OFF TOPIC: Liberty or Death

Amen

I just don't get it. The reason prohibition was over-turned was because of the emergence of organized crime. Drug / gangs these days are worse than Capone ever wanted to be. The amount of effort we spend on policing pot is nothing short of absurd given the ratio of arrests made in this area compared to violent crimes. It's stupifying really. Regardless if you're a smoker or not, you have to agree trying to police pot went beyond silly long ago.

You realize that prospect lists have a time horizon of like 5-10 years, not 5-10 days, right?

by slurve on Oct 28, 2007 1:01 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

True

Lets see, spend billions every year, overcrowd our prisons, promote organized crime, and accomplish nothing, or raise tax revenue, reduce spending, reduce crime, and maybe accomplish more...

So of course politicians choose the former.

With such a wonderfull case study in prohibition how anyone can argue for the continuation of the war on drugs is beyond me.

by B Agate on Oct 28, 2007 2:01 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

They

can it just takes a blood test but any PO worth his salt knows if someones high.

1941 .406

by FrozenTed9 on Oct 28, 2007 2:42 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

They can and

already do charge people with driving under the influence of marijuana. That's why it's called "DUI" these days as opposed to what most states started out with - "DWI." They can go one step beyond that - they can tell if you are high right now or if you just have residual traces of pot in your system from before.

Problem is, they don't have any "potalyzer" for the field they can give you on the road. They have to take blood/urine.

You realize that prospect lists have a time horizon of like 5-10 years, not 5-10 days, right?

by slurve on Oct 28, 2007 2:44 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Lobby

I really wonder how much the alcohol producers lobby to keep marijuana illegal. I would assume it is an enormous amount, they have more to lose if pot is legalized than anyone else.

Another thought: When I was in high school, it was VERY hard to buy beer because it was sold in stores under a law it was not to be sold to those under 21. It was very easy to buy pot, because the people who sold it didn't "card"me to make sure I was of legal age. I always found it confusing that it was easier as a teen to buy an ilegal drug than it was a restricted drug.

by drwmsu1 on Oct 28, 2007 4:14 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Hmm...

I don't think alcohol would be effected much, if at all. Pot is a huge industry now, if anything I think it compliments alcohol as they go hand in hand in many circles in the first place - most drinkers have at least tried pot and vice-versa.

You realize that prospect lists have a time horizon of like 5-10 years, not 5-10 days, right?

by slurve on Oct 28, 2007 4:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bingo

This was the reason that pot was orinally made illegal. It was taking too much money from the Kennedy's pockets.

by elricsi on Oct 28, 2007 7:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Tobacco

The bigger loser seems to me to be Tobacco. Pot doesn't carry the health risks that tobacco does and isn't as addictive. Pot and beer are a natural combination, just ask most college students. Pot would put far more of a dent in big tobacco's bottom line than alcohol's.

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Oct 28, 2007 7:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Pot carries the health risks

People just don't smoke it as often as they do cigarettes. So, for all intents and purposes, it's healthier, but if you had the equivalent of a pack of cigarettes a day in pot form, you'd be just as screwed. I think. Not entirely sure.

by mroak89 on Oct 28, 2007 9:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

actually....

i don't think this is entirely true.

you're right that they believe that increased usage of pot COULD lead to the same problem tobacco does, but i believe it's significantly LESS likely to when the two are smoked in equally.

just for reference, there are zero reported cases of lung cancer from marijuana use. there are plenty of heavy, heavy marijuana smokers who smoke as much as some of the more mild cigarette smokers who HAVE gotten lung cancer.

by bleedjaxblue on Oct 28, 2007 10:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

subject

I smoke about a packs worth of marijuana a day. I been that way for close to 16 years. My lungs are just fine.

by Josh on Oct 29, 2007 10:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Doubt that.

When was your last chest X-Ray? There are studies that suggest 1 joint can be the same as smoking about 5 cigarettes. There aren't as many chemicals added to pot, if any depending on who grows it, at the same time, pot isn't filtered unless you use a water pipe or vaporizer.

While I agree that health concerns over pot aren't as bad as many think, it's far from innocuous.

You realize that prospect lists have a time horizon of like 5-10 years, not 5-10 days, right?

by slurve on Oct 29, 2007 11:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

subject

No chest xrays for me. I guess it has been 2 years since the doc even listened to my lungs.

I would agree on pot having some bad stuff in it. Next time you are smoking hold a paper towel in front of your mouth and take a hit. Nasty. I'm just saying to this point I don't feel it has hurt my lungs.

by Josh on Oct 29, 2007 11:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

no cancer related effects from pot

none.

The "5x more powerful than cigarettes" is bunk. While people say it has twice as much or 5x as much carcinogens, whatever. There is not one single case of lung Cancer tied to smoking marijuana. Not one. Ever. Even the low-sperm issue is a) negligible and b) widely known as not permanent.

The worst "long term" effect that people can actually name are: apathy/laziness, being annoying, and munchies.

Compare that with a litany of Cancers and organ failures related to cigarettes or alcohol.

by Galt on Oct 29, 2007 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not bunk.

Prove it. Who said anything about cancer anyway? There are more things that can go wrong with your lungs/health than cancer.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20052489/

You realize that prospect lists have a time horizon of like 5-10 years, not 5-10 days, right?

by slurve on Oct 29, 2007 3:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

harmful "how"

They say it's 5x more powerful yet name no specific effects other than "makes the lungs not work properly" or "damages" lungs, yet points to not specific illness, deadly or otherwise that pot causes or increases the occurance of.

For cigarettes they talk about "crippling lung disease" or emphysema but that pot users "lungs didn't work properly". Is that a medical term?

There has never been one case of Cancer or death that has been linked to pot. Pot alone. not pot with beer, or pot laced with something. Pot.

That organization is an independent, non-governmental research house who gets money from benefactors. Guess which ones? The pharma industry Of course they want to demonize plant that is freely available all over the planet. They don't make money off it.

by Galt on Oct 29, 2007 3:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jesus Christ

are all studies/theories that don't fit your ideals complete crap?

"Scientists say cannabis also damages the ability of the lungs to get oxygen and remove waste products from tissues"

That was taken from a scientifically reviewed/published study - different from the one I linked above.

Please provide any proof/paper trail you have that these organizations are benefectors from the pharma industry - or are you just guessing?

You realize that prospect lists have a time horizon of like 5-10 years, not 5-10 days, right?

by slurve on Oct 29, 2007 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

it's on their website

http://www.mrinz.ac.nz/Acknowledgements.htm

It's complete crap if they don't actually point to some illness and say "marijuana causes this".

Smoking cigarettes KILLS PEOPLE. It CAUSES Cancer which kills people. It CAUSES emphysema which kills people. Alcohol KILLS PEOPLE who overdose. It CAUSES cirrhosis, which kills people. Both also cause quality of life degradation from various organ failure

Marijuana does not kill anyone. It does not cause or increase the instance in any Cancer. It does not cause any organ failure.

