"Medicinal" Marijuana

Alcohol and Drugs Forum

Agreed...And the tax that could be collected, plus the money save from "Courts" over pot...

much as I hesitate to agree with bitwiz44 (just kidding bw) - I too agree. Yep, tax it heavy like we do on cigs ... I don't think it will ever happen though. This one is just too controversial. Look how much crap Clinton took for admitting his experience .... and he didn't even inhale ! Here's a question ... DOES smoking a little weed lead to experimenting with heavier drugs? I'm gonna go with yeah - good possibility that'll happen. I think after exposure to many different things we tend to become desensitized .... more accepting ..... less fearful .... more daring .... so then what would happen if it were legalized and easier to get ...?

Yeah, Refer Madness <- now THAT is a funny film.

As for MJ being a "bridge drug".. well, maybe in certain circumstances, but no more so than alcohol or cigarettes in my opinion. But you're referring to people who already have the curiosity/desire for substance abuse because there are people out there, believe it or not, who have not taken mind-altering substances EVER and have no intention to. People are going to do what they want. There's no "safe path" to being a hardcore narcotics addict which states that Marijuana is the first step to your glorious dream. Some people "try" pot because they want to know what it's like to get high without jumping into a chemical addiction or anything that seems unnatural right from the get-go. If they like the feeling, sure: maybe some will think, "yeah, great - but is there even higher than this?", and will continue further. I don't think marijuana is what leads those people to other drugs, I think it's what they wanted to begin with. They could have tried any number of other things (like huffing, popping pills, etc) and they would have ended up on the same path, but pot, by comparrison is safe. On the opposite end of the spectrum you have the types who try for curiosity and discover that they really dislike being out of control and vow never to do it again. And then in the middle, I think you'll find the majority of pot users: people who are quite comfortable smoking dope ("daily smokers"), have no desire to try anything stronger or more dehabilitating, and do so for years - even their entire lives. No matter what the case, I don't see Marijuana as the purveyor of evil substance abuse that the propaganda tries to make it out to be.

As for a "limit" concerning DUI's and such - yeah, it could be "complicated" to come up with a black & white definition, but we could easily move to a zero tolerance policy: if you smoke dope or drink, then you do not drive, PERIOD, for a specified amount of time. A more complicated model would, like alcohol, determine body mass, THC absorbed, etc. Perhaps there could be some direct blood toxification detection. One way or another, this could be dealt with effectively.

As for using weed as an excuse for actions taken: nope, not going to accept it. Whether you're intoxicated from alcohol or from THC, if you take regrettable actions while intoxicated, you deal with the consequences - you know you do stupid crap when you're not sober and you decide to smoke/drink anyway, that's your decision, and at that time you accept full responsibility for your subsequent actions.

As for being too controversial, I think that's simply the result of misinformation, negative publicity, general ignorance of those opposed. Anyone who opposes marijuana legalization should logically be in favor of reinstating alcohol prohibition.

As for weed being "hard to get" - yeah, that's hoot. Legalizing marijuana, in my opinion, would neither increase the number of users, nor make it any easier to obtain. Everyone has their "connections", and they're never far away. Legalization would simply cut down on the paranoia that goes hand-in-hand with smoking out.

As for tax collection & distribution control, indeed I agree that the government may face some problems on this front and think that this may be one of the most significant barriers to legalizing pot. The plant is something that could be grown in anyone's home or back yard, so how would the government "control" it all and ensure that tax is collected? I think the answer lies in the government not insisting on controlling/taxing it ALL, only the commercialized/retail volumes. That way, Joe Blow can grow and smoke his own weed, even sell it to neighbors, etc. John Doe might even run a pretty big plantation, but his distribution network would have to be one that is "underground" - he'd be practicing business without a license. The licensed growers & distributors are where the volume is going to be and where the tax dollars may be seen. Here you're talking huge plantations and retail (smoke & liquor shops mostly, I'd expect) packaged goods distributed by the crate/palette - that's enough volume to tax quite nicely. Moreover, as most people know, there are different varieties and grades of cannabis which could easily be priced up the more "exotic" they get - eventually, you'll end up with so many gourmet varieties, that it'll end up looking like the coffee aisle - sounds like good business to me!

