published Tuesday, September 14th, 2010

Proposition 19

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

131
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
whatever said...

Not like decades of enforcement have done any good. We can get hundreds of thousands of people out of prison and back to doing something valuable instead.

Yeah, the prison guards will have less to do, but I know, let's put them on the border. That'll make people happy.

September 14, 2010 at 12:03 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

Ha. Yes, legalize--let the police chase real criminals instead of drug users. But on two conditions:

(1) Since drug use may bother some people, legalize discrimination against drug users: any private outfit that wants to fire users, refuse to do business with users, etc, is free to do so. Let the police be neutral instead of changing sides.

(2) Drug use is no excuse for any other misconduct--violence, robbery, driving while impaired; users are held to the same standards of behavior as ordinary people. Maybe, as with guns or the hate side of "hate crimes," let drugs be legal in themselves but an aggravating factor if the drug user does anything wrong.

Or legalize drugs and outlaw junk food? Naw.

September 14, 2010 at 12:46 a.m.
whatever said...

I'd outlaw giving sugary candy to children any day of the week.

September 14, 2010 at 1:02 a.m.

I say legalize it, but tax the hell out of it like cigarettes. There won't be a black market of it when their is a market for it on the private sector.

September 14, 2010 at 1:28 a.m.
alprova said...

The only currently illegal drug that deserves to be made legal to use is Marijuana. It grows in the ground just like tobacco, it is dried like tobacco, and used, I assume, without adding any other chemicals to it, prior to consumption.

If it is legalized for personal use, the same laws governing alcohol should apply to Pot. Every plant should be accounted for, farmed by state approved growers, monitored for 'quality and safety assurance,' and it should be taxed to the hilt.

While it would not be popular, home growing and selling of Pot should no more be legal than the personal production of alcohol for resale is legal.

I find myself in rare agreement with Andrew, partially anyway. Like alcohol, pot and many safety sensitive occupations do not mix. Just as no employer would have much use for an alcoholic, whose job performance would likely be sub-par at best, an employer should be allowed to screen employees for drug use as they do now, and exclude them from hire if they are found to be heavy users of Marijuana.

And of course, anyone found to be using marijuana irresponsibly on the job, if a employer has a written policy in place prohibiting it's use while on the job, should be fired on the spot. If users are behind the wheels of motor vehicles on our roads, and are found to be high, they should face the same music that inebriated drivers do.

The reason that I find only Marijuana worthy of legalization is due to the fact that as a general rule, very few USERS who get high on pot have ever been guilty of committing violent crimes while high. Opinions vary, but the overwhelming evidence suggests that Marijuana is not an addictive drug, in that people are not prone to committing crimes in order to obtain it.

And someone may correct me, but I have never read of a soul on this Earth having expired as a result of an overdose of Marijuana, nor has there been any proof ever offered to suggest that it damages one's body to any degree more than tobacco does. In fact, I've read studies to suggest that Pot does far less damage to the body than tobacco.

I'd ten times rather be around people high on Pot than I would to be around someone who is drunk. Alcohol, in some people causes them to become violent. I've never seen anyone high be a thing but mellow and quite at peace with the world.

September 14, 2010 at 1:39 a.m.
whatever said...

While it would not be popular, home growing and selling of Pot should no more be legal than the personal production of alcohol for resale is legal.

I would note that personal production of alcohol for consumption is legal. Details vary by state, but you can do it within certain exceptions.

September 14, 2010 at 1:46 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

The American dream, for many people, is winning the lottery. States love the numbers racket because it raises lots of revenue without raising taxes.

States don't want you to think of it as legalized gambling.

Likewise, legalizing marijuana would have nothing to do with a lack of social character or our moral fabric going up in smoke.

Heavily taxed marijuana sales would be an economic bonanza for the growing number of states facing huge budget shortfalls.

Some people will smoke pot whether it's legal or not. Why shouldn't states regulate the sales, drive the drug cartels back across the border, and open up a lucrative revenue stream to help fund police, fire fighters, and teachers?

FDR ended prohibition because alcohol was a great source of tax revenue. It was a pragmatic choice born out of tough economic times.

I'm just saying...

September 14, 2010 at 1:46 a.m.
alprova said...

whatever wrote: "I would note that personal production of alcohol for consumption is legal. Details vary by state, but you can do it within certain exceptions."


Absolutely true, hence the reason I included the words "for resale" in that sentence.

In other words, if Marijuana becomes legal, that should not translate into it becoming legal for everyone to be allowed to become a budding entrepreneur, pun intended.

September 14, 2010 at 3:26 a.m.
sandyonsignal said...

We should be voting on this here in Tennessee, too. The law allows for local governments to chose if they want to sell up to 1 oz. of marijuana per transaction to people 21 or older. The local governments could raise revenue from it and reduce expenses from law enforcement costs.

I see opposition mainly from the liquor industry. They have such a strong influence on our legislators that we can't even get wine in the grocery stores here in TN. We sell beer in grocery stores without the "concern" of the legislators, but they won't budge on wine out of so-called worry for the public. Yeah, right. It is really an excuse for their own pocketbook, just go look at how many of our state lawmakers have received checks from the liquor industry. It will be the same thing with legalizing pot, it is a popular idea, but money speaks louder to the state lawmakers than the wishes of the people.

September 14, 2010 at 5:24 a.m.
EaTn said...

Being a naive country boy growing up on the Plateau I smoked everything from pure uncut burley tobacco to rabbit tobacco and even a dried grapevine here and there, but never pot because it was after my time. That being said, I have no personal experience in the weed and am sitting here wondering the true meaning of Clay's cartoon. Frito-Lay is based in Dallas. Some of you experienced pot smokers help this ignorant country boy out on what I'm overlooking in the toon.

September 14, 2010 at 6:25 a.m.
sandyonsignal said...

For EaTN, from the Urban Dictionary, http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=munchies,
Munchies: When you get hungry after smoking weed. Usually people will eat a lot of junk food. Two kids are getting stoned: "...and ice cream, and a whole pizza just for me, and some chips, and a soda, and some chocolate...maybe some chinese food, gummy worms, lasagna, rice, ramen, chicken and a hamburger...oh yeah, i almost forgot i wanted some fries with that..." "Damn...that's some serious munchies you have!"

September 14, 2010 at 6:38 a.m.
EaTn said...

sandyonsignal- thanks, the little light just came on.

September 14, 2010 at 6:44 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

I have mixed feelings about it; smoking it is very detrimental to adolescents. (not that drinking isn't) Self-medicating with drugs and alcohol is a sign of serious psychological issues. On the other hand, kids can obtain it far easier than alcohol, perhaps because it is under the radar. I wonder if legalizing it would help that? I do agree that people who are high are not necessarily more aggressive; if fact, they may be less so. Everyone knows a mean drunk.

September 14, 2010 at 7:19 a.m.
woody said...

EaTn..I thought I grew up blissfully ignorant in my northern Indiana 'roots' during the 50s and 60s, but your post made me smile and realize there might be some who are still naive to the ways of the world in general. And that is a good thing..I believe.

However, Alprova, I have been reading your seemingly well thought out, reasoned responses for quite some time now which makes what I am about to say sound a bit ugly, I know.

Which part of "under the influence" do you not understand? Or is it that you simply prefer the stale odor of 'pot' about a person's.. person, rather than the stale odor of beer?

Those are both rhetorical questions, of course. I would never intentionally put someone on the spot like that ordinarily. It's just that I have always enjoyed your introspective way of 'unraveling', or debunking, if you prefer, the way others came their own conclusions no matter how skewed they may have been.

You know..sort of like your earlier post today. But, at least, now I know you'd rather be 'done in' by a 'happy, munchie-eating pot smoker' than someone who just came from a 'three martini lunch'. Some choice...

Awaiting the enevitable, Woody

September 14, 2010 at 7:26 a.m.
harrystatel said...

Legalize it, don't tax it. If you tax it, it's similar to what goes on now.

Instead of the cartels providing marijuana, the government will be providing it. Make that the government cartel and all the guns behind the cartel. There will still be a black market for it, just as there is for distilled alcohol.

The issue is not about raising tax revenue. It's about the liberty for people to decide for themselves what goes into their body.

Taxing marijuana is another form of government coercion.

Harry Statel http://harrystatel.wordpress.com

September 14, 2010 at 8:04 a.m.
whatever said...

Absolutely true, hence the reason I included the words "for resale" in that sentence.

In other words, if Marijuana becomes legal, that should not translate into it becoming legal for everyone to be allowed to become a budding entrepreneur, pun intended.

Yeah, and I might agree with that but here's the problem, earlier you went for a rather draconian control of the plants, to the point where somebody with a single plant for personal consumption is going to be out of sorts.

I'm not sure I agree with that. Should people have massive greenhouses full of them? No. But one, maybe two plants per household? Less objectionable.

Now maybe you'd need some controls over the sale of the plants, but I don't know that I find the idea of a person growing enough for themselves to use that bad. Just like the home production of alcoholic beverages isn't that bad on its own.

There are benefits to going the route of a centralized production, but there are reasons to go purely decentralized too.

September 14, 2010 at 8:28 a.m.
alprova said...

Woody wrote: "Which part of "under the influence" do you not understand?


It's been awhile, but I've smoked a bit of dope in my younger years. So let's put that on the table.