The onus is not on me to prove that marijuana doesn't cause these. One can't prove a negative. Find me one case of marijuana (alone) being the cause of a death or a Cancer.

One.

by Galt on Oct 29, 2007 3:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Will you stop!!!

Go back to the top. I haven't asserted cancer and or death. Not once, you keep insisting on it. All I said was that smoking pot is not innocuous. It's smoke. Think about it.

You realize that prospect lists have a time horizon of like 5-10 years, not 5-10 days, right?

by slurve on Oct 29, 2007 4:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wait...

Slurve, are you suggesting that intentionally inhaling smoke into your lungs may be harmful? Who would believe such a thing?

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Oct 29, 2007 9:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's more harmful than oxygen, sure

but the point of this subthread was that two people talked about how harmful pot is. 5x that of Cigarettes (yet no one could define exactly by which measure) or that if you smoked as much pot as you did tobacco, you'd be "just as screwed"

The point is: that's not true.

"just as screwed" and "5x as harmful" implies that you have either the same ailments as from smoking cigarettes or 5x as harful the ailments (even if they may be different ailments)

But that is simply not true. And no actual study has shown that to be the case. If you inhale smoke and put foreign substances in you, there will obviously be effects. However, unlike cigarettes, no matter how much you smoke, it's not going to Cancer (at least not due to the pot), emphesyma, or organ failure.

So any type of "long term" effect you may think there is because pot is "5x as harmful as cigarettes", you can't point to any ailment in which pot smokers are 5x as likely to get or whose symptoms are 5x worse.

Ergo, ipso facto, the 5x number is complete bunk.

by Galt on Oct 29, 2007 10:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Beer, maybe

I don't think a lot of people who drink hard liquor are also smoking, but I could be wrong.

by drwmsu1 on Oct 28, 2007 4:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

yeah

i'm going to have to disagree on that one

by bleedjaxblue on Oct 28, 2007 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Politicians need to hear from you....

Tough on drugs is a fantastic campaign posture. It's vague meaning appeals to a large group of people who imagine that it means making sure crack-heads aren't lurking around every corner. If the average person had the real stats on pot, they would disagree with the current policy. More importantly, if politicians thought there were as many voters on the other side of the issue, real change would be immediate.

by my dixie wrecked on Oct 28, 2007 5:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

iraq war

your last sentence was a little simplistic, don't ya think?

ORGANIZATIONAL DEPTH REPORTS (link fixed)
variables don't; constants aren't

by overlord on Oct 28, 2007 8:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not to drag this off the OT topic, but...

That's what happens when politicians concern themselves with being everything to everyone. Too focused on trying to bring the pro-war contingent into the crowd that they forget what got them elected in the first place.

"...and the only things I've found better than listening to Vin Scully are listening to Keith Jackson and uncut cocaine." (bleedjaxblue)

by drjayphd on Oct 28, 2007 9:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Pot

The revenue from taxing marijuana could probably fund the "War on Drugs" for other drugs.
I still think you have to be a retard to smoke it, but I think the same thing of people who smoke cigarettes, chew tobacco and indulge in other self-destructive behaviours.

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Oct 28, 2007 5:52 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

That list include booze?

because.....
Marijuana is far less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco. Around 50,000 people die each year from alcohol poisoning. Similarly, more than 400,000 deaths each year are attributed to tobacco smoking. By comparison, marijuana is nontoxic and cannot cause death by overdose. According to the prestigious European medical journal, The Lancet, "The smoking of cannabis, even long-term, is not harmful to health. ... It would be reasonable to judge cannabis as less of a threat ... than alcohol or tobacco."

By the way, I haven't smoked pot since college 15 years ago, but still.....

by my dixie wrecked on Oct 28, 2007 5:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

yup

One can only list so many vices. You may as well add gambling to the list as well.

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Oct 28, 2007 6:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wow.

You must be perfect.

You realize that prospect lists have a time horizon of like 5-10 years, not 5-10 days, right?

by slurve on Oct 28, 2007 6:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nope

Not perfect by any means, but that doesn't mean one shouldn't try or should lower their standards.

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Oct 28, 2007 7:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well....

I don't see all of those things listed as automatic character flaws. They all can be potentially, but there is nothing wrong with throwing back a few beers with some friends, playing poker or even hittin' the occasional lefty IMO. They can become destructive behaviors, but it isn't an absolute.

You realize that prospect lists have a time horizon of like 5-10 years, not 5-10 days, right?

by slurve on Oct 28, 2007 8:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I dunno

I read a medical journal... Pot can cause death, you can lose blood flow to the brain, but it would require so freaking much that it's impractical, especially compared to alcohol. And what do you mean by "nontoxic?" It releases chemicals that kill brain cells and cause others to malfunction, that's how the high is achieved, unless I'm very vastly mistaken. What do you see as toxic?

Oh and I'm totally for legalizing pot. Absolutely 100% for it. But it's best to actually have facts, and I'm just not all that sure about the subject -- just what you've proposed seems off to me.

by mroak89 on Oct 28, 2007 9:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

"nontoxic"

agreed on a two grounds with what you said:

this is a confusion of the concepts of "possible to overdose" and "toxic." they're 99% unrelated concepts
"nontoxic" is a vague term, anyway, since EVERYTHING is toxic at certain quantities

on toxicity, i'm not sure if it's right to call THC "toxic" (at least in practical doses). though it's repeated use leads to neural atrophy, the chemicals themselves don't cause cell death. it's more that they decrease input into a cell so that it believes it's not needed any more, and it up and dies. but, yes -- i agree with you conceptually that it shouldn't be forgotten that marijuana does lead to death of irreplaceable biological matter.

on overdosing, it's nearly impossible to do since there are very few delta-9-THC receptors in the brainstem -- the area where critical functions, like breathing, heart rate, etc, are regulated. the quantity i've heard is that you need to smoke 200 pounds in 8 seconds. just imagining how you'd go about smoking that is......a lot of fun. seriously, though, it's both impossible AND you would die far sooner choking to death on the smoke than you would from the THC overdose. (that hasn't stopped me from trying to overdose, of course.)

also, just one more point: i know that smoking marginally increases the chances of developing Parkinson's, just in case you need an actual disease to pin to the drug's use.

by bleedjaxblue on Oct 28, 2007 10:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks

I suppose I should specify -- I sort of take the view that it can cause death as a whole, rather than just the THC in it. If smoking is what causes it, if a fatal accident while driving high is what causes the death, if falling off of a balcony at a frat party while very high (recent occurrence at a university in my city) causes it, I sort of just put a blanket cover on it that the cause of death is essentially due to pot. If it hadn't been smoked, the person would probably still be alive. But yes, THC/serotonin inhibition (is it inhibition? i forget) are not a good way to go about dying.

And yeah, I also sort of skip the steps... neuron apoptosis is an end result of using (I think? Is this what you said?) so I sort of just cut to the chase.