I have yet to hear a sound argument against the legalization of marijuana. It would make a LOT more police available for REAL crimes rather than spending their time harassing and arresting dope-heads. Granted that your occaisional DUI needs to be taken down, but do we need these house raids and huge drug busts, etc over a plant which God placed on this natural green Earth for our consumption?

This Pic Of The Day from www.cannabis.org should change daily:
http://www.cannabis.com/cgi-bin/cannabispotd.pl

Great minds think alike sometimes... This Is one of those times....

The only real Neg if you would call it that....The MUNCHIE attack.

TORONTO, May 27 — The Canadian government introduced legislation today to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana, a move that U.S. officials said could increase the amount of marijuana smuggled across the border.
UNDER THE BILL, possession of up to 15 grams of marijuana, about half an ounce, would become punishable by fines of up to the equivalent of about $290 U.S. for adults and $182 for minors. Backed by Prime Minister Jean Chretien’s ruling Liberal Party, the measure has a good chance of passing because of the party’s strong majority in Parliament, political analysts said.
Chretien is proceeding despite firm opposition from the Bush administration, which views the measure as encouraging drug use and creating an environment of permissiveness.
“Some of the strongest and most dangerous marijuana on the U.S. market is coming from Canada,” John P. Walters, director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, said in a telephone interview today. “That production has been rapidly expanding and is largely unchecked.”
Canadian officials estimate that $4 billion to $7 billion worth of Canadian marijuana is sold in the United States each year.
The proposed law is also unpopular with some Canadian groups, including opposition parties and police organizations.
Justice Minister Martin Cauchon, who introduced the bill in Parliament, said at a news conference in Ottawa, the capital, that most Canadians prefer that possession of small amounts of the drug become a “ticketing offense.”
“We are not legalizing marijuana. We have no plans to do so. We are changing the way we prosecute certain offenses,” Cauchon said.
“Cannabis consumption is first and foremost a health matter,” he continued. “It should not result in criminal penalties. We have to ask ourselves as a society: Does it make sense that a person who makes a bad choice can receive the lasting burden of a criminal record? . . . The legislation I introduced today will make sure the punishment fits the crime.”

NATIONAL CAMPAIGN PLANNED
Decriminalization, officials said, would be accompanied by a national campaign to alert Canadians to the dangers of drug use.
The bill would also increase penalties for people who grow marijuana illegally. Small amounts may be grown legally by Canadians who need marijuana for medical reasons.
As the United States moves toward tougher penalties for drug crimes, Canada appears to be mellowing toward small-time drug use, focusing instead on “harm reduction” strategies for users.
‘Let me be very clear, we do not want Canadians to use marijuana.’
— ANNE MCLELLAN
Canada's health minister In some Canadian cities, notably Vancouver, heroin users shoot up in broad daylight on street corners littered with needles, and some people openly smoke marijuana in pot cafes. Some provincial officials have proposed setting up supervised injection sites where heroin and cocaine users could receive clean needles and inject themselves.
In 2001, Canada passed a law allowing people with serious illnesses to use marijuana for medical purposes with government approval. The Canadian Senate this year released a proposal to legalize marijuana and allow it to be grown by licensed dealers and sold in corner stores to anyone 16 or older. The proposal was widely criticized in the United States, and U.S. officials were taken aback when Chretien announced plans last month to move ahead with decriminalization.

BORDER WORRIES
Paul Cellucci, the U.S. ambassador to Canada, warned that the border between the two countries could be tightened as U.S. Customs officials intensified drug searches. That could harm trade.
Cauchon traveled to Washington two weeks ago to meet with his U.S. counterpart, Attorney General John D. Ashcroft. When he returned, he was criticized for sharing ideas with U.S. officials before introducing the measure in Parliament. Officials would not discuss what happened at that meeting, but some said the bill introduced today was a watered-down version of what was discussed there.

