke. Benzyprene, a known human carcinogen, is present in marijuana smoke. Regardless of the THC content, the amount of tar inhaled by marijuana smokers and the level of carbon monoxide are 3 to 5 times higher than in cigarette smoke. This is most likely due to inhaling marijuana more deeply, holding the smoke in the lungs and because marijuana smoke is unfiltered."[/quote]Where are the facts you said you were going to provide? all you are providing are possibilities, assumptions, and suggestions, but no facts.

Btw, like a poster mentioned before: "I wonder how long it will take this thread to realize the danger in smoking anything comes mostly from the harmful combustible fluid that makes lighters work."

also, just for the record, I don't smoke weed. I use a vaporizer to consume weed. So I win!

Quote »As for changing the subject, you stated, " btw, Los Angeles air quality is ok since the pollution rises above the city due to its sea level." I only pointed out that the inversion layer has been here, holding pollution down and not allowing it to rise for over 450 years. Your statement was incorrect. I did not change the subject. [/quote]if you want to make another thread about this im ok with that, but im not going to help you change the subject here and derail this thread.


Modified by Qwerty1942 at 7:18 AM 8/20/2008

[Qwerty1942]

Fun police? Let's see how fun it is when someone smoking weed got a call from his wife to pick up the kids, and then T-bones your car at the light on the way back?

You think that's fun? Even with Alcohol, we have 16,885 dead in 2005. That's 4 times of Iraq war death in 4 years. Add weed to the mix and there will be more. Hell, even prescription drugs can be a danger to driving.

link me to an article that has documented what you said. all you do is keep spewing lies.

Quote »I maybe MR. Fun Police. But unlike you, my argument rest on the safety of other people including those who want weed and those who don't.[/quote]man, your parents did a good job scaring you growing up.Quote »As for yourself, it's all about having fun. AS IF there are no other way to have fun on this planet.[/quote]yeah you're right there are more ways to have fun, the other way is alcohol which is actually is dangerous.

[Qwerty1942]

btw here are some facts about vaporizers, which may be instrumental in legalizing mj:

VaporizerFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A vaporizer (or vaporiser) is a device used to release the active ingredients of plant material, commonly cannabis, tobacco, and many other therapeutic or medicinal herbs or blends (phyto-inhalation; see also: aromatherapy). Vaporization is an alternative to smoking. Rather than burning the herb, which produces numerous harmful by-products, a vaporizer heats the material in a controlled manner so that the active compounds contained in the plant boil off into a vapor. This new gas is not smoke from combustion, but an evaporated vapor that has the appearance of light smoke. The vapor ideally contains virtually zero particulate matter (tar) and reduced noxious gases such as carbon monoxide. Vapor may be filtered and cooled further using a water pipe or an inline water/ice attachment. The vapor is then inhaled directly through a hose or pipe for highest activity, or stored for subsequent inhalations in a container such as a "dome" or "balloon." With little to no smoke produced, cooler temperatures, and less material required to achieve the same effect, the irritating/harmful effects of smoking are greatly reduced or eliminated,[1][2][3][4][5] along with second hand smoke, by using a vaporizer. This makes vaporizers useful in places where there are public bans on smoking and in circumstances whereas a more medical-like delivery medium is preferred.

[numbnuts240]

such a heated debate over a plant. i'm not going to get all emotional and butt hurt over this thread, but i will throw my .02 out there. imo, i think that marijuana should just be treated like alcohol. no operating a motor vehicle under the influence, no showing up to work stoned, you can grow it as a hobby for personal consumption only, and enjoy your munchies to your heart's content. i would also say that inhalation methods of consumption shouldn't be allowed in public (bars, smoke lounges, etc.) just because non-smokers can get high. baked goods are perfectly acceptable though .

[srellim234]

14 out of 14 studies noted an increase in respiratory symptoms. Over 400 chemicals found in cigarette smoke are in marijuana smoke. Known carcinogens like benzyprene are present. 3-5 times the tar of cigarette smoke.

The fact that you don't have any symptoms (yet) doesn't mean your sampling study of one person, you, using a vaporizer that is not the normal method of use, proves that the hazards and symptoms don't exist. Quite frankly, you sound like a cigarette manufacturer or a "hooked" cigarette smoker without symptoms trying to deny the gradual buildup of evidence against the product in the '70s and '80s. Many people smoke for many, many years and don't develop any of the diseases associated with them. Why? Who knows? It it no way diminishes the fact that thousands of other people DO get them and the dangers are well established.