I guess that's not allowed in this discussion though, given Galt's frenzied, confusing, and semi-ridiculous super-defensive posts

by mroak89 on Oct 29, 2007 5:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

totally

just figured it was worth clarifying.

anyway, THC doesn't have any direct connection to serotonin. the endogenous equivalent of THC actually binds presynaptically, and, among other things, basically puts the breaks on presynaptic firing. so, yeah, it leads eventually to apoptosis.

agreed, it isn't really different. but "toxic effects" are usually that the chemical, within a certain concentration, are fatal to that tissue, whereas, in isolation, you'd need much more THC than you're talking about to make this true. it's actually, oddly, about the fact the neurons are part of a network that makes THC "deadly" to a small percentage of neurons.

by bleedjaxblue on Oct 29, 2007 5:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

go on! =-D

"it's actually, oddly, about the fact the neurons are part of a network that makes THC "deadly" to a small percentage of neurons."

What do you mean? This sounds interesting. Also, I thought that THC basically binds the receptors that serotonin otherwise would, and that this is what causes the munchies (serotonin causes hunger sensation)? Am I getting various different things confused?

by mroak89 on Oct 29, 2007 6:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

hmmm

god....this one takes a long, long time to explain, unless you already know the basics of LTP. and, if you do already understand LTP, it's not that interesting to explain: it's an emergent property observable when you create artificial neural networks and see how patterns of inhibition of presynaptic feedback within an otherwise functional network lead to sporadic "paring away" of nodes within the network.

i guess a huge simplification is just that the neurons are responding to the fact that they are receiving especially little coincidental input from surrounding neurons in the network, so apoptosis begins.

as for the serotonin, not sure what you're getting at. as far as i knew, nobody's sure why THC causes hunger yet. nor is serotonin related to hunger.

delta-9-THC actually binds to cannabinoid receptors, not serotonin receptors. the only endogenous compound i know of that's been found to bind to these are anandamides. as i said before, these are in an odd class of ligand receptors in that they're presynaptic. i believe that they're autoreceptors. regardless, they lead to lower reactivity in the presynaptic neuron. which could lead to less serotonin output IF that neuron happened to be serotonergic. but that's certainly not systematically true, and i've never heard an account that says THC's effects are related to serotonin.

maybe you're thinking of LSD? a lot of hallucinogens are S2 agonists -- though absolutely NOBODY understands the connection between hallucinogenic effects and serotonin's effects.

MDMA also is related to serotonin (though not to serotonin receptors, per se).

by bleedjaxblue on Oct 29, 2007 6:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think I've figured myself out

I blended two classes together. We talked about Prozac/antidepressants in one, and THC/marijuana in the other, and it's been so long that I basically blended the two into one. Doh.

Nevertheless, they do have sooome info on THC & hunger relationships...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/12/051226102503.htm
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2001/04/11/pot_appetite010411.html

by mroak89 on Oct 29, 2007 6:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

yeah....you're totally right...

just checked an old textbook when i got home. which is why i shouldn't post while i'm in class.

also remembered how bad a description i gave of why THC leads to nodal pairing, even without the background on LTP, but it's probably not worth re-explaining.

by bleedjaxblue on Oct 29, 2007 11:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

pot can't cause death

never has, ever. That's insanity. Cite a source if you are going to make such a proclamation.

Not pot laced with LSD or pot laced with rat poison. Pot. The plant, alone, dried out and smoked. Is not lethal in any dosage.

I seem to recall a similar discussion about mushrooms were you were positive that it had all these horrible effects; also not true.

by Galt on Oct 29, 2007 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

See my post above

and while I do appreciate your attempts to bring up a discussion of like a year ago, I'd prefer to focus on this discussion -- just because something I said several months ago might not have been entirely correct (and I'm still not convinced that shrooms are as benign as you say) does not mean that my essentially generalized, nonspecific, noninflammatory comments in this scenario are the least bit incorrect, especially given personal experiences I've had with the drug since then.

If you're going to get so defensive about pot, at least consider where I am coming from. I'm not saying that the plant, alone, dried out and smoked can kill in and of itself. But while under the influence of pot, people die, and if they had not been under the influence it is fairly logical that it is likely they would not have died. You chalk up cause of death to falling off of a balcony, I chalk it up to someone being high on pot and making a stupid decision from there.

by mroak89 on Oct 29, 2007 5:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

subject

Lets say I'm driving on the highway and decide to change my pants. I thrn get in an accident and die. Are you going to call that a pants related death? It is logical to suggest I wouldn't of crashed if I wasn't changing.

People don't need to be high to make a stupid decision. Thats just people being people. It isn't fair to blame marijuana when people act dumb. Just like it isn't fair to blame pants when someone does something dumb.

by Josh on Oct 29, 2007 6:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wait, what?

Of course I would blame that as death caused by someone changing pants and then getting into an accident. It probably wouldn't have happened if the person hadn't made a dumb decision (change pants on the highway).

And pot just increases the DDF (dumb decision factor -- dibs on copyright!). If you're high, you're more likely to make a dumb decision. Certainly death by dumb decision would be a legitimate cause of death. The driver who is changing his pants while driving is essentially impaired -- not all of his senses are available for the task at hand (i.e. driving a metal, explosive box at upwards of 50 mph when on a highway). Just like someone who is high, or someone who is drunk, etc. So yes, it is fair to blame the person's decision to put on pants, and I would blame that person's decision to actively drive impaired. Just like I would blame a person's decision to drive while high. Is it actively a plant's fault? Well, no, but the plant is responsible, just as the pants would be responsible for the impairment. The dumb decision just allows for a pathway for the impairment be exercised.

by mroak89 on Oct 29, 2007 6:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree completely

So lets make it happen. Contact your representatives about this, get involved with the marijuana policy project, find out which candidates oppose this tyrannical war, and vote Ron Paul for president.

by pinkfloyd on Oct 28, 2007 6:23 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

subject

Very sad story. The drug war is a joke.

by Josh on Oct 28, 2007 8:17 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

My views....

I do think marijuana should be at least decriminalized, if not legalized. I doubt I would indulge, but I see no reason others shouldn't be able to.

But even if it weren't to become a non-criminal act, I would strongly like to see the production of hemp increased for its industrial uses. So much can be done with it, but because older industry moguls knew that hemp would be cheaper and more efficient than the products they were selling, they managed to pay off enough politicians to make it illegal.

Ever wonder how better off America would be if politicians weren't allowed to accept outside "campaign funds" and instead had to vote for bills based on the actual merit of it and how it might benefit society?

"Tim Lincecum will win 1 Cy Young and 11 Tim Lincecums." -uga007

by Boxkutter on Oct 28, 2007 11:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Just as dangerous?

I would definitely argue that point. Pot slows reaction time, but it doesn't come close to impairing driving like alcohol does.

That said, I agree with your premise that they would need to develop a procedure to test for stoned drivers.

by Bowser on Oct 28, 2007 11:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

subject

Does pot slow your reaction times more then a cell phone or an ipod? I'm wouldn't disagree that pot slows reaction times, but I'm not sure it is more distracting then everything else we can do while driving.

by Josh on Oct 29, 2007 12:04 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

We could have lived in a republic

I'd like to take this time to point out that the Federal Government is completely out of control. There's a logical reason for this. It's about power and money.