How many times have you read a news story where a fatal car accident involved any mention of the offending driver who made an error, being high on Pot? I haven't read so much as one such story myself.

On the other hand, as I have mentioned before, I lost a wife and a child to a drunk driver. How many times do we read where alcohol is a factor in crashes? Tens of thousands each year, if we were to discover them all.

Do I think that people should smoke and drive? No, but at the same time, I would rather share the road with those that do, any day of the week and twice on Sunday, versus sharing the road with those with a .08 alcohol level.

When one is high, there for sure is an amount of impairment, but in no manner comparable to someone who is drunk. Chances are, you've been around and may have been working right next to someone who was high or drunk. One you knew and could tell in an instant. The other, you probably had no clue at all.


"Or is it that you simply prefer the stale odor of 'pot' about a person's.. person, rather than the stale odor of beer?"


I'm not sure that I've been around either, in any "stale" form.


"But, at least, now I know you'd rather be 'done in' by a 'happy, munchie-eating pot smoker' than someone who just came from a 'three martini lunch'."

Some choice...


Actually, Marijuana is a far better choice.

According to a Department of Transportation study;

"Drivers under the influence of marijuana tend to over-estimate the adverse effects of the drug on their driving quality and compensate when they can; e.g. by increasing effort to accomplish the task, increasing headway or slowing down, or a combination of these."

"Drivers under the influence of alcohol tend to under-estimate the adverse effects of the drug on their driving quality and do not invest compensatory effort."

Again, I reiterate that if Pot is legalized, it should only be allowed to be used on private property and no one should use it and drive.

Legalizing it is not going to change a thing in terms of how many people out there are using it. Your chances of encountering people on a daily basis who smoke Pot are rather high, no pun intended.

Your chances of being harmed in any manner by those who smoke Pot are almost non-existent. You can't come close to making that same statement about those who consume alcohol.

As always, I'm open to any evidence to the contrary that controverts my stance.

And so we're clear, I say this as a man who has not so much as took one toke in at least 16 years.

September 14, 2010 at 8:31 a.m.
Duford said...

What all y'all statists need to understand is that the free market exists no matter what.

Regardless of what government intends to mandate, it will never change the desire of some people to get what they want.

That's when the lowest of men fill the void through underhanded means, crime, and murder, in order to fill a demand (to get high).

I'm in total agreement with Harry; legalize it, and let freedom prevail. Let men organize production and quality as they see fit, and those with the highest (haha) standards will win the loyalty of many users.

Hell -- so many people already grow it at home. Why do we need some government agent to come in and lay down unnecessary rules? Of course -- so government can get another source of revenue and wastefully spend it, instead of having to run a balanced budget like the rest of America.

The only way that would happen is if the Big Pot lobbied Congress at the state level to protect the big conglomerates by passing such useless mandates, licensing requirements, and taxation, in order to crowd out competition (as is done in large part anyway these days).

In my lifetime (I'm 25), I think we'll see marijuana legalized.

September 14, 2010 at 8:45 a.m.
alprova said...

whatever wrote: "Yeah, and I might agree with that but here's the problem, earlier you went for a rather draconian control of the plants, to the point where somebody with a single plant for personal consumption is going to be out of sorts."


When did I say that? You're reading far more into what I write than than exists.

If a man wants to nurse a half-dozen plants at a time in a garden or in his basement under black lights, that's one thing. If a man plants half an acre in pot, well that's quite another.

I think most people will be just fine with popping into a head shop somewhere and buying it like people do a pack of cigarettes.

Not everyone has a green thumb or the time for that matter, to devote to growing weed, much less a house plant.


"I'm not sure I agree with that. Should people have massive greenhouses full of them? No. But one, maybe two plants per household? Less objectionable."


See? We agree, however it appears that I'm a bit more liberal in my determination as to how many plants one might need for personal consumption.


"Now maybe you'd need some controls over the sale of the plants, but I don't know that I find the idea of a person growing enough for themselves to use that bad. Just like the home production of alcoholic beverages isn't that bad on its own."


It's not a matter of "needing" any measure of control. It's a matter of keeping people honest and accounting to the authorities their production rates, to assure that taxes are collected on crop yields, just as is the case with tobacco.


"There are benefits to going the route of a centralized production, but there are reasons to go purely decentralized too."


Yeah...I know, the evil Government is after that tax revenue, but you can't have it all Hasselhoff. At least after they legalize it and start taxing it, you'll be free to enjoy it and while you're floating in the clouds, those taxes you pay will not be bothering you so much.

September 14, 2010 at 8:54 a.m.
Clara said...

Sandy,

Thanks for the Munchies URL. I'd heard about the Munchies but didn't know how great the problem was for pot users.

September 14, 2010 at 9:10 a.m.
whatever said...

When did I say that? You're reading far more into what I write than than exists.

Well, the problem is that your statements were a little ambiguous in some ways, but they did point against the idea:

See:

"Every plant should be accounted for, farmed by state approved growers, monitored for 'quality and safety assurance,' and it should be taxed to the hilt."

"While it would not be popular, home growing and selling of Pot should no more be legal than the personal production of alcohol for resale is legal."

Now if you'd said say, "Home growing for selling of Pot" instead of using the word "and" then it wouldn't have indicated to me as much of an opposition to home growing. Or you could have expressly said home growing for personal consumption is acceptable.

Yeah...I know, the evil Government is after that tax revenue, but you can't have it all Hasselhoff. At least after they legalize it and start taxing it, you'll be free to enjoy it and while you're floating in the clouds, those taxes you pay will not be bothering you so much.

Actually I'm less concerned about the tax revenue than I am giving consideration to the desirability of not having a profit-oriented production industry. If you have to grow it all yourself, then there's only so much you can consume. Not exactly encouraging free enterprise, but I think it balances more towards encouraging personal responsibility balancing with the liberty.

September 14, 2010 at 9:19 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Oh, alprova. I hadn't heard that. I am so sorry for your loss.

September 14, 2010 at 9:34 a.m.
memphisexile said...

Me personally, I will invest in whatever company makes frozen pizzas when pot gets legalized. : )

September 14, 2010 at 9:43 a.m.
alprova said...

whatever wrote: "Now if you'd said say, "Home growing for selling of Pot" instead of using the word "and" then it wouldn't have indicated to me as much of an opposition to home growing. Or you could have expressly said home growing for personal consumption is acceptable."


You're a bit of a nit-picker, aren't you?

I think we're clear with each other just where we both stand on the issue of home growing for personal use, and we agree.

BUT...I'd also be fine if they completely outlawed ANY personal growing of pot for ANY reason, IF they legalize it on a national basis. Most sensible people would consider that a reasonable trade-off to eliminate the current risk of being arrested, fined, and societally scarred for years, just for having dope in your immediate proximity.

But for some, the thrill and the risk of being caught no longer existing would be a bummer, I suppose.


"Actually I'm less concerned about the tax revenue than I am giving consideration to the desirability of not having a profit-oriented production industry. If you have to grow it all yourself, then there's only so much you can consume. Not exactly encouraging free enterprise, but I think it balances more towards encouraging personal responsibility balancing with the liberty."


The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of pot smokers have no interest whatsoever in becoming pot farmers, either for personal use or for profit. They just want to get high now and then. Some a little more often than others.

Most will be quite happy to pay the taxes that come with that decision, rather than to risk being caught with an illicit purchase from someone sidestepping any laws that may be imposed, prohibiting acts up to and including growing for personal use.

If someone wants to grow it for profit, they'll most likely follow the Government imposed requirements, so that they can reap the bounty that comes with that choice.

And like always, there will be those that will try to beat the Government out of any taxes imposed by growing their own stash and will try to get away with selling what they can to buddies, and more power to them if that's a risk they are willing to take. I'll laugh at them when they are busted.

Life is all about making choices. Life is about living by societal rules, usually imposed by Government. And by golly, life is about paying taxes as well.

If someone is determined to whiz in the wind, all they are likely going to achieve is to soak their pants legs in urine. It may feel good while it's warm, but eventually they'll be reminded that going with the flow sometimes make a little more sense.

September 14, 2010 at 10:04 a.m.
alprova said...

Ikeithlu wrote: "Oh, alprova. I hadn't heard that. I am so sorry for your loss."


Thanks. I appreciate that.

It happened 32 years ago, this past July, but it still hurts to this day.

I have a very hard time mustering any sympathy whatsoever for anyone who drinks and drives and is busted for it.

September 14, 2010 at 10:13 a.m.
Humphrey said...

For teenagers right now, it is easier to get pot than it is get alcohol. If you want a beer, you have to have an ID to get it in the store. Maybe you can get someone to go buy it for you if you aren't old enough. But the pot dealer don't need to see an ID. He is breaking the law already, he'd just as soon sell it to a 16-year-old as a 61-year-old, same difference there. The kid can put that joint in his pocket and hide it a lot easier than he can a six-pack of beer too. Heck, in many ways it is probably easier for a minor to buy a marijuana cigarette than a tobacco cigarette.

I have to say, I agree with the idea of legalizing, regulating, and taxing marijuana in much the same way that they do tobacco and alcohol. Have the same kind of penalties and laws as regarding being drunk on alcohol being used illegally.

September 14, 2010 at 10:21 a.m.
Humphrey said...

I've known some people that grow a few tobacco plants in their gardens for their own consumption. I also know that there can be criminals who sell cigarettes across state lines and without tax stamps. But I've never really heard of their being a problem with people selling home grown tobacco on the black market.