"Suggestion" based on 14 of 14 studies indicating a connection cannot be summarily dismissed because of one person's experience. It tells us that the particular association warrants a more precise study designed to concretely make the link. The current study apparently shows a correlation but the current study wasn't designed in a way to stand up to scientific review of a concrete finding on that point.

If you go back and read my original post, I'm not arguing against the point of legalizing it so yu don't need to try to deny all the hazards to change my mind. I'm somewhat in favor of it. Like tobacco, liquor, etc., it should be up to the individual to do it behind closed doors and not subject others to its affects. Users should be aware of the hazards, though. In my years in pharmacies I've seen too many people on inhalers, having major surgeries, going through radiation and chemotherapy, on oxygen tanks in their later years, and I've been to too many customers' funerals because of putting any kind of smoke in their lungs. But it was their choice to start smoking whatever they were smoking in the first place and many of them sounded exactly like you in their earlier years.

[Qwerty1942]

14 out of 14 studies noted an increase in respiratory symptoms. Over 400 chemicals found in cigarette smoke are in marijuana smoke. Known carcinogens like benzyprene are present. 3-5 times the tar of cigarette smoke.

so what? the worst thing this can cause a person to do is cough up some phlegm, and not a lung like with tobacco.

Quote »The fact that you don't have any symptoms (yet) doesn't mean your sampling study of one person, you, using a vaporizer that is not the normal method of use, proves that the hazards and symptoms don't exist. Quite frankly, you sound like a cigarette manufacturer or a "hooked" cigarette smoker without symptoms trying to deny the gradual buildup of evidence against the product in the '70s and '80s. [/quote]Stop assuming that I'm basing my opinion on just my experience. I'm basing my opinion on fact, not assumptions and suggestions.

I may sound like a rep for a cig company, but the difference here is I have nothing to gain. I don't make any money convincing you that mj has no serious effects on a person.

Quote »Many people smoke for many, many years and don't develop any of the diseases associated with them. Why? Who knows? It it no way diminishes the fact that thousands of other people DO get them and the dangers are well established.[/quote]Link me to an article that documents the diseases brought on by marijuana. If you can't do this than you have no more say in this matter.

Quote »"Suggestion" based on 14 of 14 studies indicating a connection cannot be summarily dismissed because of one person's experience. It tells us that the particular association warrants a more precise study designed to concretely make the link. The current study apparently shows a correlation but the current study wasn't designed in a way to stand up to scientific review of a concrete finding on that point.[/quote]Hence, you still fall short of providing facts (like you said you would). You still lose here.

Quote »I've seen too many people on inhalers, having major surgeries, going through radiation and chemotherapy, on oxygen tanks in their later years, and I've been to too many customers' funerals because of putting any kind of smoke in their lungs. [/quote]So said people are "on inhalers, having major surgeries, going through radiation and chemotherapy, on oxygen tanks in their later years" because of mj? How do you know this? You don't. LOL more baseless assertions. and I'm sure the customers' funerals you attended weren't people who ONLY smoked mj.

Quote »But it was their choice to start smoking whatever they were smoking in the first place and many of them sounded exactly like you in their earlier years.[/quote]Please, stop grouping tobacco smokers with mj smokers. Its apples and oranges. Mj smoke does not kill people, unlike tobacco smoke.

[JerodKing]

Qwerty, your "facts" are also just assumptions based on research, so it's funny that you derail other studies as assumptions and assume one's that support your claims as fact.

My question for you is do YOU support DUI's for marijuana or not? There seems to be an aura on this thread that getting out of it for pot is a good thing, which I completely disagree with.

[hernandez5749]

IM FOR IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Qwerty1942]

Qwerty, your "facts" are also just assumptions based on research, so it's funny that you derail other studies as assumptions and assume one's that support your claims as fact.

um actually, none of the facts that I've provided are dubious like you claim them to be.

Quote »My question for you is do YOU support DUI's for marijuana or not?[/quote]absolutely. Just like alcohol, if you get caught being stupid with it, go directly to jail, do not pass go.

Quote »There seems to be an aura on this thread that getting out of it for pot is a good thing, which I completely disagree with.[/quote]Pot is bad but alcohol is good right?

[96Qowner]

Yer gettin all defensive, Querty.