Our politicians are constantly mandating that rules be centralized and binding. States aren't even allowed to stick a toe in the water. States don't even have any re-course to take the power back.

The federal Gov't is a disaster from the Military to FEMA. In fact the Federal Government is exactly what's ruining this country. Not Gays, not drug users. Not any other crazy social smoke screen.

There is a group of people in this country who are slowly and surely raping us from Sea to Shining sea. Their raping the world as well.

Capitalism seems like a great system in theory, but no economic system will ever be able to overcome corruption, greed and fear.

Our current legal system is completely messed up and a lot of it has to do with Federalist Control.

People in this country want massive social changes but neither political party seems interested in providing the people of this country with freedom. Instead of having natural differences the government seems consumed with forcing some homegenized life on us.

People in this country are dancing and they don't even realize where the strings are attached.

by RMF on Oct 28, 2007 11:51 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

If you ran for president....

I'd vote for you... if like, I voted and stuff.

"Tim Lincecum will win 1 Cy Young and 11 Tim Lincecums." -uga007

by Boxkutter on Oct 28, 2007 11:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If you don't vote...

Then don't bitch.

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Oct 29, 2007 12:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ah, lad....

the Constitution allows me to bitch all I want. And I don't vote for reasons I won't get into on this board. This topic was about the legalization of marijuana, not voter turnout.

"Tim Lincecum will win 1 Cy Young and 11 Tim Lincecums." -uga007

by Boxkutter on Oct 29, 2007 2:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If

You're not willing to take action, you should keep your yap shut.

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Oct 29, 2007 2:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

isn't "opening your yap"....

....taking action?

seriously -- if you vote, you're only one person among millions, and your vote will likely make no difference, especially if you live in certain states.

if you argue a point to a larger audience, you may influence more votes, and could at least make more impact than your own (potentially wasted) single vote.

by bleedjaxblue on Oct 29, 2007 2:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nope

kvetching on a baseball messageboard isn't taking action any more than complaining around the lunch break table at work is. Vote. Pay attention. Volunteer on a campaign. Write to your elected representatives. Call them. Email. Protest. Hell, run for local office yourself. Invest and spend money with companies that behave responsibly. Change policies within your own workplace.

Not doing anything at all just because you don't like the process is flat out pathetic and is the kind of attitude that is only making things worse.

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Oct 29, 2007 4:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nice

Except I am not going to spend hours, days, and years of my life in hopes of making YOUR life better. Philanthropists and activists are fine and dandy but the reality of the world is that 99.999% of people live by the words "what's mine is mine and whatever of yours I can make mine I will" and IMO, there is nothing "pathetic" about it.

Lex clavatoris designati rescindenda est.

by HuskerBob on Oct 29, 2007 12:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

subject

I'm sorry but i have to disagree with you here Rich. There is a ton wrong with the "what's mine is mine and whatever of yours I can make mine I will." Of course I wouldn't disagree with your claim 99.999% live there lifes that way. Still doesn't make it right.

by Josh on Oct 29, 2007 12:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And hell

When you see Josh and I agreeing on something you KNOW you've gotta be wrong.

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Oct 29, 2007 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dude

It's not about making MY life better. It's about making life better for everyone, like, say, our kids.
And yeah, "what's mine is mine etc." IS a pathetic attitude. It goes against the most basic precepts of our social compact. Stuff like "Thou shalt not steal" and "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife". It's like Josh said (Holy shit, are there two lunar eclipses this month?) just because the world is fucked up doesn't mean you've gotta leave it that way.
I don't know what the meaning or purpose to life is, but I figure if I can leave the world a little bit better of a place than it was when I entered it, that's a pretty good place to start.

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Oct 29, 2007 1:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

better place than it was?

What, kinda like when belittle everyone like you did in the Spot Sickels thread?

You realize that prospect lists have a time horizon of like 5-10 years, not 5-10 days, right?

by slurve on Oct 29, 2007 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You mean

The who can suck up to John Most Thread? Also known as the How Far Can we Push Hyperbole Thread?

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Oct 29, 2007 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No

the one where you pushed the limits of jackassedness.

You realize that prospect lists have a time horizon of like 5-10 years, not 5-10 days, right?

by slurve on Oct 29, 2007 3:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry

There's NOTHING in the world worse than losing a pet cat...
Yup. Nothing. Not losing a wife a parent or a child. Not genocide, famine, plague or having your insides eaten up by cancer. Losing a cat is the worst feeling in the world.
I want to know who paid for the hysterectomy to get all you guys' lips off Johns backside.

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Oct 29, 2007 3:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's been a long time

Time to annoint another acronym.

How about CCVBS

(C)rimson's (C)ontrived (V)entriloquist (B)ull (S)hit

Who said anything about it being worse than ANY of that stuff or being the worst feeling - beyond that of a parent, child, etc.? Crimson, that's who. You keep putting these words in peoples mouths ...and then attack them for it on top of it!!!

No one said it was the ultimate loss, just that it was a loss and they felt for the Sickels - they were able to empathyze with them as they could relate due to similar losses. By what I can tell, you can't relate, because you only care about you. I feel sorry for you. Seriously. You are incomplete/stunted.

You realize that prospect lists have a time horizon of like 5-10 years, not 5-10 days, right?

by slurve on Oct 29, 2007 4:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Worse

You guys said dealing with the death of a pet is the worst, which means that none of those things are worse. For a parrallel, if I say A-rod is the best player in baseball, that means I believe he is better than bonds. Better than jeter. Better than pujols. Etc. Worst means nothing else is worse. You guys said it, I'm just showing you how ridiculous a statement it was.

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Oct 29, 2007 9:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I doubt

I'd offer condolences to someone that I don't know diddly squat about. And thats about losing a family member or friend. It's a terrible thing to lose that but who am I to offer condolences to a stranger.

And no way I'd do it for someones pet. Not to say it doesn't suck to lose a pet. But ... I do find it odd to offer this to someone you don't know for a pet.

by pedrophile on Oct 29, 2007 11:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ironic

You get on your high morale horse only when it suits you but have a problem with my "what's mine is mine" statement. Making the world a better place, good for you, maybe they will make a movie about you some day.

I never said I would steal or break the law, don't twist this into something criminal. But I am NOT in any way shape or form in this to make life better for everyone. "Everyone" doesn't give a stroke about my family, everyone certainly didn't work hard to get a piece of what my family has. I'm not rich, but I'll be damned if me or my family will sacrifice for the betterment of all. Do I mean I will hurt anyone in the process? Of course not, but I'm also not going to be participating in any activist rallies either. I do vote, but for the candidates that I believe express views that are beneficial to me and my family, not because I think a certain candidate is best for everyone.