September 14, 2010 at 10:23 a.m.
tderng said...

Sweet Jesus Christ.It is the end of times!!There is actually something that I agree with the left wing crazies on.As someone who has a lifetime of knowledge about pot and its effects on a person I have been a proponent of legalization for almost 40 years.There are people in every profession including doctors,lawyers,police and any other profession who smoke pot.Most of the time no one,except their very close personal friends,ever know.I have personally known surgeons,lawyers,dentists and an uncountable numbers of successful business owners who get high as a way to wind down after a rough day,or as a way to enjoy a holiday by the pool.The best thing about getting high is there in NO hangover the next day!!There is a very low probability of someone who is high being in a traffic accident because he/she is high. The one thing that people have to remember about drug testing for pot use is that it stays in the body in amounts that can be detected for up to three months,depending on the persons body type and how much he/she smokes.An overweight person will test positive for a longer period because pot stores in the fatty tissues and is released into the bloodstream over time.Whereas other drugs ie cocaine,heroin and almost all manufactured drugs wash out of the system within 3-5 days.There is currently no test that I know of that can tell how recently someone has smoked pot,just that it is still detectable.

September 14, 2010 at 10:29 a.m.
whatever said...

You're a bit of a nit-picker, aren't you?

Knowing whether you agree on broad principles is one thing, details is another.

Sometimes details can make a huge difference, sometimes not.

This would be one of the ones I'd say would be one of the important ones, as it'd shape the whole course of the response.

I think we're clear with each other just where we both stand on the issue of home growing for personal use, and we agree.

Well, now, maybe. But your initial statement wasn't very clear to me.

The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of pot smokers have no interest whatsoever in becoming pot farmers, either for personal use or for profit. They just want to get high now and then. Some a little more often than others.

Well, I don't know that that's a fact, but since it's such an easy plant to grow, I can see potential value to saying that if you want it, you have to do it yourself. People may be lazy, but they can be prodded.

I can certainly see the value in tax revenues, but if that's objectionable to some people (see above for examples), then I'm willing to go another direction than having a profit-based industry.

September 14, 2010 at 10:36 a.m.
Duford said...

Free-market is for-profit. There's no incentive to do it well if there's nothing to gain from it.

Beer and liquor is very profitable and somehow our society staggers onward...

September 14, 2010 at 11:51 a.m.
whatever said...

Free-market is for-profit. There's no incentive to do it well if there's nothing to gain from it.

Personal pleasure is considered a gain, that's why people smoke it, and that doesn't make a profit, does it?

Beer and liquor is very profitable and somehow our society staggers onward...

Stagger? That's an amusing word choice. I approve.

September 14, 2010 at 12:03 p.m.

"Sure, marijuana may have never killed anyone as proponents often claim – just as a bottle of whiskey has never killed anyone. What kills people is when someone smokes the marijuana, drinks that bottle, or both at the same time, putting their own and the lives of many innocent people in critical danger. Here’s some examples of people killing and maiming others when under the influence of marijuana with or without combining with alcohol" [Citizens for stopping the legalization of marijuana and other drugs]:

16 year old Teen Dies after Rolling Car off Cliff – Marijuana in System

A 17- year old San Jose teen had recently smoked marijuana and drank alcohol was mauled to death by a San Francisco Zoo tiger on Christmas Day. His attorney “says it’s irrelevant whether the teen was drinking or smoking pot before he was mauled.” (AP)

DEA Agent Tortured and Murdered DEA agent Enrique “Kiki” Camarena was abducted outside the U.S. consulate in Guadalajara, horrifically tortured and murdered. His kidnapper was marijuana kingpin Rafael Caro Quintero, who was able to flee Mexico to Costa Rica with the help of officers in Mexico’s version of the FBI. (WSJ)

Woman Kills Self and 7 others While High on Marijuana On August 29, 2009 Diane Schuler, while under the influence of alcohol and marijuana drove the wrong way on a freeway killing herself and 7 others including her 2 year old daughter, 3 nieces and 3 men in the SUV she hit head on. She smoked pot one hour before driving. Source In the news

March 26, 2010 – Escondido CA: Man crashes into 13 different cars and possibly more – High on medical marijuana (story)

Man Attacks Flight Crew after Eating Marijuana Cookies Man “screamed, dropped his pants and attacked crew members on a cross-country flight, forcing its diversion to Pittsburgh, the FBI said”. Kinman Chan later claimed he had eaten marijuana cookies before his flight.

‘Psychotic Pothead’ Shoots Pentagon Police “…John Patrick Bedell liked it (marijuana) too; in fact, he was a marijuana addict. But he inflicted a lot of pain on other people, including the two guards he shot at the Pentagon.”

September 14, 2010 at 12:10 p.m.

Young Man Kills 9 and injures 5 while another Kills 2 Wounds 13 – Both avid marijuana users “…The pain has also been evident in other cases, such as admitted pot lover 16-year-old Jeff Weise, who murdered nine people and injured five others in Red Lake, Minnesota and Charles “Andy” Williams, a regular marijuana user who smoked the drug just before killing two schoolmates and wounding 13 others in a San Diego suburban school…”

The August 2009 La Brea raging fire in Santa Barbara County was touched off by a “cooking fire in a marijuana drug trafficking operation … believed to be run by a Mexican national drug organization.” The fire burned over 130 square miles.

Man Kills 4 Children on Freeway – Nickname is “Smokey” “…four children and the driver of a van died when the van hit a concrete bridge abutment after veering off the freeway. Investigators reported that the children nicknamed the driver “Smokey” because he regularly smoked marijuana. The driver was found at the crash scene with marijuana in his pocket.

Woman Hits Man, Leaves Lodged in Windshield in Her Garage Two Days Until He Dies “…after a night of smoking marijuana, drinking and drugs, a former nurse’s aid hit a homeless man with her car. “Jurors saw pictures of the twisted, bruised and bloody body of a homeless man today as a former nurse’s aide went on trial on charges that she hit him with her car, drove home with his body lodged in the windshield and left him to die in her garage.” (NY TIMES)

Man Kills Two in Head-On Collision George Lynard was convicted of driving with marijuana in his bloodstream, causing a head-on collision that killed a 73 year-old man and a 69 year-old woman. Lynard appealed this conviction because he allegedly had a “valid prescription” for marijuana. Lynard appealed this conviction because he allegedly had a “valid recommendation” for marijuana. A Nevada judge agreed with Lynard and granted him a new trial. The case has been appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court. (DEA)

Mother’s Day Bus Crash Kills 22 People “Frank Bedell should never have been behind the wheel of a bus on Mother’s Day… He was high on marijuana and dizzy from Benadryl. The Mother’s Day bus crash near City Park that killed 22 passengers is being blamed on driver Frank Bedell, who police say was seriously ill and under the influence of drugs when he got behind the wheel of the motor coach that morning. Safety experts say stricter federal rules governing the inspection of buses and the screening of drivers might have prevented the accident.” (NOLA).

September 14, 2010 at 12:11 p.m.

Teenagers Judge Calls “Hyenas” Murder Father of Three They are not hard to find. Every few days brings a fresh tale of feral youths meting out random acts of violence with unfathomable intensity. Apart from the shocking brutality, the speed with which a seemingly trivial argument or confrontation can assume murderous proportions, the stories have a common theme: the perpetrators of the violence, often in their very young teens, were high on ’skunk’ [marijuana] at the time.

The teenagers who killed Garry Newlove, the 47-year-old father of three in Cheshire? The attack came after they had binged on alcohol and skunk. Three youths were found guilty of kicking to death Mark Witherall, 47, after he found them burgling his house in Whitstable, Kent. The three were intoxicated by a ferocious cocktail of alcopops and cannabis. The judge said the three had ‘acted as hyenas’. (UK GUARDIAN)

Man Paralyzes CHP Officer and Murders Another Driver A man under the influence of marijuana drifted onto the shoulder of the road hitting a CHP officer and the driver he had stopped, killing the driver. The CHP officer remains paralyzed. “The investigation revealed a large amount of marijuana and marijuana edibles in White’s vehicle. According to search warrants filed in federal court, in his post-arrest statement, White acknowledged being under the influence of marijuana when the accident took place, saying he had purchased the marijuana from a “medical marijuana” dispensary in Compton.” (CHP) [this happened a few miles from my coastal home in CA]

September 14, 2010 at 12:13 p.m.

Marijuana Growing Lab Fire Kills Two Firemen A house blaze that killed two firefighters started in a tangle of wires and lamps that were installed to grow marijuana in a basement closet, authorities said. (AP) Hunter Kills 14, Injures 104 Firefighters, Burns 422 Square Miles After Setting ‘Accidental’ Fire

The California Cedar fire was the second largest wildfire in the history of California. 14 people lost their lives in that fire. 104 firefighters were injured, one died. Countless wildlife were cremated; 90% of Cuyamaca Rancho State Park was incinerated; 280,278 acres; 422 square miles were ravaged; the fire took a month to put out and cost $27 million. The hunter “admitted that the night before his foray into the forest, he had smoked marijuana by himself and slipped the pipe and lighter in the pocket of his hunting vest. He said he had not smoked marijuana on the day of the trip. Investigators looking into the fire later found Martinez’s glass marijuana pipe about 30 feet from the spot where the fire had started.” (NC TIMES)

A 17- year old San Jose teen had recently smoked marijuana and drank alcohol was mauled to death by a San Francisco Zoo tiger on Christmas Day. His attorney “says it’s irrelevant whether the teen was drinking or smoking pot before he was mauled.” (AP)

Most of this occurring in a state run amok by Liberal-Progressive policies, higher crime than any one know-it-all on this site has seen in their lifetime. So much for no ill effects on the individual or society-constitutionality isn't the issue as the Founders would never have sanctioned an amoral society unleashing every imaginable evil upon the rest of the citizens. Washington, Adams et al, spoke often of the Constitution being better suited to and administered by the Moral, the children of the Divine One. Gee, I wonder why after reading crime stats and Predator stats occurring in the US of A. Gee, I wonder why humans cannot be trusted to be "good" so much of the time?