In the interview today, Walters said he was happy that the bill did not include outright legalization. He also praised plans to launch an education campaign.
But Walters said the United States remained concerned about the flow of drugs from Canada. “The indoor [marijuana growing operations] have exploded,” he said. “They are now showing up in Manitoba, Ontario and in Quebec.”
Mike Murphy, a spokesman for Cauchon, said the legislation addressed the supply issue. “The legislation being proposed will take tough action against the [growing] operations, which are a concern not only to Canadians but to the U.S. as well,” Murphy said.
Canada’s health minister, Anne McLellan, said her agency would implement a national program to educate Canadians on the harmfulness of drug use, using mass media campaigns targeted at teenagers. “Let me be very clear, we do not want Canadians to use marijuana,” McLellan said.
Some Canadian critics said officials were sending a contradictory message.
“We should be sending a message to young people that drugs are dangerous,” said David Griffin, executive officer of the Canadian Police Association, “but here we have members of Parliament suggesting they are no big deal.”

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

I totally support legalization. Buying from a dope dealer you never know for sure what's in it and how it's been processed.
Dope dealers don't care about quality control. I just don't know why I got one extremely bad trip in the 60's when smoked some pot, and at all other times it was just "mellow".
It would reduce crime associated with drug dealers.
As posted earlier, ban alcohol - it makes some people into animals. I have never heard of a horrible murder committed by some one just smoking pot. My next door neighbors have been daily pot smokers and you could never tell, the husband is the IT director for a major school district, the wife's a doctor.
On the other hand I have worked with alkoholics and their stories have never ended well.

I agree, it should be legal, but monitered and taxed. I also agree that alcohol is really a worse drug. As for smoking pot leading to the use of harder drugs, I think it has in the past but only because of the people you are around. If it was a legal drug, I don't see why it would. The worst thing it really does is make you not care so much about things in your life, but thats not really the end of the world, and it is sure not as bad as an alcoholic.

Although it seems counter-intuitive, I think legalizing pot would make it harder for minors to get it. For instance, in high school many kids I knew smoked pot more than they drank for one reason; dealers didn't care if they were over 21. Legalization would go hand in hand with regulation. Kids did drink too, showing that where there is a will there is a way.

I agree that we should legalize pot. And tax the hell out of it also. I think that there needs to be a lot of laws that apply to it though. You can't drive on it, etc... You can't just go outside, during work, for a smoke break and whip out a doob!

My father went through chemo for 3 years, and it ate him up. The only thing that allowed him to eat, stop throwing up, etc... was the fact that his best friend grew a few small plants and supplied my dad during his final two years. It was horrible to watch, and I thank God that he had something to ease the pain.

Marijuana should not be legalized, quite opposite fought in any possible way. I'll explain why.
Marijuana itself is a very light drug - with no physiological addiction and specific psychological addiction that could be classified as 'habbit tied to environment'. Kids start smoking it at 14, 15, 16 - during high school years - and treat it like harmless piece of grass. What they don't know is marijuana blocks brain cells blocking blood from flowing, and regular use of it lowers level of water in organism. They don't know that smoking a pot takes them away from our world and takes them into their own little world that they cant live without. Schizofrenia is highly spread amongst weed-smokers - and it's only effects of marijuana itself. While there are A LOT of teenagers that can't stay with it and go further - to extasy and cocaine. Those heavy drugs are mostly chemical, sometimes causing instant heart failure, making abusers addicted strongly to it - pure poison that human organism gets used to.
Think about it. Should drugs be legalized? NO!

Ask doctors, hospital hot-line dispatchers and paramedics - they could tell you what marijuana does to smokers.

Originally posted by KJPotter

And tax the hell out of it also.

Who said there are morals? If government makes money on selling drugs...

My father went through chemo for 3 years, and it ate him up. The only thing that allowed him to eat, stop throwing up, etc... was the fact that his best friend grew a few small plants and supplied my dad during his final two years. It was horrible to watch, and I thank God that he had something to ease the pain.

Needed substance could be extracted and sold to people WITHOUT letting them grow and smoke a DRUG.

Originally posted by jojoagain

I agree, it should be legal, but monitered and taxed.

Not possible. You can not monitor something that is so popular in masses already. Taxed - yes but who is going to buy it for 20$ when you can go around the corner and get it for 10$?

I also agree that alcohol is really a worse drug.

If used regularly and heavily. Casual drinking and everyday glass of wine are nothing bad - quite opposite, wine is good for your heart and arteries.

As for smoking pot leading to the use of harder drugs, I think it has in the past but only because of the people you are around. If it was a legal drug, I don't see why it would.