And back on point of this thread, I am absolutely NOT for any sort of legalization of drugs and I'm guessing the majority of posters in this thread that are for it don't have kids. So legalization helps a small majority of terminally ill people, what it also does is legalize drug use, which affects a majority of people, namely the future of my (and everyone's) kids. One sad story about a woman that had to deal with pain (and ultimately couldn't) doesn't sway me towards anything that could be detrimental to my kids future.

Lex clavatoris designati rescindenda est.

by HuskerBob on Oct 29, 2007 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

subject

Why do you think people without kids support making marijuana legal, but people with kids don't?

I guess having kids leads to some sort of enlightenment. First you want to rape and pillage to get yours, and then you start hating marijuana. You should write a book Rich. This is the american man the world needs to see. I guess in a way this is the american man the world sees. Rich is there something you want to tell us? (please don't anyone get all huffy it was just a joke)

I know if i was a person of color having a kid would make me support legalization more if this is true.

"Drug use is consistent across racial and socioeconomic lines, yet in the state of New York, 94% of incarcerated drug offenders are Latino or African-American, mostly from poor communities.
Source: Campaign website, www.Kucinich.us, "On The Issues" Aug 1, 2003"

by Josh on Oct 29, 2007 2:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Where might you be?

If you spent even a quarter of the effort you spend on defending your drug use on something more constructive? I'm not sure why you decided to bring race into this.

Having kids, for MOST people does in fact lead to enlightenment. Rather than spending all day wondering if you are you going to meet your "pack a day" quota of joints you are wondering how you can make your kids life better.

And come on now, we both know I stopped raping and pillaging a long time ago. Right about the time I started going to PETA rallies.

Lex clavatoris designati rescindenda est.

by HuskerBob on Oct 29, 2007 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

subject

I'm not really sure how much time i spend defending drugs. Couldn't tell you the last time i even defended them. That makes it hard to say what I could of done better with that time.

I brought race into this because it plays a major part in the discussion on our war on drugs. You also said that once you had kids your view changes and i was using that to show maybe it doesn't for all races. This isn't all about Rich even though you stated that is all you care about.

"Having kids, for MOST people does in fact lead to enlightenment."

It does? I would hope before people made the choice to have kids they would of already been enlightened.

You were never much of a rape and pillage guy. You were usually getting raped and pillaged.

by Josh on Oct 29, 2007 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Race

So enlighten me then on how the legalization of marijuana fixes the problems of inner-city poverty and more specifically the black community. How many drug offenders are serving extended jail sentences for marijuana specifically? I'm pretty sure possession is a misdemeanor in most instances.

Sounds more like you want a legalization of ALL drugs, otherwise bringing race into this discussion was pointless.

Lex clavatoris designati rescindenda est.

by HuskerBob on Oct 30, 2007 12:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

subjecy

I never said the legalization of marijuana would fix the problems of the inner cities.

Police arrested a record 829,625 persons for marijuana violations in 2006, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's annual Uniform Crime Report, released today. This is the largest total number of annual arrests for pot ever recorded by the FBI. Marijuana arrests now comprise nearly 44 percent of all drug arrests in the United States.

Of those charged with marijuana violations, approximately 89 percent, 738,915 Americans were charged with possession only. The remaining 90,710 individuals were charged with "sale/manufacture," a category that includes all cultivation offenses including those for medical and personal use.

"Enforcing marijuana prohibition costs taxpayers between $10 billion and $12 billion annually and has led to the arrest of nearly 20 million Americans. Nevertheless, some 94 million Americans acknowledge having used marijuana during their lives. It makes no sense to continue to treat nearly half of all Americans as criminals for their use of a substance that poses no greater - and arguably far fewer - health risks than alcohol or tobacco. A better and more sensible solution would be to tax and regulate cannabis in a manner similar to alcohol and tobacco."

I wouldn't say i'm for making all drugs legal. I would be willing to start with marijuana and go from there.

by Josh on Oct 30, 2007 6:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

subject

What I would like to see is other states follow Alaska's lead. In Alaska it is legal to have up to 1 once of weed. It is also legal to grow up to 25 plants.

Compare this to wisconsin where I spend most of my time. In Wisconsin the 2nt time you are arrested with any amount of weed it is a feloney and 3.5 years in prison. Which happens to be the same amount of time you would get for dealing.

Rich do you want your tax money going to keep some dude locked up because he has been caught with a dime bag a couple times?

by Josh on Oct 30, 2007 6:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

subject

For you in Nebraska a pound would only get you 7 days in jail.

by Josh on Oct 30, 2007 6:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

ha ha

Yeah, this is all about me so I can hang out with Nate and Josh and get toked or stoned or whatever it is. Fire up the bowl Josh, I've had a conversion experience!
And you should know I'm ALWAYS on my high horse. I'm not perfect, but dammit, I try to be as good as I can be. If I stumble now and then (or more often), I crawl out of the mud, climb back on the horse and try again.
Your "What's mine is mine and whatever of yours I can make mine I will" is unquestionably crossing a moral line and certainly implies taking whatever you want by force.

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Oct 29, 2007 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe it does cross a line

But really all it is is a statement that most people are too scared to say.

Lex clavatoris designati rescindenda est.

by HuskerBob on Oct 30, 2007 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

so speaking....

....and having opinions about matters that affect are are a privilege that you only gain by voting?

what else are you not allowed to do if you decide voting in the presidential election doesn't fit your beliefs?

also, i'm kind of confused how you can, on the one hand, compare his agreement on an issue to "complaining around the lunch break table at work" but then, in the same breath, suggest it is worthy of regulation.

besides, why is "voting" the level of participation you demand? why can't i set the bar HIGHER? maybe the only people who should be able to discuss drug legalization are those who spend at least 20 hours a week actively pursuing paths to enact these changes.

and maybe you shouldn't be allowed to discuss increasing voter turnout unless you donate significant portions of your time to getting the vote out. certainly, don't just sit here, kvetching about it.

me? i'm fine with any type of discussion from anyone who has a stance. but that's just me.

by bleedjaxblue on Oct 29, 2007 1:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Waiting

I'm still waiting for some sort of argument showing that NOT VOTING does any good, as has been implied.

here's a thought... consider how many people have gone to their deaths fighting for the right to vote. But you, you don't give a damn because somehow, not voting gets some kind of point across other than the fact that you're lazy.

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Oct 29, 2007 3:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

when did that become....

...an argument?

you said someone couldn't talk about a subject because they didn't vote.

so, if you're waiting for someone to show how "not voting does any good," i'll wait for you to make some kind of argument how "not doing 100 hours of community service a week" does any good.

just because you don't do everything that might be good doesn't restrict you from doing other things which could be good.

furthermore, voting does: 1) less good than you're implying if you're in a state that's already totally decided, and 2) DOES do good if it allows you to stick to something you morally believe.

and, p.s., i DO vote. but i don't think that gives me an exclusive right to discuss the issues i'm voting about.

by bleedjaxblue on Oct 29, 2007 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

what good does voting do?

I live in NY. Unless I was given 500,000 votes my vote will have no impact on any Congressional, presidential, mayoral, or gubernatorial race.