We don't have to convince people it's a good idea to smoke pot - we only have to convince 'em that legalizing it would not be any worse for society than keeping it illegal.

This is a problem, for instance:

Washington, DC: Police arrested an estimated 723,627 persons for marijuana violations in 2001, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's annual Uniform Crime Report, released today. The total is the second highest ever recorded by the FBI, and comprises nearly half of all drug arrests in the United States.

"These numbers belie the myth that police do not target and arrest minor marijuana offenders," said Keith Stroup, Executive Director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML). "In fact, the war on drugs is largely a war on pot smokers. This effort is a tremendous waste of criminal justice resources that should be dedicated toward combating serious and violent crime, including the war on terrorism."

Of those charged with marijuana violations, 88.6 percent - some 641,108 Americans - were charged with possession only. The remaining 82,518 individuals were charged with "sale/manufacture," a category that includes all cultivation offenses - even those where the marijuana was being grown for personal or medical use.

The total number of marijuana arrests far exceeds the total number of arrests for all violent crimes combined, including murder, manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault.

Since 1992, approximately six million Americans have been arrested on marijuana charges, a greater number than the entire populations of Alaska, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming combined. Annual marijuana arrests have more than doubled in that time.

"It's time we stopped arresting adults who use marijuana responsibly," says Stroup.

http://skeptically.org/recdrugs/id8.html

Just seems ... foolish.

Be careful, however, when researching numbers. The numbers used by pro-pot people often include marijuana arrests in association with other criminal arrests, where it was simply discovered in a search. I don't like to count those. These people aren't in prison because of marijuana - they're in prison for violent crimes. The best numbers I found were 8000 Federal prisoners for marijuana possession and/or trafficking ONLY, and 54,000 State prisoners.

Looking at it from the broader perspective of the entire prison population, BJS noted that in 1997 marijuana was involved in the conviction of only 2.7 percent of all state inmates. About 1.6 percent of the state prison population were held for offenses involving just marijuana, while just 0.7 percent were incarcerated with marijuana possession as the only charge

http://64.233.167.104/search?q...fox-a

There are 2 million State prisoners @ 2.7% = 54,000And separately in the article it says that there were 8000 Federal prisoners for marijuana only.

But then, we spend an awful lot arresting and processing:

Altogether, taxpayers spend nearly $8 billion a year to hunt down, arrest, try, and incarcerate marijuana consumers.

http://www.serendipity.li/wod/mpp.html

It's from an advocacy group, so it might be exaggerated, but still .... Billions?

[Qwerty1942]

you're right im defensive, I dont have to convince people its good, but they dont have to convince others its bad while sipping on a bud light.

wow look how much money we're wasting, BILLIONS!?!

[JerodKing]

um actually, none of the facts that I've provided are dubious like you claim them to be.

absolutely. Just like alcohol, if you get caught being stupid with it, go directly to jail, do not pass go.

Pot is bad but alcohol is good right?

um actually, none of the facts that I've provided are dubious like you claim them to be.

absolutely. Just like alcohol, if you get caught being stupid with it, go directly to jail, do not pass go.

Pot is bad but alcohol is good right?

I wasn't saying your "facts" were dubious, I was just saying you call one study an assumption and take the one that supports your claim as facts. They are both assumptions and should be treated as such, neither are facts.

As for the DUI testing, is there a way to test if a person had say, within the last 4 hours smoked pot, and how much? All I know of is urine and hair testing, which needs to be sent out, and only can tell over a period of time (1 month?), not recently. But correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't researched this.

And I never said getting away with a DUI with alcohol is good, don't put words in my mouth. All I said was that people seemed to be proud of getting away with driving while high, which to me is completely irresponsible, just like a typical DUI.

For I think it was Q, do you have any numbers of how much money we pull in on fines for marijuana offenses? Just wondering if it is anywhere close to the billions we spend fighting it.

[srellim234]

Simply put, you have not provided absolutely anything in the way of facts, links to verified studies based on scientific fact, to anything you have said here regarding lung function. All anyone has seen from you is simply your personal experience and hearsay.

Show me scientific proof that marijuana smoke in the lungs, long term, with carcinogens, tar, etc is any different than the smoke with carcinogens, tar, etc. from cigarettes. You have presented abosultely NO verifiable scientific proof.

You can continue to deny findings the same way that a lot of dead cigarette smokers have, rationalizing the scientific studies away by pointing at a "possible" here and a "suggestion" there, but their denials didn't help them one bit. They're still dead.