September 14, 2010 at 12:14 p.m.
whatever said...

At least two of your examples have nothing to do with the consumption of marijuana, but rather with the unlawful production of it. As such, they'd be eliminated by decriminalization, wouldn't they?. Also if you're going to post somebody else's aggregation, you should give them the courtesy of a link.

Beyond that, anecdotes do not a comprehensive survey make. Do take that into consideration.

September 14, 2010 at 12:19 p.m.
Duford said...

Reality check, Canary: there are always going to be crazies, whether a substance or activity is deemed legal or illegal.

The real issue is it worth throwing and wasting millions (if not billions at this point) on a "war" on drugs? Even moreso, is it even your right to tell another what he can and cannot do to his own body, as long as it causes another no harm?

Personal freedom is pretty straight-forward -- as "radical" as it sounds. That means all drugs should be legalized.

Of course, as soon as someone causes you harm who's high on some dope, prosecute to fullest extend and show those who choose to do something as stupid as driving inebriated that they will suffer the consequences.

September 14, 2010 at 12:19 p.m.

Marijuana Smokers Face Rapid Lung Destruction -- As Much As 20 Years Ahead Of Tobacco Smokers

ScienceDaily (Jan. 27, 2008) — A new study finds that the development of bullous lung disease occurs in marijuana smokers approximately 20 years earlier than tobacco smokers. A condition often caused by exposure to toxic chemicals or long-term exposure to tobacco smoke, bullous lung disease (also known as bullae) is a condition where air trapped in the lungs causes obstruction to breathing and eventual destruction of the lungs.

At present, about 10% of young adults and 1% of the adult population smoke marijuana regularly. Researchers find that the mean age of marijuana-smoking patients with lung problems was 41, as opposed to the average age of 65 years for tobacco-smoking patients.

The study "Bullous Lung Disease due to Marijuana" also finds that the bullous lung disease can easily go undetected as patients suffering from the disease may show normal chest X-rays and lung functions. High-resolution CT scans revealed severe asymmetrical, variably sized bullae in the patients studied. However, chest X-rays and lung functions were normal in half of them.

Lead author Dr. Matthew Naughton says, "What is outstanding about this study is the relatively young ages of the lung disease patients, as well as the lack of abnormality on chest X-rays and lung functions in nearly half of the patients we tested."

He added, "Marijuana is inhaled as extremely hot fumes to the peak inspiration and held for as long as possible before slow exhalation. This predisposes to greater damage to the lungs and makes marijuana smokers are more prone to bullous disease as compared to cigarette smokers." Patients who smoke marijuana inhale more and hold their breath four times longer than cigarette smokers. It is the breathing manoeuvres of marijuana smokers that serve to increase the concentration and pulmonary deposition of inhaled particulate matter – resulting in greater and more rapid lung destruction.

This paper is published in the January 2008 issue of Respirology.

September 14, 2010 at 12:20 p.m.
whatever said...

Oh, and California's crime rates peaked in the early nineties. It's been steadily dropping ever since. In comparative terms, there's a lot worse out in the world today, even in the US. California's is below the average. Southern States are the ones that actually have higher crime rates.

The facts don't support your conclusions.

September 14, 2010 at 12:24 p.m.

Go check, all the facts are there, including clues where you lazy ones can go. Talk about "nit-picking", the crimes are overwhelming and proof that your 'ideas' are full of nauseous-inducing fumes. If one has a nefarious Agenda, one will say anything to further it, eh Bubs? Why don't you guys 'channel' your hero Bob Marley, now dead and gone to the maggots. His body riddled with cancer and his mind gone to the nether regions. A lifetime wasted smoking the ganja weed and muttering insane thoughts culled from Rasta.

September 14, 2010 at 12:25 p.m.
whatever said...

Go check, all the facts are there, including clues where you lazy ones can go. Talk about "nit-picking", the crimes are overwhelming and proof that your 'ideas' are full of nauseous-inducing fumes.

I'm sorry, but in a nation of 300 million people, I'm not overwhelmed by your examples.

Give us a comparative rate. Or be like that woman who was complaining about suicide rates among a certain group, screaming fervently that she had the proof for all of them...while overlooking that by simple math, the suicide rate was considerably lower than the population as a whole.

If one has a nefarious Agenda, one will say anything to further it, eh Bubs?

Aren't you?

Why don't you guys 'channel' your hero Bob Marley, now dead and gone to the maggots. His body riddled with cancer and his mind gone to the nether regions. A lifetime wasted smoking the ganja weed and muttering insane thoughts culled from Rasta.

Yes, I think you are. Really, this kind of language says more about you than about anybody else.

September 14, 2010 at 12:30 p.m.

This study conducted in New Zealand includes pages of impeccable sources, footnotes, dozens of names of Researchers and University/College support and references, as well as noting that New Zealanders provide a large component of MJ users compared to other countries. Must be all those contented Kiwis living in 'Paradise'. I have happy, non-smoking, non-MJ using friends there who don't need a crutch to 'feel high'. Funny how that works.

Cannabis use and risk of lung cancer: a case–control study on behalf of the Cannabis and Respiratory Disease Research Group + Author Affiliations

1Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, 3Wellington School of Medicine & Health Sciences, Wellington, 2Hugh Adam Cancer Epidemiology Unit, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand, 4Imperial College London, London, and 5University of Southampton, Southampton, UK. R. Beasley, Medical Research Institute of New Zealand

The aim of the present study was to determine the risk of lung cancer associated with cannabis smoking. A case–control study of lung cancer in adults 55 yrs of age was conducted in eight district health boards in New Zealand. Cases were identified from the New Zealand Cancer Registry and hospital databases. Controls were randomly selected from the electoral roll, with frequency matching to cases in 5-yr age groups and district health boards. Interviewer-administered questionnaires were used to assess possible risk factors, including cannabis use. The relative risk of lung cancer associated with cannabis smoking was estimated by logistic regression.

In total, 79 cases of lung cancer and 324 controls were included in the study. The risk of lung cancer increased 8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 2–15) for each joint-yr of cannabis smoking, after adjustment for confounding variables including cigarette smoking, and 7% (95% CI 5–9) for each pack-yr of cigarette smoking, after adjustment for confounding variables including cannabis smoking. The highest tertile of cannabis use was associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (relative risk 5.7 (95% CI 1.5–21.6)), after adjustment for confounding variables including cigarette smoking.

In conclusion, the results of the present study indicate that long-term cannabis use increases the risk of lung cancer in young adults.

September 14, 2010 at 12:57 p.m.

Cannabis smoking may have a greater potential than tobacco smoking to cause lung cancer 1–4. Cannabis smoke is qualitatively similar to tobacco smoke, although it contains up to twice the concentration of the carcinogenic polyaromatic hydrocarbons 1. Cannabis cigarettes are less densely packed than tobacco cigarettes, and tend to be smoked without filters 2 to a smaller butt size 3, leading to higher concentrations of smoke inhaled.

Furthermore, smokers of cannabis inhale more deeply and hold their breath for longer 4, facilitating the deposition of the carcinogenic products in the lower respiratory tract. These factors are likely to be responsible for the five-fold greater absorption of carbon monoxide from a cannabis joint, compared with a tobacco cigarette of similar size despite similar carbon monoxide concentrations in the smoke inhaled 4. Several studies have demonstrated pre-cancerous histological 5, 6 and molecular 7 abnormalities in the respiratory tracts of cannabis smokers, and the carcinogenic effects of cannabis smoke have been demonstrated in vitro 8 and in different in vivo animal models 1, 9, 10. Conversely, there is also evidence that delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol may have anti-carcinogenic effects 11–13.

New Zealand represents an ideal country in which to study the association between cannabis and respiratory tract cancer. New Zealand has a high rate of cannabis use and cannabis is rarely mixed with tobacco within the joint as is the custom in the UK. New Zealand has among the highest rates of lung cancer worldwide with the indigenous Maori population having the highest incidence of any ethnic group. These circumstances provided the opportunity to undertake a case–control study to investigate the association between lung cancer and cannabis use in young people...[many more pages]

[there are many, many studies out there, including 60 years of DNA/fertility sample research from long-term MJ users. Obviously, those such as the earlier 2006 Boyles study denouncing as myth the facts surrounding MJ use and medical problems as posited by other research scientists are going to be thrown about loosely by the Left-tokers. The interesting fact is there is little study being done on MJ's herbal effects if administered as a tea or by IV to a terminal patient-which is probably the best, controlled way to deal with its use. Why? Because, like alcohol and the non-use of seatbelts, until they were regulated somewhat, there were alot more senseless deaths of young people and babies. Don't care about those 'minute' details? Then you're cold as ice. There are herbs on this earth with incredible medicinal properties. That doesn't mean it's okay to misuse or abuse them. It's not only stupid, it's dangerous in many cases]

September 14, 2010 at 1 p.m.
FM_33 said...