None. The only reason to vote in many instances is because ignorant people say that unless you vote you can't complain.

by Galt on Oct 29, 2007 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It may not impact a specific race...

but if you add your vote into a pool on the anti-establishment side of the scales, then, eventually, the scales will tip.

Vote or don't vote, I don't think that impacts whether or not you should be able to complain, but one thing that might help motivate you to vote is to try and look beyond a single race, look beyond the red and blue crooks who are currently our only choices, and consider the future of the country as a whole.

I firmly believe that we can effect a change, even if it may take a while. The power really does follow the votes, and the only way to change the status quo is to move the power from the two parties that brought us here.

by beastball on Oct 29, 2007 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

either

move the power, or give them no choice but to change.
More hot button topics, Campaign finance reform. Universal health care.
Shoot, i don't care what side of the issues you take, just participate in the process instead of being a lazy bum. How much time do you spend arguing over useless shit on this site? Now how much time do you spend communicating with your government representatives?

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Oct 29, 2007 4:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That I agree with...

I am concerned with issues of government, and didn't feel satisfied that my voice was being heard through communication with my reps or my votes. My life has filled up with other responsibilities job, family, starting a new company, and I don't want to take on something else that is non-recreational.

So the cleanest way I can affect some change is to try and stem the tide of local tax increases by voting down every bond issue, and a way that I can try to shift the power to more progressive issues is to always support third party candidates.

I'm not completely closed minded, however. I follow politics as recreation enough to keep up with guys like guys like Paul or Kucinich both of whom got my attention, so I'll throw my vote to a real reformer when and if they get the chance.

by beastball on Oct 29, 2007 4:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Waiting

Still waiting to hear what great achievement not voting accomplishes. Take your time, I'm patient.
In the meantime, I'm going to shoot a quick email out to my House rep and Senator and remind them that I support bringing all the troops home immediately, beginning with the National Guard. Y'know, the guys that usually help out in times of crisis such as massive wildfires and hurricanes but who weren't around because our dipstick Commander in Chief overextended the armed forces and had to use the Guard in ways they weren't intended to be used.

Might even mention the medical marijuana thing too.

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Oct 29, 2007 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

c'mon Crimson....

I know you're too smart to actually believe your own bad logic here.

Other people say "voting doesn't accomplish anything" and you respond by saying "you must still vote, because you haven't proven NOT voting accomplishes anything."

Doesn't that just make this a wash? In which case, your dictatorial rule about who can and can't speak, as it relates to something as irrelevant as voting, is similarly irrelevant?

Or are you going to tell me I haven't given you a reason again?
(outside of sticking to one's morals, which likely builds a stronger, more independently-thinking nation with better values)

I KNOW you wouldn't just make an empty and unrelated argument like that. You're too good for that.

by bleedjaxblue on Oct 29, 2007 4:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

big accomplishment

exactly the same as voting in the vast majority of races.

Nothing.

You aren't solving anything in casting a vote. Dialog has a much greater impact than any vote. Anyone who holds to the ignorant "you can't complain if you don't vote" is being foolish.

by Galt on Oct 29, 2007 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

1 person

No, one person isn't likely to make a difference (though it has happened). However, if you think you're the only person out there who is thinking 'my votes doesn't count' then you're kidding yourself. Get all those people to vote, and that's a lot of people.

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Oct 29, 2007 9:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

you dont' have to vote

to write that letter.

You realize that your votes are anonymous and your state senator can't look up your voting file to see if you even support them, right?

by Galt on Oct 29, 2007 4:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That argument only works

when there is a candidate worth voting for.

by AucklandGM on Oct 29, 2007 3:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That argument...

Doesn't work at all.
Like it or not someone is going to lead the country. It's going to be someone from one of the two major parties. Going and sitting in the corner because the choices aren't the ones you want isn't going to accomplish anything. Even between two bad choices, there is almost always one who is a better (or less bad) choice than the other.

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Oct 29, 2007 4:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wow

Rationale like that is how you get guys like George W. Bush and Jimmy Carter in the White House. In the United States choosing NOT to vote for ANY candidate is just as legitimate an option as voting FOR a candidate. If you don't like that, move to some country with mandatory voting.

by AucklandGM on Oct 29, 2007 5:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Actually

I blame GW on Jeb, the Supreme Court and Nader, personally.
Seriously, how is not voting at all doing you any good whatsoever? As I said above, all you're doing by not participating in the process is facilitating the problems. You think anyone in power cares that you don't vote? For me, personally, it does me good if you don't vote. The more of you fools there are that don't vote, the more MY vote counts.
However, I do think every person should have to vote and participate in the process of the Republic (don't forget, we don't actually live in a Democracy), even if their vote is cast for "C. None of the above".

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Oct 29, 2007 7:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

that you should at least vote for the least of the evils offered. I don't think not voting sends any message what-so-ever. At least not a big enough one to offset any message your lack of participation may send.

I don't agree however, with the notion of having to stand silent because you did not vote. You'll hear troops say they are fight for our rights, including your right to denounce whatever it is you want to say about them and/or what they are doing. The same applies here. The only time you lose any rights or privledges in this country is when you break a law or rule. Not voting doesn't break any law or rule, so you are not subject to restrictions on your right for free speech.

You realize that prospect lists have a time horizon of like 5-10 years, not 5-10 days, right?

by slurve on Oct 29, 2007 9:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

subject

How can you blast someone for not voting and then blame Nadar for GW? I voted for Nadar because he was the best option. Are we only suppose to vote for the best option when it means the worse option won't win? If you want people to vote I don't think it is a good idea to blame them when the wrong person wins. It isn't there fault everyone else was pickign the wrong guy.

And for the record Nadar would of been the best President. No doubt he was the biggest nerd, but we needed someone that isn't a carbon copy of the other yahoo's running. I only wish Nadar would run again. Maybe this time america would listen to what he is saying.

I also think not voting is a solid choice. There is a difference between choosing not to vote because the guys running suck, or choosing not to vote because you don't care.

by Josh on Oct 29, 2007 9:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nice Straw Man

Nowhere did I say that not voting for a candidate "sends a message" to them, or anyone else.

I choose not to vote for a candidate because I choose not to support them, morally or in any other way. This is not because it will affect them, but because when I cast a vote, I want to know that I am voting FOR someone, not against someone else or for the lesser of two evils. I couldn't care less what pundits or parties think about that, or if they care at all.

by AucklandGM on Oct 29, 2007 10:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would encourage you...

to instead of not voting, vote third party. The only way we're going to make any real, long-lasting changes to this country is to break out of under Dem-Rep control. The only way to do that is to give power to someone outside the establishment, and the only real way to do that is through donations to third parties and voting for them.

So, I'm with you, I don't want to vote for someone I can't believe in, but I do vote for a cause, which is trying to vote in a way to weaken the strength of the establishment.

by beastball on Oct 29, 2007 10:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1

That is exactly the same reason I don't vote. I have only voted in one presidential election since I turned 18 (Only 31 now) and that was because I wanted that candidate to win. In the past two elections I did not vote because I did not support either one. I too believe votes should be cast because you want someone to win, not because you want the other person to lose.