Are you really saying that inhaling smoke, with the carbon monoxide, carcinogens, tar, etc. have no long term effect on lung function? Prove it. Show me a scientific study that supports your claim. You keep repeating that it helps people with cancer. No one said it didn't, and that issue is totally unrelated to long term lung function.

[96Qowner]

I just did some checking on income from fines and didn't come up with much. Most fines have been legislated down to a few hundred bucks - it doesn't seem like it adds up to much income.

I ran across this, though, if you can trust the numbers (from High Times):

Add it all up, and marijuana prohibition costs the US $42 billion every year. This is information that congressional representatives, presidential candidates, and policy makers need to know.

http://hightimes.com/legal/ht_admin/2463

[srellim234]

Here's a presentation citing studies with control groups, measured results, etc. from all the way back in 1979.

http://tobaccodocuments.org/ness/1101.html

Very interesting reading.

[Qwerty1942]

Simply put, you have not provided absolutely anything in the way of facts, links to verified studies based on scientific fact, to anything you have said here regarding lung function. All anyone has seen from you is simply your personal experience and hearsay.

I did post facts and links.

zer...28556

zer...30932

Quote »Show me scientific proof that marijuana smoke in the lungs, long term, with carcinogens, tar, etc is any different than the smoke with carcinogens, tar, etc. from cigarettes. You have presented abosultely NO verifiable scientific proof.[/quote]Yes I have posted verifiable scientific proof already, but I'll post it again just for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...ssues

"a recent large-scale study found no correlation between heavy marijuana use and lung cancer, despite noting that cannabis contains the same carcinogens as tobacco." and it DOES include long-term.

Quote »You can continue to deny findings the same way that a lot of dead cigarette smokers have, rationalizing the scientific studies away by pointing at a "possible" here and a "suggestion" there, but their denials didn't help them one bit. They're still dead.[/quote]Wow, get it out of your head that mj smoke is the same as tobacco smoke. It is not the same thing. Link me to an article where it documents deaths due to MJ. You can't because no one has died because of it.

Quote »]Are you really saying that inhaling smoke, with the carbon monoxide, carcinogens, tar, etc. have no long term effect on lung function? Prove it. Show me a scientific study that supports your claim. You keep repeating that it helps people with cancer. No one said it didn't, and that issue is totally unrelated to long term lung function.[/quote]I'm going to post this study for the third time: http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...3.htm

"People who smoke marijuana--even heavy, long-term marijuana users--do not appear to be at increased risk of developing lung cancer, according to a study to be presented at the American Thoracic Society International Conference on May 23rd."

By the way, the study was aiming to prove the opposite of the results.

[Qwerty1942]

Here's a presentation citing studies with control groups, measured results, etc. from all the way back in 1979.

http://tobaccodocuments.org/ness/1101.html

Very interesting reading.

I didn't check out your link, but even if it's pro or anti mj, it's outdated.

[Qwerty1942]

I wasn't saying your "facts" were dubious, I was just saying you call one study an assumption and take the one that supports your claim as facts. They are both assumptions and should be treated as such, neither are facts.

Uh no, I've been posting facts. You continue to make this assertion yet you don't cite any examples that supports what you're saying.

Quote »As for the DUI testing, is there a way to test if a person had say, within the last 4 hours smoked pot, and how much? All I know of is urine and hair testing, which needs to be sent out, and only can tell over a period of time (1 month?), not recently. But correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't researched this.[/quote]actually the other day I was watching tru tv and cops was on (or a show like it). They did a segment on busting stoned drivers. The cops had the stoners blow into something (it looked like those things they use to detect bac level) and a few got hauled off to jail because they were above the limit. So I guess such a test does exist already.

Quote »And I never said getting away with a DUI with alcohol is good, don't put words in my mouth. All I said was that people seemed to be proud of getting away with driving while high, which to me is completely irresponsible, just like a typical DUI. [/quote]Who's proud? I wouldn't be proud of that.

[srellim234]

Qwerty, you have a fixation with your anticancer statement, which nobody has ever questioned. The argument is EFFECTS ON THE LUNGS.

You should read your own citations, including the very first paragraph of your link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana#Effects

"..Smoking of cannabis is the most harmful method of consumption, since combustion of material and inhalation of smoke in itself from organic materials such as tobacco, wood, gasoline and cannabis causes various health problems. By using a vaporizer or orally consuming cannabis, many health problems and many objections to using cannabis as medicine can be eliminated.[56][57][58][59][60]...""

a paragraph later:

"...A recent study by the Canadian government found cannabis smoke contained more toxic substances than tobacco smoke.[61] The study determined that marijuana smoke contained 20 times more ammonia, and five times more hydrogen cyanide and nitrogen oxides than tobacco smoke..In contrast, a study published in the January 2008 edition of the journal Respirology found that "regular" cannabis smokers who developed bullous lung disease[2] did so on average 24 years sooner than tobacco smoking counterparts.[65] Researchers attributed this to the inhalation of a larger volume of smoke, and typically holding it for four times longer than tobacco smokers. Bullous lung disease is considered an uncommon cause of respiratory distress.[66] In general, habitual inhalation of any kind of smoke is detrimental to lung health.[67]"

You cited the source. Read the whole thing.

As for something that has quantifiable results done under scientifically verifiable conditions, the results are still valid from 1979. Only way you can say they are not valid is to demonstrate where the flaws in methodology or result interpretation occurred.

[JerodKing]

"a recent large-scale study found no correlation between heavy marijuana use and lung cancer, despite noting that cannabis contains the same carcinogens as tobacco." and it DOES include long-term.

"People who smoke marijuana--even heavy, long-term marijuana users--do not appear to be at increased risk of developing lung cancer, according to a study to be presented at the American Thoracic Society International Conference on May 23rd."

By the way, the study was aiming to prove the opposite of the results.

I edited your post to only have the quotes I want in them. Since when does "do not appear" make it a fact? Hmmm...That sure sounds like they are making an assumption to me. Not fact. Same with found no correlation, making an assumption on the cases available, still not fact.

/discussion.
Modified by JerodKing at 8:40 AM 8/21/2008

[carmo]

We already covered the fact that you can get a DUI if you drive stoned. I don't condone irresponsible behavior. If someone has fulfilled all of their responsibilities for the day and they decide they wanna smoke a joint or eat a pot brownie, I think theres nothing wrong with that. Who are you to tell someone they are stupid for particular decisions they make and then attempt to back up your theory with a link to Wikipiedia. Mr.Negativity! LEGALIZE IT!

[BigMACKenzie]

actually recent studies have shown a noted DECREASE in lung cancer amongst Mota smokers who did NOT also smoke cigarettes. But my main point is two pronged: what it really comes down to are two things: A.) patient rights (who have the right to use the medicine that provides them releif/treatment at a level of effectiveness that they find acceptable and B.) Adult choices, which every legal adult in this country has a right to decide what to put into his or her body as long as it does not harm others. The second Prong is that the war on drugs is a war on a supply and demand chain, and we all know that if there is demand (30 million smokers in the US (estimated because we all know how many stoners pick up the phone/fill out the survey and return it/answer truthfully)) and that no matter how many suppliers you remove from the chain, the vacuum will always fill itself back in with new supply. The war on drugs will not, and never will work. Legalization, taxation and govt controll are the only reasonable, responsable ways to regulate mota in this country (rant on why I wont call it marijuana, weed or dope to follow) thanks for letting me ramble ^^

Edit: You are a GD fool if you think that smoking some herb (which if raised organicly and or flushed properly two or more weeks before harvest should only contain things naturally found in plants) would introduce more harmfull chemicals than a MAN MADE tobacco cigg which we know contains over 500 different chemicals. Way to miss the logic train on that one cadet!

Also Qwerty I think what you are refering to is the new THC test strips that change color when they come into contact with THC residue. You remember how excited your were when your last nug you broke up left all that sticky icky goodness on your fingers (I hope ^^) it stays on your hands for HOURS and the THC is also present in your saliva. this is the new method for busting heads while driving bc the only other way to test for THC is a blood test that can show mota use for up to a month (more if you smoke on the daily) and is not any good for prooving use/intoxication while driving.

[audtatious]

Legalize Heroin, crack, cocaine, etc as well as long as they are harming nobody but themselves? Who ends up paying their OD bills and hospitalization welfare?

[srellim234]

The same people who are paying for the illegal immigrant in the Chicago hospital. The American taxpayer.

From yesterday's Wall Street Journal blogs:http://blogs.wsj.com/health/20..._blog

[audtatious]

You mean, gasp, drugs can be harmful?

No Wai