Stoned is the way of the walk.

September 14, 2010 at 1:08 p.m.
FM_33 said...

Smoke it toke it and then choke the hell out on it !

September 14, 2010 at 1:10 p.m.
FM_33 said...

I heard from some medical journals that if you smoke weed before you get a booty call that it will give a man longer and harder erections during the sex act. A woman will have longer and stronger orgasm's during climax with less break's in between them.

September 14, 2010 at 1:15 p.m.

whatever, whatever. Your sole purpose to troll here seems to be to show off your Leftist mindspeak. And to demand links and facts. When you get them, you squeak like a rat.

Don't like my truthful language? Tough cookies and I don't mean the soft, cowardly ones the Stoners eat.

Just for you, here's some more data/facts from harvard.edu:

WHAT ARE THE MEDICAL DANGERS OF MARIJUANA USE?

I must preface these statements with the remark that there is still a great deal of research to be done concerning the effects of marijuana on the health of humans due to the fact that widespread marijuana use has only become prevalent in this country within the last three decades, so the effects of long-term use are just beginning to become apparent. I should also add that in making these observations, I have concentrated on the risks of smoking natural marijuana, since it is the most effective method of ingesting its active cannabinoids...

...Nonetheless, it would be fallacious to conclude that because the chemicals in marijuana have been found to present fewer dangers than some very harmful substances, the medical or recreational use of marijuana is perfectly safe. In a recreational context, marijuana has been shown to affect health, brain function, and memory. And in a medical context, marijuana is like any other powerful prescription drug: it has potentially dangerous side effects, and the decision to use it to treat patients must involve the same balancing test as the one required for chemotherapy or AZT: do the therapeutic effects of the drug outweigh its harmful effects?

Though there are many more studies to be done on this issue, current data shows that the answer to this question may not always be "yes."

EFFECTS OF HABITUAL MARIJUANA USE ON THE IMMUNE SYSTEM The most potent argument against the use of marijuana to treat medical disorders is that marijuana may cause the acceleration or aggravation of the very disorders it is being used to treat.

Smoking marijuana regularly (a joint a day) can damage the cells in the bronchial passages which protect the body against inhaled microorganisms and decrease the ability of the immune cells in the lungs to fight off fungi, bacteria, and tumor cells. For patients with already weakened immune systems, this means an increase in the possibility of dangerous pulmonary infections, including pneumonia, which often proves fatal in AIDS patients.

September 14, 2010 at 1:16 p.m.

Studies further suggest that marijuana is a general "immunosuppressant" whose degenerative influence extends beyond the respiratory system. Regular smoking has been shown to materially affect the overall ability of the smokers body to defend itself against infection by weakening various natural immune mechanisms, including macrophages (a.k.a. "killer cells") and the all-important T-cells. Obviously, this suggests the conclusion, which is well-supported by scientific studies, that the use of marijuana as a medical therapy can and does have a very serious negative effect on patients with pre-existing immune deficits resulting from AIDS, organ transplantation, or cancer chemotherapy, the very conditions for which marijuana has most often been touted and suggested as a treatment.

It has also been shown that marijuana use can accelerate the progression of HIV to full-blown AIDS and increase the occurrence of infections and Kaposis sarcoma. In addition, patients with weak immune systems will be even less able to defend themselves against the various respiratory cancers and conditions to which consistent marijuana use has been linked, and which are discussed briefly under "Respiratory Illnesses."

In conclusion, it seems that the potential dangers presented by the medical use of marijuana may actually contribute to the dangers of the diseases which it would be used to combat. Therefore, I suggest that marijuana should not be permitted as a therapy, at least until a good deal more conclusive research has been completed concerning its debilitating effect on the immune system.

September 14, 2010 at 1:18 p.m.

RESPIRATORY ILLNESSES The main respiratory consequences of smoking marijuana regularly (one joint a day) are pulmonary infections and respiratory cancer, whose connection to marijuana use has been strongly suggested but not conclusively proven. The effects also include chronic bronchitis, impairment in the function of the smaller air passages, inflammation of the lung, the development of potentially pre-cancerous abnormalities in the bronchial lining and lungs, and, as discussed, a reduction in the capabilities of many defensive mechanisms within the lungs.

Marijuana smoke and cigarette smoke contain many of the same toxins, including one which has been identified as a key factor in the promotion of lung cancer. This toxin is found in the tar phase of both, and it should be noted that one joint has four times more tar than a cigarette, which means that the lungs are exposed four-fold to this toxin and others in the tar. It has been concretely established that smoking cigarettes promotes lung cancer (which causes more than 125,000 deaths in the US every year), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (chronic bronchitis and emphysema) and increased incidence of respiratory tract infections.

This implies, but does not establish, that smoking marijuana may lead to some of the same results as smoking cigarettes. It is notable that several reports indicate an unexpectedly large proportion of marijuana users among cases of lung cancer and cancers of the oral cavity, pharynx, and larynx. Thus, it appears that the use of marijuana as a medicine has the potential to further harm an already ill patient in the same way that taking up regular cigarette smoking would, particularly in light of the fact that those patients for whom marijuana is recommended are already poorly equipped to fight off these infections and diseases.

September 14, 2010 at 1:19 p.m.

MENTAL HEALTH, BRAIN FUNCTION, AND MEMORY It has been suggested that marijuana is at the root of many mental disorders, including acute toxic psychosis, panic attacks (one of the very conditions it is being used experimentally to treat), flashbacks, delusions, depersonalization, hallucinations, paranoia, depression, and uncontrollable aggressiveness. Marijuana has long been known to trigger attacks of mental illness, such as bipolar (manic-depressive) psychosis and schizophrenia. This connection with mental illness should make health care providers for terminally ill patients and the patients themselves, who may already be suffering from some form of clinical depression, weigh very carefully the pros and cons of adopting a therapeutic course of marijuana.

In the short term, marijuana use impairs perception, judgment, thinking, memory, and learning; memory defects may persist six weeks after last use. Mental disorders connected with marijuana use merit their own category in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) IV, published by the American Psychiatric Association. These include Cannabis Intoxication (consisting of impaired motor coordination, anxiety, impaired judgment, sensation of slowed time, social withdrawal, and often includes perceptual disturbances; Cannabis Intoxication Delirium (memory deficit, disorientation); Cannabis Induced Psychotic Disorder, Delusions; Cannabis Induced Psychotic Disorder, Hallucinations; and Cannabis Induced Anxiety Disorder.

In addition, marijuana use has many indirect effects on health. Its effect on coordination, perception, and judgment means that it causes a number of accidents, vehicular and otherwise.

The Australian Drug Foundations website http://marijuananews.com/a_safe_ high_.htm, a reprint of New Science magazines "Marijuana Special Report: A Safe High?" with commentary http://marijuananews.com/claim_four.htm, an article about the similarity of long-term marijuana uses effect on the brain to that of "hard" drugs, with commentary www.drugs.indiana.edu/publications/ip..., for general information on the health risks of marijuana. http://www.health.org, the homepage of the National Clearinghouse on Alcohol and Drug Information, for general information on marijuana.

September 14, 2010 at 1:21 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

I'm not sure I get your point canary, even after that volume. Are you saying we should make tobacco and alcohol illegal? You mentioned so many cases of marijuana and alcohol together, or marijuana and existing psychopathology. Or marijuana and cigarette smoke. What exactly are you trying to say?

September 14, 2010 at 1:41 p.m.
whatever said...

whatever, whatever. Your sole purpose to troll here seems to be to show off your Leftist mindspeak. And to demand links and facts. When you get them, you squeak like a rat.

Don't like my truthful language? Tough cookies and I don't mean the soft, cowardly ones the Stoners eat.

No, I don't like your hostile, abusive language, and wish you would avoid it. Do you not realize that you are not convincing anybody with that, that you are instead convincing them not to listen to you?

That, and I'd like you to respect other people's copyright and to post actual links, not just mass copy/paste scrawls. I'd really like you to share your own ideas, and not try to drown the rest of us out with paragraph after paragraph, but we'll get to that.

Just for you, here's some more data/facts from harvard.edu:

Harvard.edu. Gee, that must mean it's great. Wait no, you're quoting from a random page on their webspace, which isn't from them, but rather a student's papers.

Or did you not realize what you were using? Give a direct link, it's just a good habit.

And in fact, if you go back a bit, you can find that the same webspace you quoted has positions on both sides.

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/evidence99/marijuana/Health_Concerns.html

But really, transparent appeals to false authority? Don't do it. You just buried your own credibility here.

September 14, 2010 at 2:03 p.m.
memphisexile said...

O.k. Canary, I think we can all agree that marijuana is not "good" for you. Neither are a lot of other things like tobacco, alcohol, red meat, cheetos, etc. The point is that our country wastes billions of dollars a year on a war a can't win, when it could tax behavior people engage in regardless of laws and regardless of any moral judgements you have.

Also, we get your point. Please stop spamming.

September 14, 2010 at 2:04 p.m.
whatever said...