"Tim Lincecum will win 1 Cy Young and 11 Tim Lincecums." -uga007

by Boxkutter on Oct 29, 2007 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ron Paul

Ron Paul.

by GuyinNY on Oct 29, 2007 1:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Aaron, is that you?

I'm with you on some of that stuff, but states rights is a dead issue. There shouldn't be different freedoms and rules based on what state you live in. "States rights" is dead and should stay that way.

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Oct 29, 2007 12:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

My two cents or more...

IMO, the war on drugs issue is emblematic of a larger problem. The problem is with our current voting culture. We vote top down (more vote for federal stuff, than state stuff, than local stuff), we vote on issues without having an understanding of their true context within the current government (ie TONS of redundant programs and initiatives), and we feel this need to vote for a winner and not for the best person for the job.

The Dem-Reps typically hype up three kinds of issues, polarizing ones like gay marriage or abortion to reinforce the illusion of choice between the parties, and several which are used to endlessly pilfer money: fear-mongering ones like war on drugs, war on terror, war on global warming, and guilt-mitigating ones, like war on poverty, equality or education. The money issues are ones which the government is neither willing to solve nor admit are adequately solved.

The war on drugs is an endless shadow war that has too much money tied up not only with users/dealers, but a huge policing industry. Just check out the DEA budget or how many prisons are being privately developed. Just consider how much time the police spend on drug related activities, from stings to bust users all the way to dealing with gangs.

In the end, I vote in every election, I vote down every spending issue (regardless, need money for parks? Nope. Need money for a new library? Nope. I pay enough in taxes already thank you) and I vote against all major party candidates (I try to vote out every incumbent). I tell everyone who will listen to do the same. Issue specifics are irrelevant to me, if you check the course of our government for the past 50-60 years, it's the same regardless of who is in charge so either what they're telling me is pure BS or they're just trying to tweak the knobs of a hopelessly broken system.

So vote against the establishment, make as many other people do it as you can, and maybe, sometime in the future, we'll break the Dem-Rep stranglehold on our country and start making things right.

by beastball on Oct 29, 2007 9:58 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

subject

I just seen the vote for Hillary ad at the top of this page. Kind of funny. I sure hope she doesn't win. I'm not against a women president, but imo hillary is a political skank.

by Josh on Oct 29, 2007 10:11 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

A bit of research.

This topic has led me to do a some research. What I found were folks on each side of the issue taking very strong stances and presenting conflicting information to support their stances. It's all rather confusing to someone trying to find honest answers about what the studies and come up with a solid and logic conclusion. However, I did find a comment which seems to perfectly describe the debate:

"The written record on medicinal marijuana stretches back over 2,000 years. Yet, after hundreds of studies, experiments and reports, there is still no consensus about its effects. Wildly emotional arguments rage about whether or not marijuana should be considered a legitimate medicine. Other than the opiate narcotics, it is hard to think of another medicinal plant that has generated so much worldwide controversy. With the experts unable to agree, it is understandable that patients are left wondering what to do." (http://www.medmjscience.org/Pages/history/chapter.bhtml)

As the above statements says, after hundreds of studies there is no definative conclusion on the positive or negative affects of marijuana. Many of these studies appear to contridict each other. I did find a great site (http://www.medicalmarijuanaprocon.org/pop/conflicts.htm) which lists pros and cons of each site with some documentation. It clearly shows how divided the medical society itself is on this topic, much less the general population.

It seems best to divide the question in two areas: (1)legalize marijuana for medical purposes and (2)legalize marijuana for recreational use.

(1) Contrary to what many pro-marijuana sites claim, the AMA currently DOES NOT support marijuana use for medical purposes. Instead, it supports further research into the topic. However, in California where marijuana use is legal for medical use, the AMA determined they would support a physicians right to discuss marijuana use with patients. While this doesn't place the AMA firmly on either side of the argument is does seem to put the choice in the hands of the patient with the advice of their doctor where the use has been legalized by the government.

My position: I would not be against marijuana use for medical purposes as long as it required a doctor's perscription - basically treat it like a perscription drug. I believe it could be left up to the individual person as long as they had medical advice.

(2) Marijuana use for recreational use.
My position: I would be firmly against this. At this time there is just too many unknowns about the affects of marijuana for it to be used without medical supervision.

For those who would argue that legalize marijuana would cut out the black market - you are seriously underestimating the black market. The black market never goes away, it just moves on to something else. In this case I can only imagine it would be more dangerous drugs.

I'm curious about those who would compare using marijuana with using alcohol or tobacco. One huge difference I see is one can drink alcohol in moderation without imparing their ability to drive, work, or operate heavy equipment. :) One does not become impared at all by smoking tobacco. From what I can tell (which is not first hand experience) to get the desired affect with marijuana one will become impared. 100%. From this stand point it seems comparing marijuana to alcohol or tobacco is like comparing apples to oranges. It would be a much better comparision to use marijuana and other drugs like heroine.

These are just my opinions from doing a bit of research today and trying to be open minded. Feel free to reply with corrections to the information I have. Just be sure to back it up.

by northtexan95 on Oct 29, 2007 2:58 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

so

you don't think that Marijuana should be legal because we don't know what are the long term effects (aside from the fact that people have been smoking it for generations and no material harmful effects have been discovered.

But we should keep beer and cigarettes legal in spite of the fact that there are very clear side effects of over use or even in the case of cigarettes - deadly effects just for using them as they are intended?

For the record, I don't think that beer or cigarettes should be illegal, I just think that there is no reason to continue to ban substances which naturally grow on the planet. Shrooms, pot, it should all be legal if you want to use it.

It's when people process those plants and add ingredients (like cocaine, heroin, and yes - tobacco) that actual long-term health effects arise.

by Galt on Oct 29, 2007 3:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Only 1 little quibble here

Tobacco has been around for a long time. People were getting cancer because of it before they started adding things to it.

Other than that, I agree completely with this post.

You realize that prospect lists have a time horizon of like 5-10 years, not 5-10 days, right?

by slurve on Oct 29, 2007 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Response

Yeah, I guess my reason for banning recreational marijuana wasn't very well stated. You kinda have to read a couple of my paragraphs to get it.

Let me put it this way. In the US we'll let people kill themselves as long as they don't affect others. We let people smoke - we only ban smoking in public where it affects non-smokers. We let people get drunk - we don't let people drive drunk or abuse their families because they are drunk. Drinking and smoking can both be enjoyed without imparing the judgement of the user. On the other hand, to get a benefit of marijuana you have to be impared. That's the benefit of it.

by northtexan95 on Oct 29, 2007 4:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

alcohol?

being drunk isn't the benefit of alcohol? It's no different than pot. It certainly doesn't taste good.

It's not like one hit immediately turns you into a zombie. Like alcohol, you need to take multiple doses to have it actually impact you in any material way

by Galt on Oct 29, 2007 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not necessarily

Wine is something that can be enjoyed, and is by many people, simply for it's flavor and body.