Because if marijuana is legalized, what's gonna be next? People start feeling free about using drugs opening ways for heavier drugs to be treated like marijuana was before.

The worst thing it really does is make you not care so much about things in your life, but thats not really the end of the world, and it is sure not as bad as an alcoholic.

So your point is it's okay to grow a generation of careless pot-heads?

Originally posted by ramarama

Although it seems counter-intuitive, I think legalizing pot would make it harder for minors to get it. For instance, in high school many kids I knew smoked pot more than they drank for one reason; dealers didn't care if they were over 21.

Legalization won't stop dealers from selling it - vice-versa, legalization as a powerfull advertisement coming from the government would make teenagers that hold themselves from starting try it together with their friends: "why not, it's legal".

Legalization would go hand in hand with regulation. Kids did drink too, showing that where there is a will there is a way.

Kids would better drink than smoke... Teens who drink usually dont become (NEVER become) alcoholics, while teens who smoke usually get addicted to pot or heavier drugs. Regulation will not work with marijuana.

If something such as a company is in multiple states it is governed by federal law. But if a company only did business inside one state, I think it is governed by state law (not sure about that though).

it's for glaucoma....
http://www.inreview.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=244695

There Marijuana Marches held in cities all over the globe each year. For more information go to:

www.cures-not-wars.org

Legalization is inevitable.

I don't know about legalization being inevitable, perhaps decriminalization is. Think about how clogged our prisons are because of people busted for Marijuana offenses. If we're gonna throw someone in prison for 5, 10 years or more, I'd rather it be for violent criminals. It's sad when you hear about child molesters, rapists and other dangerous criminals being released due to overcrowding when decriminalizing this commonly used narcotic would help ease some of that crowding.

Demographics. Old people die.

Addiction rates are very similar with all drugs, with the exception of nicotine and cocaine. Nicotine use (smoking) and addiction are almost synonymous. Cocaine users have a much lower rate of addiction than users of other drugs. Some people have addictive personalities and it doesn't matter what the drug is.

Cannabis is psychologically habituating but not addictive in the physical sense like heroin, alcohol, or barbituates.

In general, pot is less harmful to health than alcohol or tobacco.

The War on Drugs is just another moralist campaign so "do-gooders" can feel righteous about causing trouble for people that they don't like. It's also a good way to fleece the public, weaken those "pesky" civil rights, and increase government power.

The War on Drugs was used to cover up CIA drug trafficking....

Kinda like..."Drugs are bad, don't do them....(pssstt fellow CIA officer, could ya pass me the doobie, blow, hashish, then when we're done....let's pick up that supply from the border and sell it to the dealers....shhhhhhh)."
...as they drive away in their truck with the Bumper sticker, "War on Drugs/Don't do Drugs/D.A.R.E. to resist Drugs and Violence.

Is the CIA drug trafficking supervised by the Bush administration or they are doing it on their own, i wonder?

The War on Drugs has been replaced by, perhaps you've heard of it: The War on Terrorism.

If you can get hold of the book "Compromised: Clinton, Bush and the CIA" check it out. Subtitle "How the Presidency was Co-opted by the CIA" by Terry Reed and John Cummings.

Not the George W Bush Administration....the older fart George HW Bush, daddy Bush.

Oh i see.... You know a lot of stuff, sis.... You should take care of yourself, they might come anytime.....

Not worried. They've tried before and I am still here by the grace of God I proclaim.

Who was it, the Skull & Bones, the CIA, the DOHS, or all 3 at one time?

There was no DOHS in Oct 2001....well, it was on paper in Jan 2001, but that doesn't count....I have the three versions of DOHS before 9-11....I have posted their links b4 on this board.

It was a White Suburban with gov tags, black tinted windows....

Then a month later, my house broken into....I wasn't home, they left their card though.

By the way, CIA came from Skull and bones, same with DOHS....so they are one and the same.

I agree because it cures coma, but den at the same time i kind of disagree because it can be unhealthy if u use it too much, but come to think of it too much of anything isn't good so I don't see the point of making it illegal, but i think it should be just used in hospitals

It cures comas?

Well, we'll see what the Supreme Court has to say on the subject soon.

Well, we'll see what the Supreme Court has to say on the subject soon.

Well, we'll see what the Supreme Court has to say on the subject soon.

Hmm... they just said "No".