Wrong policy on marijuana

When liquor was illegal a world of crime emerged to supply what people wanted. Now that liquor is legal,we still have alcohol abuse,DUIs and other problems,but we don't have our jails and prisons filled with social drinkers and liquor merchants.

A reasonable argument can be made that marijuana has passed the test of time. For at least the last fifty years marijuana use has been widespread and common.

Decriminalizing marijuana is not legalizing marijuana. Maybe,just maybe the time has come to admit that marijuana use is much like alcohol use,not a good thing,but not worth filling our prisons and creating criminal records for our youth.

Disclaimer: I wouldn't know marijuana from parsley.

Anybody who actually does a modicum of unbiased research on the short and long term effects (on human DNA, eg) of marijuana will come to the conclusion that it's a poisonous herb, esp. when inhaled into the lungs, and similiar to alcohol and its abuse, very harmful to society.

In San Diego and San Francisco (the toxic laboratory of the nation) proof is in the pudding. "Medical" clinics abound and guess what has happened as a result? Police look the other way while teenagers (who got their 'card' from a sleazy doctor) are skipping school to buy the weed and deal it to their friends. Western Canada, same story. Clinic owners who are supposed to be non-profit are raking in millions.

Do we like the marijuana forests (and resulting fires from the illegal guards hired by the cartels) dotting the landscape in the Angeles forests in California? What about the young kid who nearly killed and disabled for life a police officer because he was driving and smoking marijuana? This happens more often than the media reports.

When many Americans think drug and alcohol use and abuse is okay for all of us including the young, then I realize we really do live in a dumb-downed, greedy, selfish society. And we are paying the piper for it every day in so many ways.

This is a states right's issue. Different states have different views about what is right for their citizens and social good. They are not all exactly alike nor should they have to be. This is why our country has states rights, so that we are not all forced by the federal government to be alike. The people of 13 states like California, (who have lived with medical cannabis for over a decade) have exercised their constitutional right and the majority of the citizens voted for this. They are bearing the social cost for this, and are apparently happy with it since it passed a majority vote. This is the way our freedom is supposed to work.

California is well aware of the potential for misuse of this medicine. They are currently taking steps to shut down the profiteering and shady dealing dispensaries. But in the process they must also respect the rights of their voting citizens who are legitimate medical users. The move by the Obama justice department gives the states this ability to take care of their own citizens rights when they are following state law. And for the ones that are not following state law : the Mexican cartels, profiteers, snakeoil salesmen, or 'churches'- these will be the ones pursued by the Federal justice department. The writer (no name found) is entitled to their opinion. But if we don't want to be subject to laws based on the opinions of people in places like California, we can't expect the people of California to be subject to laws based on the opinions of people in place like Tennessee.

Canary,what's your point? No one is arguing that marijuana is part of a healthy life style. What is obvious,however,is that marijuana is here to stay and we need to find better ways to deal with that fact. Decriminalizing is not legalizing,but it could go a long way toward removing the incentive from the distribution sindicates that are our core problem.

Let’s see if we can cast a shadow over this new reefer madness story, “Cannabis alters human DNA“.

A scientific study was recently conducted to prove some harmful use of Cannabis. The group focused their study specifically around ONE carcinogenic called Acetaldehyde which may or may not be found in burning cannabis and at unknown levels.

Acetaldehyde is an organic chemical compound and can be found in coco, coffee, fruit, wheat, (bread), and is produced by plants as part of their normal metabolism.

Acetaldehyde is toxic when applied externally for prolonged periods, an irritant, and a probable carcinogen. So what’s the big deal? It’s in my coffee, my sandwich, and my apple! It’s a naturally occurring substance. The study group claims that Cannabis has a measurable amount of Acetaldehyde inside of the smoke; and ergo, you inhale the smoke then you inhale Acetaldehyde.

What the group doesn’t tell you is that even higher levels of Acetaldehyde can be found in the air in cities around the world, and even in your own home. Are they suggesting we stop breathing? Of course not, the study was focused specifically on Marijuana and nothing else. Therefore, it’s a study taken completely out of context from the rest of the world.

Let’s put this into perspective; If you knew only the horrors of Sugar and none of the benefits, then if you were like me, would you choose to eliminate sugar from your diet entirely. The same can be said with anything that is good for you.

Just recently, UCLA pulmonologist Dr. Donald Tashkin, who has studied marijuana’s effects on the lungs for three decades, studied heavy marijuana smokers to determine whether the use led to increased risk of lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or COPD.

“What we found instead was no association and even a suggestion of some protective effect,” says Tashkin, whose research was the largest case-control study ever conducted. The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health.

Tobacco smokers in the study had as much as a 21-fold increase in lung cancer risk. Cigarette smokers, too, developed COPD more often in the study, and researchers found that marijuana did not impair lung function.

Tashkin, supported by other research, concluded that the active ingredient tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, has an “anti-tumoral effect” in which “cells die earlier before they age enough to develop mutations that might lead to lung cancer.”

However, the smoke from marijuana did swell the airways and lead to a greater risk of chronic bronchitis.

“Early on, when our research appeared as if there would be a negative impact on lung health, I was opposed to legalization because I thought it would lead to increased use and that would lead to increased health effects,” Tashkin says. “But at this point, I’d be in favor of legalization. I wouldn’t encourage anybody to smoke any substances. But I don’t think it should be stigmatized as an illegal substance. Tobacco smoking causes far more harm. And in terms of an intoxicant, alcohol causes far more harm.”

Sounds like a few 'tokers' here who like to pick and choose what 'facts' they can dig up. For 'points', go back and re-read the article, esp. the last couple of paragraphs.

Correct, states rights prevail, yet do not take precedence necessarily over Federal law. If you want to change the laws, go to Congress, don't make up your own or ignore what you don't like or agree with. Drug use/abuse in CA and other states as well as in Europe have produced three generations of potheads and addicts who are not productive members of society but burdens. The interstate and international drug traffic is deleterious to all of our societies.

The hospitals in Western Canada and the US are full of druggies and the cost to society is huge. The point being, that if you want to find a 'study' by a pothead professor or lots of 'testimonials' by users, there is no dearth of these people. I'm still waiting to see the beneficial effects from 40 years of generations taking, hitting up, smoking, toking, inhaling and popping drugs of all kinds. You think not decriminalizing is a problem? Wait until it is, the effects are forever.

A low blow in the debate, canary person. First you challenge us to learn about the relationship between marijuana and DNA, etc., then when a researched response is produced all you can come up with is to accuse the writer of being a "toker." In my case I do not smoke marijuana. In your case it seems that spending so much time as a canary in a coal mine has left you in the dark.

P.S.> Where do you get the right to slander and libel. What evidence do you have that UCLA pulmonologist Dr. Donald Taskin is a "pot head?" Do you assume that those who research the effects of alcohol are alcoholic? Are those who study obesity therefore obese? You are a silly person.