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Oct 29, 2007 9:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

subject

"On the other hand, to get a benefit of marijuana you have to be impared. That's the benefit of it."

I disagree with this. Just like anything it is all in how you use it. You can smoke weed till you are silly, or you can smoke enough to round the edges a bit. It isn't like you are either stoned or you are not.

by Josh on Oct 29, 2007 5:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

agree with much of this

but a few issues:

"I would not be against marijuana use for medical purposes as long as it required a doctor's perscription"

Just so you know, getting a prescription for marijuana in California basically means having the money to pay a licensed doctor to see you, along with any half-assed excuse that the doctor can write down on paper to cover his rear-end.

I, too, am fine with medical marijuana, but I'd hate for the argument to hinge on the fact that it's prescribed, because the truth is, the way it's working RIGHT NOW at least, the prescriptions are totally illegitimate.

-------------------

"The black market never goes away, it just moves on to something else. In this case I can only imagine it would be more dangerous drugs."

Not quite sure what this means.

The sellers already sell more dangerous drugs.

Buyers buy as many of those as they want.

Unless you think that taking away the illegality of marijuana will create more people who want to do more dangerous drugs, I'm not sure how you propose this would work out.

I'm guessing you're saying either: 1) a certain portion of people insist on doing something illegal, so, if the safest illegal option is eliminated, people will move on to something else illegal that's less safe, just because they want to be illegal, or 2) making marijuana legal will increase marijuana use, and marijuana use increases other drug use.

I disagree with my first guess entirely. The second one COULD be true. But: 1) I'm not sure marijuana use would actually go up any higher than it already is, and 2) if anything, I think legalization of marijuana would REDUCE the use of other drugs, because people will no longer have connections to drug dealers when purchasing a gateway drug. Thus, the barrier to entry to the market of illicit drugs will be higher.

=======

" From what I can tell (which is not first hand experience) to get the desired affect with marijuana one will become impared."

I think there are a lot of problems with wide-spread marijuana use -- mostly in the degree to which it would affect productivity on a national scale (though i ultimately support it's legalization) -- but i can PROMISE you: people are much, much more functional while they're high than when they're drunk. Yes, you can smoke small amounts. And, even when you smoke enough to really get high, you can perform most tasks with only minor deficits in performance. This is not true for people who smoke only occasionally -- but then again, they're not the people we'd be most concerned about. I can promise you that performance at a quite high level is possible for people who are perma-stoned.

by bleedjaxblue on Oct 29, 2007 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Response

I agree that perscriptions can be abused as they are for other drugs but I think it's probably the best means with maybe some fine tuning.
Some folks seem to be saying we should legalize marijuana because it will in some way take the criminal element out of it. You may take it out (or simply decrease) of the marijuana market but the criminal element will still be there. Legalizing marijuana is not some pro-law enforcement movement.
The only perceptions I've seen of folks using marijuana comes from the media. From what I've seen in a professional setting it would be very obvious if someone smoked marijuana at lunch and came back to the office. But, again, I've only seen what the media has shown.

by northtexan95 on Oct 29, 2007 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Response

I agree that perscriptions can be abused as they are for other drugs but I think it's probably the best means with maybe some fine tuning.
Some folks seem to be saying we should legalize marijuana because it will in some way take the criminal element out of it. You may take it out (or simply decrease) of the marijuana market but the criminal element will still be there. Legalizing marijuana is not some pro-law enforcement movement.
The only perceptions I've seen of folks using marijuana comes from the media. From what I've seen in a professional setting it would be very obvious if someone smoked marijuana at lunch and came back to the office. But, again, I've only seen what the media has shown.

by northtexan95 on Oct 29, 2007 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

a few comments

Definitely. I'm just pointing out that, right now, the abuse is much, much worse than for other drugs. I know at least 10 people with prescriptions, and not a one of them actually needs anything treated in the slightest. They described the doctor's visit as a formality -- it's basically just a fee you have to pay a specialist. Like I said, it's (hopefully) nothing a little fine-tuning can't prevent. But it's worth noting what a joke it is right now.
If anyone implied crime would disappear with the legalization of marijuana, they're exaggerating. But the main problem (in terms of law enforcement) right now is the overspending on simple possession charges, and the amount of resources thrown at enforcing these laws. Legalizing the drug would simply shift the types of illegality associated with marijuana (though I would say it shifts it dramatically downward). But it CERTAINLY eliminates the overcrowding of prisons, etc, associated with everyday possession laws.
"From what I've seen in a professional setting it would be very obvious if someone smoked marijuana at lunch and came back to the office" No -- it's really not. I've gone to work high. I've gone to class high. I've taken finals high. I've met people's parents high. It'll decrease your performance somewhat, but, if you're a regular smoker, the differences shouldn't be too noticeable. If anything, the reason NOT to smoke is because, long-term, it makes your thinking less organized, attention shorter, memory shorter and drive to work lower. But none of these are "impairment" issues in the sense of, say, causing danger to those around you. FWIW, alcohol is much worse, assuming it's been consumed in any type of quantity above a slight buzz. And, worse in terms of riskiness, alcohol can be consumed in more and more extreme amounts that make performance even worse (blackouts, etc), whereas you hit a pretty quick plateau in terms of marijuana use, where consumption of more and more of the drug doesn't lead to any noticeable differences in behavior.

by bleedjaxblue on Oct 29, 2007 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Advice

A friend of mine works as a political staffer in DC and I thought I'd pass along a little piece of advice.
If you should decide to write to your elected official (and I hope you do. Make a habit of it), email is a more effective way of doing so. Snail mail, while it presents the image that you made more of a conscious effort to send it, can take more than two months to clear security in Washington DC.
many (not all) offices do daily or weekly counts on emails for each issue and provide that information to the elected official.
If nothing else, write your congressman about reform in campaign finance and on lobbyists. Whatever your political affiliation, I think we can all agree that politicians should be working for the people, not for corporations.

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Oct 29, 2007 9:24 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Bummer

This thread is like a bad acid trip. Reading the first half, I got a contact high from all the delta-9 THC/nodal pairs/presynaptic feedback talk. Then the worm turned and I got all bummed out by all the Poly Sci 101 stuff.

Anyways, in case anyone cares, I'm not in favor of legalizing MJ. This is coming from a guy who's hardest drug ever was a long island iced tea. And I don't have any kids that I know of either. I just don't want to be watching a Cubs-Devil Rays World Series Game 7 commercial where Pauly Shore expounds on the benefits of Bluntium the smoothest, most relaxing blunt on the market. Though the list of side effects in hushed tones at the end of the commercial would be hilarious. "You may experience various side effects such as chronic munchies, red or dry eyes, a persistant cough, anal leakage and man boobs."

Well, smoke a bowl for me guys. I'm going back to playing Zelda on my Wii (my drug of choice). ;) Mahalo

Matt

I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.

by WayneCampbell05 on Oct 30, 2007 4:25 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs