legalizing Pot
 

I see that Obama and his Attorney General are planning to stop federal programs that enforce and restrict pot smoking/usage. This really fits into a new American lifestyle. Allow the youth to legally "drug" themselves out of reality and not feel true feelings. Allow a gateway drug to be legalized so more can become even heavier drug users and more out of touch with reality. Adopt programs that will drive crime even higher.
I have nothing against the medical use of pot where it has been approved by a Doctor and will help a patient with pain. I had a niece who at the age of 28 developed a brain tumor and ultimately passed away. Pot was
one of the ways she was able to reduce pain and I believe that medical usage of this nature is justified.
But to generally legalize it or decrimialize it is outrages. Lets be conservative and guess that only 15-20% who use pot go on to heavier drugs, (e.g. it is generally accepted by the professionals that it is a gateway drug) that is an enormous number of heavy drug users and their demand for more increases as their systems become use to the level they are using..

Not True!
 

I think you have your facts screwed up. They are discontinuing the raids on The Cannibus Clubs. Individual states will have to deal with the issue of legalizing Marijuana or not. These raids were costly and unnecessary. Even the Mayor of San Francisco is supporting marijuana for medicinal reasons only.

Get your facts straight. hmmmmm.... have you been watching Bill Maher lately? :shocked:

Attorney General Eric Holder stated this week that the Drug Enforcement Administration would end its raids on state-approved marijuana dispensaries.

Not the same as legalizing Marijuana for recreational use.

Thanx for the clarification.

And if we are going to talk about gateway drugs, the two most common and pervasive "gateway drugs" are nicotine and alcohol by far. If we really want to address drug problems instead of using this as more of a political blame game lets start there.
More is spent on the treatment of alcohol addiction than that of any other drug, and likely more than all other drugs combined. Nicotine addiction accounts for enormous drains on our healthcare system. Tobacco subsidies from 1995-2006 totaled well over 500 million dollars, while private and government health care dollars are treating the multitude of complications (heart and vascular disease, lung disease, various cancers)associated with smoking and other tobacco abuse.
Seems we have a few gateway drugs to deal with that are not partisan or administration specific.

Understand
 

OK, they are stopping raids on the clubs which I think is consistent with my point that they are not going to enforce or control (federal basis) some pot usage (e.g. at the clubs which is a beginning). You can argue small points but the overall fact is that more usage will result from less enforcement's.
If your point is that is OK then so be it and you have a right to your opinion.
As far as getting facts straight lets agree that 2 Therapists with more than 50years of treating drug and alcohol additions will support that pot is a gateway drug and in fact in one case one said that a significant majority of heavy drugs users which were treated started with pot.
Is your mind clearer or more foggy when using drugs, is there a better picture of reality when using than not using, is there more or less crime when more drugs are used? And so on. I also understand that the federal government would turn the control/enforcement over to the states. Again, one less control over usage, (e.g. federal government stopping any single form of enforcement.)
I am not a fanatic on the subject but just believe it is not a plus to any society.

I am not sure its a plus to society either. I maintain though that if we are going to raise the specter then lets deal with the facts, and the facts are that alcohol and nicotine are by far the most common "gateway" drugs per the gateway theory. I think though that maybe its not as politically savy to address these. It begins to raise several questions about why alcohol and nicotine are ok and cannabis is not, and if the multi-millions we spend on marijuana is justified, especially if we continue to condone the more traditional drugs of alcohol and nicotine.
I am glad you pursued information from professionals. My experience with addictions on a personal and professional level, and contact with other professionals totaling probably hundreds of years of combined experiences drives my above comments.
I wish as a society we could get by without any mind altering substances, including all 3 mentioned above, but I doubt thats gonna happen.
If we are going to address it then lets do it, the politics have very little to do with it...fortunately or unfortunately depending on your view.

Alcohol & Nicotine
 

I don't understand why when marijuana is addressed and the terrible effects it has on society there is a need to try to change the subject to alcohol and nicotine? When was the last time you saw someone go to jail because they smoked a cigarette? Is it bad for you, sure.
Of course alcohol is a terrible drug and misued but does that justify using
marijuana. Is alcohol as much of a "gateway" drug as marijuana? I have not heard one professional in the field say that it is?
Back to the subject..It seems to be outrages to encourage any move to lessen the laws on using pot.

I personally think that the negative effects of alcohol and tobacco on society equal those of pot smoking. Many illnesses and deaths, and lives ruined. To think that tobacco would ever be outlawed is foolish, of course, with the power that the big tobacco lobbies wield. And prohibition didn't work either, as far as alcohol goes. And kids still smoke pot, too, for what its worth.

"Gateway Drugs" are a theory, both supported and refuted by different studies. Gateway drugs are those correlated with more or additional drug use after beginning them. If you are to claim marijuana is a gateway drug (and I happen to think it is to the same degree alcohol and nicotine are) at least recognize that other drugs/alcohol are with the same or greater preponderance.
The terrible effects marijuana has had on society? Historically they pale in comparrison to those of alcohol.
Alcohol is certainly at least as much of a "gateway drug" by all accounts (as is nicotine). Not sure what proffesionals failed to mention that to you.

And yes, back to the subject. Part of the deal here is about being accurate and not inflamatory. Kind of like saying Obama is trying to stop federal programs that enforce or limit pot smoking. Kind of like saying alcohol is not as much of a "gateway drug" as alcohol. If we are going to discuss and assign some political blame let's at least be accurate.

Didn't we learn anything from prohibition? Economic forces will soon decriminalize pot. California is broke and will turn to legal pot sales as a tax source. I believe Mass has already decided that the police will ignore possession of an ounce or less. Their court system can't deal with it and their jail system can't handle the cost. It's not healthy but neither is nicotine, one of the most addictive substances on the planet

Sadly, I agree.

And the hundreds of thousands of innocent people maimed or killed by drunk drivers! :yuck:

And don't forget to add cell phones and driving...
 

with known statistics of incidence much higher than alcohol....however not talked about much because it is easy to fuss about something one may not participate in like alcohol or drugs....but nary a word about cell phones....because there are too many who do not want to loose theirs....hence no negative fussing....you certainly won't see a Mothers Against Cell Phone Murder.....because they all got one and don't wanna lose it.

Hypocracy....oh yeah!

BTK

Taj, I agree.

Surely we've learned something from Prohibition. Pot is widely used today, and drug kings are reaping the benefits. It's not going to go away. The government has been ignoring that reality for too long.

The gateway drug is Nicotine. The first thing a kid tries is a cigarette...and gets hooked pretty much automatically. Then he ventures into alcohol next...but doesn't really like the taste of beer...but needs to impress his friends...so he acts like he loves it and drinks too much. Next comes the pot. It makes you paranoid, so you are not real bent to drive a car and when you do...you drive more carefully than 90 percent of the drivers on the road...you are probably a safer driver if you are moderately stoned than straight. Now, if you are totally blitzed...you will not drive unless you are a complete moron or your Xbox is broken.

I would rather ride in a car or hang out with a pot smoker than a drinker. It is much safer and you will never get in a fight with everyone at the bar.

As far as alcohol and cigarette smokers go...they should not be allowed health coverage. They are the reason our medical system is so messed up in the first place. Look, if you want to poison yourself with cigarette smoke and destroy your liver with alcohol...don't expect me to pay for your medical coverage.

You grow out of smoking pot and quit shortly after college...but nicotine is like getting off of heroin. Most people cannot man up and quit smoking until their doctors scares them half to death with the results of their medical exam. Pot smokers for the most part...quit. They put away their toys and grow up. Smokers cling to their cancer sticks like it is life or death.

Why does the FDA allow nicotine if they are supposed to protect us?

The world would be a much better place if cigarettes and alcohol were illegal and we might actually be able to afford going to the doctor if smokers and drinkers had the door slammed in their faces until they got intelligent and cleaned up their acts. Reality can oft times be harsh. :beer3:

Pot smokers will argue ad infinitum how "wonderful" it is, how it's no different than the (new politically correct term) "gateway" drugs, and how nobody gets hurt.

Tobacco users use the same argument.

Alcohol absorbers claim the same, as long as "moderation" is maintained.

Stimulant users see no harm in the use of uppers.

The same holds true for those who use downers.

Cocaine snorters say there's no problem with "entertainment" use of this drug.

....and the list goes on and on.

The real problem is that no group wants to accept responsibility when others are indeed harmed by their "right to use" whatever they want to ingest.

Courtrooms are filled with folks use/abuse substances and cause auto accidents/assaults, beat someone half to death (or worse), or create some form of mayhem. In almost every circumstance, the "ingestor" claims no responsibility because "I didn't know what I was doing - I was drunk (or high)." The argument is always one of no responsibility due to lack of capacity (to think) because of the effect of the substance.

Personally, I don't care if you drink vodka, smoke old stogies, inhale torpedoes, snort lines or jab yourself silly. It's your body, and if you want to abuse it, as far as I'm concerned, that's your choice. BUT, if I'm expected to pay for your silliness, then I have rights. too - and that right includes the limiting of access or quantum of absorption, and holding you fully accountable for the harm you cause due to substance ingestion.

The key again is responsibility for action and results.. To me, there is NO EXCUSE for harm caused because a person took some sort of behavior-modification substance and the result is someone else got hurt or worse.

The excuse also that addiction itself escapes one from responsibility doesn't fly with me. This society is jammed with services to assist people from breaking (or radically mitigating) addictions of everything, and if you know you're an addict to any degree, you have a greater responsibility to protect others from your addiction-related actions.

Pot, tobacco, booze, crack, speed, and all the other stuff brings with it personal and public danger. Take all the risks you want, but be ready to pay for the results and don't say "it's not my fault, I'm hooked" or "it's not my fault, I didn't know what I was doing," or "it's not my fault, I couldn't control myself." or ""it's not my fault......" You owe that much to your neighbor.

So, promote whatever you want to be "legal," but be ready to stand up and take responsibility for what happens when the stuff is used and people get harmed because of it - directly or indirectly.

Correct regarding Mass. It has been 3 months since the passage of the bill/law and I have not read one single incidence that would indicate that we (the voters) made a poor decision to basically decriminalize possession of less than 1 ounce. This thread has not even really discussed the use of marijuana for health reasons. This law is a god-send to thousands of medical marijuana users who get great relief from their pain and nausea (glaucoma, chemo etc. etc.) and now don't really have to hide from society. I'm relatively sure it won't be a 'gateway' drug for these folks.

I voted YES to the bill and I don't regret it. Of course our liberal government here in MA will probably find a way to tax it but that is for another discussion.

Russ

This same argument applies to the completely sober operation of an automobile... "responsibility". Think of all the families and people harmed by the irresponsible use of an automobile. In Pa. a 16 yo can "legally" opereate a motor vehicle. It's much harded to legislate responsible operation of such.

...and that includes golf carts....

It's a shame that most of the "harmless pot smokers" never get to see the violence involved in the smuggling. Marijuana smuggling along the Southwest border is one of the three main reasons for the internal wars within Mexico involving the drug cartels, the Mexican Army, and the Mexican Police - with the populace caught in the middle. Those US urbanites who think it's "cool" to get a dime bag for party use never see the lives ruined or lost in the "supply" side of the equation - and probably don't give a darn, as long as they can "be cool."

Why
 

It would appear that my thread was sort of hijacked to include alcohol and cigarette's along with pot. It probably makes sense since these are also mind altering drugs which in some way dull feelings, change behavior and effect basic health. Whether they are legal vs pot being illegal is not relevant other than from the standpoint of a pot user risking fines and jail to alter their behavior?
My basic question remains. Should the government loosen any of it's laws regarding another mind altering drug and why would someone want to dull their feeling with another escape route, (medical usage being an exception). I am not a medical person but as I understand it alcohol effects every organ in your body, cigarettes are a major cause of lung cancer and pot can cause birth defects, shrinks the stem of the brain, etc. and all cause some loss of feelings and changes in normal behavior. OK now tell me why it make sense to let loosen up another problem on our already swamped next generation.

I think I'd need you to quote some research on this. Of course I can imagine that in extremely large amounts anything is possible. But I'm talking about normal pot usage.

True - but this is because it is illegal. Correct? During alcohol prohibition there were similar stories of violence and corruption when the populous needed to have their supply of the drug (alcohol). Once it became legal again we have different problems but not supply wars.

If you took a poll (completely anonymous) of those who grew up in the 50's-60's-70's the number of people who tried pot would be very high. If it wasn't 50% I'd be surprised. But this generation, the baby boomers, became honest productive members of society and didn't turn pot smoking into a lifelong addiction that took them away from the mainstream.

I really think pot is LESS dangerous than alcohol. If you put a gun to my head and said that I need to drive as a passenger in a car driven by an alcohol inebriated person or a pot inebriated person I'd take the pot guy all day long!

Again just my opinion.

You ask why it makes sense to legalize pot?

You aren't creating a "new" problem! The problem already exists. People are smoking pot obtained illegally. Ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away.

Legalizing pot may actually decrease the amount available on the streets today to underage children. It will allow the government to have some control over the situation. It will allow Law Enforcement to concentrate their efforts on more serious offenders than pot users.

It is happening anyway, why ignore it?

I won't pretend to be able to answer for everyone. Possible answers may include the following.
If there is no fundemental difference in marijuana use than alcohol use why are we spending hundreds of millions in the "fight against it? This basically feeds the criminal machine and crime and violence associated with it much as was the case in prohibition.
More specifically, your original reference was clarified by another poster, in that the present administration was stopping federal involvement of raids on cannabis clubs, which really exist primarily for those to old, sick, or infirm to get the marijuana by more "traditional" means for the symptoms they need to treat, ultimately leaving it to the states to decide. Lets be real, anyone that wants pot for recreational use has no problems in procuring it.
Are we loosening up another problem on our already swamped next generation? Perhaps, depending on your view. Are the same people asking these questions the same ones that cry for less federal government intervention and more personal resposibility? Not sure, but a valid question I think.
Before anyone accuses me of being an advocate for more and/or easier drug use realize nothing could be further from the truth. I have been and am constantly exposed to tradgedies associated with addiction to all 3 of the above mentioned substances and more. But addressing this in the context of the original post requires accurate information with regard to the political accusations, the whole "gateway" theory, and our double standard with more traditionally accepted drugs (i.e. alcohol/nicotine).
Personal resposibility? I am ALL for it, seems to be a lot of that missing these days. I think we as a society also have some responsibility to find more effective ways to treat addiction since we won't do away with all mind altering substances, but this is not a popular subject. And to keep perspective, not even the majority of those that try alcohol or marijuana end up addicted to anything. There are simply those that will succumb to the disease. But that is a whole different subject and thread.

If people are so dissatisfied with reality that they need chemically-induced escapism to cope or "feel good," I feel sorry for them.

The bottom line - Marijuana possession, use and trade is illegal, just like driving on the sidewalk, robbing gas stations and firing guns on city streets.

If you don't like the laws, change them. If the laws don't get changed because a wonderful majority like that which voted for "change" doesn't go along with legalizing marijuana, then the laws stand. Breaking laws because you "don't like them" or consider them stupid is called anarchy.

We are supposed to be a society of laws, not a society of feel-goods who consider themselves above the law because their recreation is more important than the will of the majority in a democratic republic.

There are many laws I don't like, and my choices are to: 1) seek change of the laws through the legislative process; 2) disobey the laws and suffer the consequences (if you can't do the time....); or 3) put up with it all. I've done #1, #2 is not an option because I'm not an anarchist and don't want to be classified as a criminal; and #3 gets the most points.

So, which is it to be? Anarchy or Democracy? Do we show our kids that laws matter, or just only the ones that we "like" actually matter? How hypocritical is it to tell kids to "be lawful" while demonstrating the reverse behavior because "we wanna..." ?

There has been a lot of comparison to alcohol and tobacco, and for these substances there has been considerable legislation to include constitutional amendments. If anyone feels so strongly that marijuana use et al should be legal, then go through the hard work and effort involved in the legislative process to get laws changed. If the laws do get changed, then your problem is solved. If they don't get changed, you have the right to remain silent, anything you say can be........

You are right. The problem should not be ignored. However, laws are laws, and just because certain people think an offense is "minor" does not change the fact that an apparent majority consider it serious enough to merit criminal prosecution.

Perhaps if enough of the white-collar users got arrested for use, then the demand would go down and the supply problem would diminish in like manner? And by "enough" is a significant number of the users instead of just a small percentage.

People who speed in cars, shoplift small-dollar amounts, create loud noises in neighborhoods during late hours, and are involved in a host of other endeavors all say the same thing - law enforcement should give them a pass and enforce the "more serious" laws. So, until those who commit the act can convince legislators to change laws, those committing the act are law-breakers - period! And the same people complain that the younger generation(s) have no respect for "the law."

What I don't understand is that when one acquires marijuana for personal use, they have absolutely no idea of what is really in the bag, what chemicals may have been sprayed or soaked into the product, and no protection as to the "quality" or purity of the substance, YET they will argue for "organic" foodstuffs and read every ingredient label on each supermarket product before purchasing or ingesting a product that has a chemical mixed into it..

Steve hit a nail on a head.

When pot is involved...how do you legislate the various types of weed? If you legalize it...then are you legalizing all forms of pot? Being a former pot smoker 10 years ago, I have tried many different types and some were actually very safe...others were off the chart in THC content. The Colombian brown "dirt weed" was very light stuff. Jamaican and Hawaiian were stronger. But then you get hydroponic labs that calculate everything...the perfect soil and conditions to grow the best buds and sometimes the batches are amazingly potent. Green Dragon, Purple Dinosaur, White Rhino, Orange Lizard...one bong hit of some of that and you go to a different place for about 20 minutes. How can they possibly legislate that? It is just as powerful a lot of harder drugs...but for a shorter duration.

That would force government to agree to a safe THC content...like that could ever happen.

I hear the government grown pot is pretty strong compared to the average stuff. The real problem is that people with Aids, glaucoma and other health issues are really helped by the stuff. Should the government be the only ones that should have the right to grow the pot and sell it? Should it be legalized for health issue only? Do you need to be over 21? What if you are under 21 and are sick? It creates a quagmire. Should our health insurance cover it?

The entire country [minus 54 million] must have been stoned to elect Obama in the first place. :shrug::faint:

Ludicrous
 

100% of sexaholics started with "normal sex, too. So, let's ban sex. Workaholics, oh, right, so let's ban work. Gambling, let's ban that too. Oh, and religious fanatics, so let's ban religion. Why don't we just get back to what our founding fathers really wanted, that being consensual, or victemless acts not being disciplined. If you harm someone, or their property, those are the things out legal system should be set up for. Getting government out of the rest of our lives is what we should be striving for. As someone else stated, prohibition didn't work, the death penalty isn't a deterrent, so many laws have no effect, and never will. For anyone that would REALLY like to open mindedly discuss this, perhaps read this book first Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do
The absurdity of consensual crimes in our free country—Peter McWilliams

I have a prevoiusly un-asked and un-answered question
 

Just WHY is pot illegal? Would you outlaw it today based upon its own value or lack thereof? Why would you outlaw pot today if today were day one of hearings to do so?

Yoda

Your Right SteveZ
 

I think your message was and is excellent. It goes to the core of problem. I can remember some years ago in the 60's or 70's a rather popular religious person spoke on TV, (the religion is not important). and they said one of the problems was that people wanted to and did break the law but did not want to pay the consequences. If you break the law you should be prepared and accept the consequenses of your acts. That applies today as it has over the last centuries. Thanks for a good message.

My wife beat the government to the punch:laugh:

Why have prescription drugs at all? Should they all be over-the-counter, including morphine and anything else that can affect perception and judgment? If not, then where is the bright line?

When amateur pharmacologists and chemists dabble in areas where science is considered necessary to determine all of the what-if's, that's when severe and dangerous errors occur. It's the same whenever amateurs try to make experiment in areas which contains trained and experienced professionals. It does not matter if it is lawyers making medical decisions, physicians playing lawyer, or any other similar circumstance.

The "legalize pot" bandwagon, especially when the wagon is painted and pulled by individuals with no true scientific knowledge in the subject and only see it as a toy for their recreation, lacks credence.

When a consortium of reputable medical research institutes - such as Johns Hopkins, Harvard, Yale, Stanford, etc. - are willing to present a viable case to the Food and Drug Administration that marijuana taken of X quality taken in Y quantum over Z time frame is tolerable to the human system to a to-be-determined criteria, then the same protection to the public that we demand of bottled ketchup and canned beer can be attained. Doesn't the public deserve that much, even those who only want to play with the stuff?

SteveZ
 

I'm sorry. I read your response but I couldn't find the line that said "I would outlaw pot because......................

Could you make it a one paragraph answer? Perhaps one line?

I am not trying to justify legalizing pot. I question the wiseness of seeing it advertised. I taught drugs to security people and sone police officers at one time. I taught the history of drug usage as a part of the course. Pot was very interesting and hence my question.

lolololololololololololololololol!

I would outlaw pot because....mind-altering substances in the hands of amateurs provides great potential for danger to those in proximity of the substance user.

The "I can handle it" excuse is lame, because while "you" as the center of the universe think "you" have that much self-control to not be a danger, "you" do not control your drug-using neighbor who may not be as disciplined as "you" are. It's no different than "you" are a great driver who does not need to be bothered with speed laws and lane usage because of your great reflexes and perception, but your neighbor may not be as good a driver as you and needs restriction so as not to be an on-the-road danger.

How's that?

Well, we certainly hope you weren't "stoned" when you went into the voting booth! You seem to be an expert. I, personally, am only advocating the legalization for medical purposes. ;)

The FDA can't even keep us safe from peanuts!

The Response to a Question
 

A current doctoral thesis from Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, on the neurobiological effects of early life cannabis exposure, gives support for the cannabis gateway hypothesis in relation to adult opiate abuse. THC exposed rats showed increased motivation for opiate drug use under conditions of stress. However, the cannabis exposure did not correlate to amphetamine use.
Research has shown that cannabis acts to increase heart frequency by as much as 40 beats per minute. A study reported by The American Heart Association in February 2000, concluded that smoking marijuana can precipitate a heart attack in persons with preexisting heart conditions. One hour after smoking marijuana, the likelihood of having a heart attack is four and one-half times greater than if the person had not smoked, according to the research.
An additional health concern is the effect that marijuana smoking has on the lungs. Cannabis smoke carries more tars and other particulate matter than tobacco smoke.
More seriously, marijuana has been linked to the onset or worsening of certain psychiatric conditions, including panic disorder, schizophrenia, and depersonalization disorder. Persons diagnosed with or at risk for these conditions should not use marijuana.
No health hazards or side effects are known in conjunction with the proper administration of designated therapeutic dosages." Smoking the herb, however, "… leads almost at once to euphoric states (pronounced gaiety, laughing fits)," according to the PDR, while "long term usage leads to a clear increase in tolerance for most of the pharmacological effects." The ability to safely operate automobiles and machinery can be impaired for up to eight hours after ingesting the herb. Chronic abuse results in "laryngitis, bronchitis, apathy, psychic decline and disturbances of genital functions," according to the PDR.
Some people may be hypersensitive to marijuana. They may be allergic or hypersensitive to the plant. Chronic sinus fungal infections have been linked to chronic marijuana smoking.
THC Substance abuse A substance derived from the hemp plant Cannabis sativa, the leaves of which are smoked, producing a hallucinogenic effect due to the neurochemical Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol–THC, which has a cognate THC receptor in the brain Immune system THC blocks monocyte maturation Nervous system Impaired motor skills, defective eye tracking and perception; THC receptors are most abundant in the hippocampus, where memory is consolidated, explaining MJ's detrimental effect on memory and least abundant in the brainstem, explaining why death by overdose is unknown with chronic marijuana abuse; heavy use is associated with residual neuropsychological effects, as evidenced by ↑ perseverations on card-sorting, and ↓ learning of lists Respiratory tract MJ is inhaled or 'toked' in a fashion that differs from that of tobacco; in order to maximize THC absorption and elicit the desired 'high.', the subject prolongs inhalation, markedly ↑ carbon monoxide and tar, and thus is possibly more detrimental than tobacco smoke Therapeutic uses MJ is an analgesic, but unusable as such, due to the inseparable hallucinogenic effect; it is of use for 1. Control of N&V in terminal CA–2 antiemetic cannabinoids are

Ok good research.

Next time could you use spacing a little better for readability? Tough on the old eyes!

I still stick by my assertion that I'd rather be in the car with a stoner than a drunk! Of course neither one should be driving.