I'm not sure I get your point canary, even after that volume. Are you saying we should make tobacco and alcohol illegal? You mentioned so many cases of marijuana and alcohol together, or marijuana and existing psychopathology. Or marijuana and cigarette smoke. What exactly are you trying to say?

And that's another problem with the massive copy/pasting, your own positions get drowned out.

Quantity does not trump quality.

September 14, 2010 at 2:05 p.m.
alprova said...

Where are the LINKS to those stories Canary?

You love to cut and paste, but you never CITE your sources of information.

You probably lifted them from fluff sites.

September 14, 2010 at 2:20 p.m.
mtngrl said...

Experts Rate Problem Substances Dr. Jack E. Henningfield of the National Institute on Drug Abuse and Dr. Neal L. Benowitz of the University of California at San Francisco ranked six substances based on five problem areas. Withdrawal: Presence and severity of characteristic withdrawal symptoms. Reinforcement: A measure of the substance's ability, in human and animal tests, to get users to take it again and again, and in preference to other substances. Tolerance: How much of the substance is needed to satisfy increasing cravings for it, and the level of stable need that is eventually reached. Dependence: How difficult it is for the user to quit, the relapse rate, the percentage of people who eventually become dependent, the rating users give their own need for the substance and the degree to which the substance will be used in the face of evidence that it causes harm. Intoxication: Though not usually counted as a measure of addiction in itself, the level of intoxication is associated with addiction and increases the personal and socIal damage a substance may do.

1 = Most serious 6 = Least serious

HENNINGFIELD RATINGS

Substance Withdrawal Reinforcemt Tolerance Dependnce Intoxictn

Nicotine 3 4 2 1 5 Heroin 2 2 1 2 2 Cocaine 4 1 4 3 3 Alcohol 1 3 3 4 1 Caffeine 5 6 5 5 6 Marijuana 6 5 6 6 4

BENOWITZ RATINGS

Substance Withdrawal Reinforcemt Tolerance Dependnce Intoxictn

Nicotine 3 4 4 1 6 Heroin 2 2 2 2 2 Cocaine 3 1 1 3 3 Alcohol 1 3 4 4 1 Caffeine 4 5 3 5 5 Marijuana 5 6 5 6 4

*equal ratings

column spacing is messed up for posting here. This is the full report that was taken from: http://www.tfy.drugsense.org/tfy/addictvn.htm

September 14, 2010 at 2:21 p.m.
alprova said...

Further review of Canary's stories lacks any identification of the alleged victims or perpetrators so that they can be confirmed. Most were obviously not screened, for they also include ALCOHOL as a factor.

Where do you get your stuff Canary?

CITE the SOURCES with LINKS.

But you're not going to do that, are you?

Because you lifted them from totally questionable sites, didn't you?

You're pathetic.

September 14, 2010 at 2:27 p.m.
whatever said...

You probably lifted them from fluff sites.

But, but harvard.edu...oh wait, that was some class page.

Look at these others:

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/evidence99/

Existential deep-sea diving sounds interesting.

column spacing is messed up for posting here. This is the full report that was taken from: http://www.tfy.drugsense.org/tfy/addictv...

Thanks for posting the link though!

September 14, 2010 at 2:27 p.m.
mtngrl said...

Annual Causes of Death in the United States: Tobacco 435,000 Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity 365,000 Alcohol 85,000
Microbial Agents 75,000 Toxic Agents 55,000 Motor Vehicle Crashes 26,347 Adverse Reactions to Prescription Drugs 32,000 Suicide 30,622 Incidents Involving Firearms 29,000 Homicide 20,308 Sexual Behaviors 20,000 All Illicit Drug Use, Direct and Indirect 17,000 Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Such As Aspirin 7,600 Marijuana 0

source: http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30 (and they quote thier own sources throughout)

September 14, 2010 at 2:39 p.m.
whatever said...

And here's a link...be careful if you have allergies and go to a certain school in Texas:

http://healthland.time.com/2010/09/14/whos-high-a-school-suspends-a-student-for-bloodshot-eyes/?hpt=T2

Or you know, you're still upset from crying over your father's recent death.

September 14, 2010 at 2:39 p.m.
woody said...

Alprova..let me add my sincere sympathies to you, as well. Losing family members to an impaired driver can never be understood because there was no sense to it.

I know because I lost a good friend to an impaired driver who had done nothing but act as a "designated driver" for someone else. Me.

Still, your assertions ring hollow.. and if you are serious about never having read a story pertaining to drivers impaired by "weed" then you are certainly not as well-read as I had thought.

To make a looooong post a bit shorter, let me just say this. We are not going to solve this controversy here, nor in any postings I could possibly foresee.

Suffice it to say you are a bit more 'human' to me today than you may have seemed before, but I must leave you with the same question I posed to you earlier.

Which part of "under the influence" do you not understand?

A fan, none-the-less, Woody

September 14, 2010 at 2:47 p.m.
whatever said...

We are not going to solve this controversy here, nor in any postings I could possibly foresee.

Well that's a way to give up hope! We could be one post away from total world peace and you'd never know it!

September 14, 2010 at 2:50 p.m.
sandyonsignal said...

Canary, I don't know where you are finding these Orwellian facts you claim, but I do know you are wrong. Medical marijuana has helped cancer patients with pain and hunger issues. Plus it can be inhaled for those suffering with constant nausea and pain.
It is also helpful for those with glaucoma and those with AIDS.

Years ago, when I was a freshman in college, I had terrible cramps. My roommate told me to puff a joint, she was a pre-med, biology major, it alleviated the pain right away. It worked far better than Midol.

It has been decades since I have smoked pot, but I believe it should be legal. We have far too many folks incarcerated for this non-violent crime. Medical problems from alcohol seem worse than marijuana. Also, it is never okay to drive impaired from any thing whether it be alcohol, marijuana, prescription medication or any cognitive disabilities.

Making pot legal would help ensure safe products are available for those over 21 to enjoy. We haven't been successful in stopping it, there isn't any compelling reason to stop it, so why not legalize it?

September 14, 2010 at 2:51 p.m.
Oz said...

We've demonized cigarette smoking and now we want to legalize pot. Both are bad for the lungs.

Brownies only.

September 14, 2010 at 3:06 p.m.
mtngrl said...

Oz has a good point...

Maybe the toon caption should read "My advice - buy Duncan Hines"

September 14, 2010 at 3:11 p.m.
alprova said...

Canary's source for much of his cut and paste diatribe, absent of identifying information, comes from a site named "Citizens Against Legalizing Marijuana."

http://www.calmca.org/crime/

I'm going to debunk a two of Canary's lifted stories with the facts. I think you'll get the picture of what's going on.

"16 year old Teen Dies after Rolling Car off Cliff – Marijuana in System."

The girl's name was Ruxana Memarzadeh. The accident happened near San Diego, California on June 6, 2004. The Sheriff's Dept. had concluded that "inexperience and panic contributed to the accident." The article goes on to offer, "Ruxana couldn't get the car into reverse."

"Somehow the car, which had a complex gearshift pattern, was put into drive. The car kept rolling forward. She started to panic. One of the other teens tried to help by wrestling with the gearshift. When it became apparent the car was going to roll off the edge, everyone but Ruxana jumped from the car."

Toxicology reports came back with a report that "traces of marijuana had been found in her system."

Note the change in the title of the article as it appeared in 2004 to what the site changed it to at the top.

"Traces of pot found in teen victim."

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040702/news_1mi2pot.html


"Woman Kills Self and 7 others While High on Marijuana"

Everyone should remember that one. It was the tragedy of Diane Shuler, the woman who went the wrong way on the Taconic State Parkway, hitting cars head-on.

The toxicology report found that she had imbibed at least 10 drinks of Vodka, had a blood alcohol content of .19, more than double the legal limit, and was also "impaired by marijuana." It was not clear exactly how much or when Schuler smoked marijuana -- the toxicology reported "high" levels of THC, the active ingredient in pot.

The original title of the article?

"Diane Schuler, Wrong-Way Highway Driver Who Killed 8 Had 10 Drinks, Was High"

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=8249454&page=1

September 14, 2010 at 3:15 p.m.
alprova said...

FM_33 wrote: "I heard from some medical journals that if you smoke weed before you get a booty call that it will give a man longer and harder erections during the sex act."


Not that I care to steer the conversation in that direction, that is indeed a fact, and I can testify to that as well, so help me God.

September 14, 2010 at 3:28 p.m.
harrystatel said...

People die from electric shocks-Outlaw electricity. Car falls on man while changing tires-outlaw cars. Too tight underwear makes sperm less active-Outlaw underwear. Newspaper on highway lands on windshield causing accident -outlaw newspapers.

Man wearing socks slips and falls on floor-outlaw socks. High heels cause foot problems-outlaw high heels. Child chokes on golf ball-outlaw golf balls.

Canary chokes on boiled egg-outlaw boi. . .wait a minute. See, there's some good in everything.

That's one thing about the so-called conservatives I can't stand. Their high-minded, psuedo-sense of morality, most often heavily dosed by dogmatic religious bunkum.

Then there's the "liberals". We know what's best for you because the "people" say it's best for you. And we'll take your money away for "our" greater good.

I'm tired of all of them. Conservatives in my bedroom and body, and liberals in my business and wallet.

But here's one thing I can promise. If I'm on a jury where someone has been arrested for possession or growing pot, and no violence has occurred, I'll use my right of jury nullification to block your conviction.

I don't care what any DA, lawyer, or Judge says. I'll vote against any penalties or any conviction.

Harry Statel http://harrystatel.wordpress.com

September 14, 2010 at 3:29 p.m.
mtngrl said...

FM_33 also wrote: "A woman will have longer and stronger orgasm's during climax with less break's in between them."


and I can testify to that :)

September 14, 2010 at 3:32 p.m.
alprova said...

whatever wrote: "But really, transparent appeals to false authority? Don't do it. You just buried your own credibility here."


Canary squandered his/her credibility a long time ago.

He/She doesn't even look at what he/she cuts and pastes half the time, but he/she will claim all day long to be an expert researcher, and completely fair and impartial.

It takes very little to debunk his/her offerings, and he/she will NEVER, and I do mean NEVER, back away from a thing he/she posts, no matter what.

September 14, 2010 at 3:37 p.m.
alprova said...

whatever wrote: "Or you know, you're still upset from crying over your father's recent death."


I read that a few days ago and my mouth hit the floor. I cannot for the life of me figure out what the heck is wrong with those who are in charge of schools these days.

That one was about as bad as it gets.

September 14, 2010 at 3:45 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

"It takes very little to debunk his/her offerings, and he/she will NEVER, and I do mean NEVER, back away from a thing he/she posts, no matter what."

I can certainly attest to that-took a better part of a day to respond to 7 or 8 long posts about evolution. Never once acknowledged, corrected or retracted. I was called every insult in the book. I have to assume it is true about every topic canary posts on.

September 14, 2010 at 3:59 p.m.
alprova said...

Woody wrote: "Still, your assertions ring hollow.. and if you are serious about never having read a story pertaining to drivers impaired by "weed" then you are certainly not as well-read as I had thought."


Look...I never said that people have not been arrested for driving high. Paraphernalia, accompanied by a prosecutable amount of marijuana on their person or in the car will always be involved in those cases and as supporting evidence of the use of pot.

As Canary so deftly pointed out, inadvertently, alcohol use is involved in and the compelling factor probably 95% of the time when impairment is involved in crashes.

No court in this land, that I am aware of, has ever convicted a soul for being high JUST on Marijuana, or for taking the life of another in a crash BECAUSE they were ONLY high on Pot.

There isn't a toxicology test on the planet that can definitely prove the last time that someone smoked dope, or how much they smoked. All that can be done is to measure THC levels, which again, doesn't prove very much at all. It can prove regular use or it can also prove recent use. Testing of one's hair can prove use over an extended period of time, but again cannot prove recent use.


"To make a looooong post a bit shorter, let me just say this. We are not going to solve this controversy here, nor in any postings I could possibly foresee."


You're quite correct. I have no problem at all in agreeing to disagree.


"Suffice it to say you are a bit more 'human' to me today than you may have seemed before, but I must leave you with the same question I posed to you earlier.

Which part of "under the influence" do you not understand?"


I've answered that already Woody. I don't advocate getting high and driving. People who choose to do so, should face the same penalties as those who drink and drive, if it's possible to produce the evidence needed to convict.

I'm sure that someday, technology will come to pass that will be as reliable as meters that now measure breath alcohol levels. Testing is being done as we speak on several inventions that claim to do so. Saliva meters seems to be the most promising technology so far.

As it stands today, those high ONLY on pot will pass a standard roadside coordination test every time. It's why people are not convicted for driving high in the absence of supporting evidence.

September 14, 2010 at 4:27 p.m.

Dear sandygirl. The smoke has really got to your brain. You can still read? Harvard U, ScienceDaily, were clearly referenced. Others included prestigious univerities and studies worldwide. You and the other PP's (progs patheticos) here got sideswiped with data from your own Left-Lib institutions. If lefty Scientists are truthfully reporting on this issue, along with myriad crime stats, imagine what the conservatives you hate so much are saying and printing on MJ?

Your blatant and willful ignorance and concrete-headed denial trip you up every time bubs and bubettes. You fear Truth, plain and simple. Keep smoking, it looks good on ya'll.

September 14, 2010 at 4:33 p.m.
rolando said...

Clay -- That one is MOST excellent. The advice isn't bad either.

Having lived in SoCal the first twenty years of my life, I learned one can never overestimate the stupidity of the legislature out there.

Thank God for the Initiative Process to keep them under control.

September 14, 2010 at 5:04 p.m.
alprova said...

Canary whined: "Your blatant and willful ignorance and concrete-headed denial trip you up every time bubs and bubettes. You fear Truth, plain and simple. Keep smoking, it looks good on ya'll."


I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but in my opinion, no matter what I do, I'll always look better than you.

I do have a question, though...

If it's remotely possible that I burned a few brain cells by toking a joint in the past, and it's a reasonable assumption that you have never smoked any dope...

How the heck do you explain your borderline insanity and your deep, deep, deeeeeeeeeeeeeeep, personality disorder?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGh-fxsMikk

Skip to 3:34 for a personal message from Robin Williams that would be considered improper to post here in print. My apologies if the message does not apply to you, but then, you've never been inclined to clear up any question regarding which gender class that you fall into, so it's hardly my fault.

Addio uno genderless...si è così tanto divertimento a calci in giro.

September 14, 2010 at 5:08 p.m.
whatever said...

Dear sandygirl. The smoke has really got to your brain. You can still read? Harvard U, ScienceDaily, were clearly referenced.

You do realize your reference to Harvard was to a classroom essay on the university's webspace, right? Right?

Or is it too dark in the coal mine to read?

September 14, 2010 at 5:18 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

Pass the FudgeRounds please!

Wait, what were we talking about?

September 14, 2010 at 5:37 p.m.
mtngrl said...

I think it would do Canary wonders to partake of a good skunky joint, and sit back and chill to a little Bob Marley.

September 14, 2010 at 5:43 p.m.
WarrenP said...

So wanted to look into some of Canarys stuff.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSHKG10478820080129 - This is the study he was referring to that happened in New Zealand with a study of 79 people where they found 1 joint is equivalent to 20 cigarettes

But yeah, when looking at a place that I consider more reliable and that cites its sources(wikipedia) you find other information.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060526083353.htm http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729_pf.html - Like these links. In LA they looked at 2,252 people and they failed to find any correlation between marijuana and lung, head or neck cancers. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2812803/?tool=pmcentrez - Here is a study (I can't begin to pretend I understand anything in here) but the conclusion says "Our study suggests that moderate marijuana use is associated with reduced risk of HNSCC"(Head and Neck Cancer) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312132,00.html - Here's one from a source I'm sure canary is used to seeing where it say they found a compound in cannabis that may stop breast cancer from spreading throughout the body

September 14, 2010 at 7:47 p.m.
moonpie said...

alprova, that is terrible about your wife and child. I can't imagine the wound that would cause.

canary, anectodotal evidence is the very weakest form. It's led to theories of rabbit breeding patterns as predictors of the economy.

I'm not saying we should ignore anecdote but we should be wary.

The bottom line for me is whether you can reliably test for acute intoxication in pot users.

September 14, 2010 at 8:14 p.m.
Oz said...

Memories.....A set of headphones, Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon, a bag of Ruffles Potato Chips, some Little Debbie Swiss Cake Rolls, and a 2 liter of Coke.

The paranoia would drive me off the deep end now.

September 14, 2010 at 8:36 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

mp wrote,

"The bottom line for me is whether you can reliably test for acute intoxication in pot users."

A very astute observation. This is a simple task with alcohol. Heavy pot users will show an elevated level of active chemicals in their blood even if they haven't used in days.

Is there a residual effect on the mental state of a pot user so long as they have even a trace of the active chemicals in the system? How would authorities determine whether a person is "acutely intoxicated"?

From personal experience I understand that I can tell when someone I know is mentally altered. They act different. I wouldn't likely notice if someone I do not know was acting out of character because of recent pot use. I'd likely just think they were a bit slow if not full on moron as in Dumb and Dumber.

September 14, 2010 at 8:54 p.m.
rolando said...

A wee bit of Glenfiddich [neat] with the bottle close at hand, a Bose system [or a Klipschorn setup if you have the room], some Boss [with E-St] thumping out, feet up before a fire and a woman in your arms. THAT is as close to heaven as a man can get...munchies be damned. Glory days.

September 14, 2010 at 9:06 p.m.
Oz said...

I'm with you Rolando but I had to settle for Fisher audio back in the old days. The speakers alone took up half the room and the ladies!!! It was fun.

Now I can relate to Toby Keith: I ain't as good as I once was but I'm as good once as I ever was.

September 14, 2010 at 9:36 p.m.
hambone said...

All I'm going to say is for those that think there is nothing wrong with smoking pot for years should meet my ex brother in law!!

September 14, 2010 at 9:59 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

hambone,

Is it possible that your BIL was not so sharp to begin with?

He did use drugs for years, and I'm not sure that would be considered a sharp thing to do.

Just a thought.

September 14, 2010 at 10:25 p.m.
alprova said...

As with most things in life, the key is moderation, at all times.

Now I don't know this for sure, but I would imagine that you could take one item from a list of the healthiest of health foods, and eat it day in and day out, eating nothing else, and that would mess you up in some way too.

Life is about balance.

For some reason, God put the plant on Earth for a purpose. Those of us who have indeed partaken of it, understand it's purpose. Marijuana can indeed help assist people in finding that balance.

But ya' still gotta eat your veggies!!

September 14, 2010 at 11 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Ahh, rolando, we share a passion for good single malt scotch. However, being a woman, I'll pass on the rest. :)

September 14, 2010 at 11:16 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

I just spent the last half hour skimming through the comments and here are some random observations:

alprova: deepest sincere sympathy for your loss.

canary: You're a buzz kill. You think you know, but you don't. And you never will.

mtngrl: 20,000 people die every year from sex? LMAO!

September 14, 2010 at 11:29 p.m.
alprova said...

Thanks everyone who has offered their condolences for the deaths of my wife and son.

I brought it up today in passing reference to the fact that we all know that alcohol is very much a factor involved when people are involved in deadly crashes.

On a related note to today's subject, I didn't turn to alcohol to ease my pain back then, and never have cared for alcohol, but I sure smoked quite a few pipes full of the stuff to check out from reality on a regular basis for a few years afterward.

I wouldn't wish that kind of pain on my worst enemy. Death is the cruelest part of life, no matter how people are taken from you.

September 15, 2010 at 12:20 a.m.
JohnnyRingo said...

Watch what you wish for, California.

Legalization means government taxes, regulation, and limited distribution. Prices are likely to rise significantly, and potency will be restricted to protect the lowest common denominator.

Better is a strategy of decriminalization, one that circumvents jail cells for offenders, but allows for free market development and marketing.

But hey, I'm just an old hippie, so what do I know?

September 15, 2010 at 5:13 a.m.
JohnnyRingo said...

BTW... Those who think legalization of pot will free up law enforcement to "fight real crimes" don't remember the legions of revenours, who's sole purpose was busting up stills to prevent the untaxed sale of alcohol.

The state will have to seek out and destroy backyard cultivators to protect their tax revenue.

September 15, 2010 at 5:26 a.m.
woody said...

Sorry Rolando..the best I could come up with is a 16 yr. old Glenlivet. But I'll save a sip for you after I celebrate my own 62nd.

As they say.."It's 5 O'clock somewhere...

Pass the cake, Woody

September 15, 2010 at 6:03 a.m.
rolando said...

Sorry, lkeith. I apologize for bypassing the ladies.

Simply changing the word "woman" to "man" or "chosen other" just wouldn't do it either.

A re-write is in order. But first I would say, in my own defense, that scotch is seldom - in my experience - a lady's first choice. [My wife much prefers Gentleman Jack neat.]

So -- to the re-write, remembering [so well] my better half's preferences:

...music of choice somewhere, on a luxurious fur rug before a crackling fire somewhere, a loved one with a fur mitt, lowered lights [if any], a few well-placed candles [never enough of those], the kiddies off somewhere for the night.

THOSE were -- no, scratch that; make it - ARE indeed the Glory Days...

Oh yes...it makes no difference whether one is the rub-er or the rub-ee. Life is good.

Even then, a white sand beach, a beach chair, a wee dram, a favored companion, the sound of the surf, and a sunset has done it.

September 15, 2010 at 8:23 a.m.
rolando said...

Oz, you have it exactly right, as you so often do. Made me chuckle. Thanx.

September 15, 2010 at 8:24 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Now you're talking, rolando! Sure do miss the beach living here in TN!

September 15, 2010 at 10:02 a.m.

warren: "So wanted to look into some of Canarys stuff.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSHKG10... - This is the study he was referring to that happened in New Zealand with a study of 79 people where they found 1 joint is equivalent to 20 cigarettes

But yeah, when looking at a place that I consider more reliable and that cites its sources(wikipedia) you find other information".

wikipedia and foxnews?! you're a doped up nit-picker. Hate to dispel your stereotypes but foxnews and wiki are not the best sources and not what the research employed. You, like the other dopers forgot to read ALL of the rest of the above posted. It includes references to other studies and quite a few I posted also mentioned the cancer/MJ studies and that part they were not disputing. I also mentioned above the uses of MJ I, personally agreed with, but hey, don't let facts get in your way when disseminating false info.

That (cancer) is not what the research scientists (including the one on science daily) were talking about. A Harvard study and research fellow was also quoted above-is that too "anecdotal" for you geniuses? I rest my case, if your agenda is breaking the law, circumventing the law, acting immorally, speaking lies and doing drugs; you will not read the other studies showing problem issues with MJ and other drugs, you will continue to deny the truth AND you will continue to trash everyone and anyone who calls you on your bull-tootin drivellings.

September 15, 2010 at 10:30 a.m.
mtngrl said...

The agenda is not breaking or circumventing the law, the agenda is changing the law. Thats what prop 19 in the toon is about.

Even if all your posts were totally correct, what reason is there to have pot illegal while alchohol and tobacco are legal? There are many worse substances than weed that are legal

September 15, 2010 at 11:32 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Where in any posts were we advocating breaking the law, canary? Secular law, that is-it seems that all of these things are "illegal" according to your religious tradition.

September 15, 2010 at 12:16 p.m.
whatever said...

A Harvard study and research fellow was also quoted above-is that too "anecdotal" for you geniuses?

Um, you mean that Harvard CLASSROOM PAPER? Perhaps you meant some other one, but you still haven't admitted that one was nothing more than some student work.

September 15, 2010 at 12:19 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Wait: isn't Hahvahd a slimy pit of liberal/progressive evil?

September 15, 2010 at 12:47 p.m.
whatever said...

Not when they can dig up a random page and use the pedigree to piggyback into greatness.

Y'know, except when somebody sees that their emperor has no clothes.

September 15, 2010 at 1:07 p.m.
alprova said...

How nice of you to supply a link...finally. Too bad it's a dead one.

You're great at cutting and pasting full articles without attribution, but you can't cut and paste a link?

How many people do you think sorted through your ten posts up there to discover what it was you were attempting to bring into this discussion?

YOUR sources, every time you weigh in on anything, are never credible, never unbiased, and easily refuted with the truth and facts.

Maybe someday you'll learn how to discuss something, rather than to dump articles that you barely read into a half dozen posts, along with paragraphs of insults towards others that define you as one of the most miserable people on this planet.

Then again, you probably won't.

September 15, 2010 at 2:56 p.m.
whatever said...

C'mon have hope!

September 15, 2010 at 3:20 p.m.
Clara said...

That poor bird in the dark! I wonder if she'll ever find her way out of the pits.

Good Grief!

I'm feeling sorry for her. How condescending and patronizing of me.

Sorry!

September 15, 2010 at 3:28 p.m.
mtngrl said...

I'm still waiting on something that addresses the legality of the issue, not just "it's bad for you".

With all the bi-partisan support here, maybe we should get this on the Tennesse ballot too!

September 15, 2010 at 5:20 p.m.
whatever said...

Well, ok, here's one.

Apparently banning Alcohol nationwide took a Constitutional Amendment. Marijuana...not so much. Seems a bit off.

September 15, 2010 at 5:26 p.m.
moonpie said...

canary,

I don't think anyone is arguing that marijuana is healthy or safe in all its uses.

We permit the use of many products with abuse potential and potential for harm.

It's not that your arguments are without merit, but your arguments on this are really surprising to me, because they are for government controlling your life. You're sounding more and more like a socialist.

To bring this closer to home, I'd make the analogy that I think someone has to be impaired to drive a motorcycle. Sure they're fun. They give you a "high" but through no fault of a rider's own, he or she can be killed in an instant. With more bikes on the road, there are more deaths and a higher percentage of deaths per bike owned (multiple reasons for this), but I'm not going to argue to ban motorcycles because there are safety issues.

canary, I'm worried about you.... next thing you know you'll be wearing an Obama shirt.

As a matter of fact, I'm willing to nominate your line of the thought as "The Most Socialist Thought of the Day".

We'll count the votes for and against, later. It should be fun.

September 15, 2010 at 5:32 p.m.
WarrenP said...

Canary: "wikipedia and foxnews?!..."

Wikipedia cites it sources. I didn't once quote wikipedia but did something ingenious and looked at the actual source. I then posted links to those actual sources. It's wonderful what you can accomplish in this day and age! Foxnews was a stab at your obvious biased agenda and I was just assuming you were a fan, maybe I was wrong.

Canary: "A Harvard study and research fellow was also quoted above-is that too "anecdotal" for you geniuses?"

In fact, yes it is way too "anecdotal" for me, as a true genius(sarcasm) I'm gifted with the power of skepticism. For example when I try to research something I try and find information from places that don't have agendas. I don't blindly google "Dangers of Marijuana" http://www.google.com/search?q=DANGERS+OF+MARIJUANA and then copy and paste what comes up. Another gift of being a genius(continued sarcasm) is that I have the ability to tell the difference between a students personal site http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/evidence99/marijuana/Health_1.html and a real study. Here's a protip! See the evidence99 part of the url? That is the username of the student who put that on their site. Another clue about the credibility of this paper is the circa 1995 background and use of clipart.

Canary: "I also mentioned above the uses of MJ I, personally agreed with"

Did you? Is this is sarcasm? I looked over your posts and failed to see anything that you agreed with. Only your completely hate filled posts. Do you truely not see how ugly and immature you are being? Some select quotes...

"you're a doped up nit-picker" "You, like the other dopers" "Dear sandygirl. The smoke has really got to your brain. You can still read?" "Your blatant and willful ignorance and concrete-headed denial trip you up every time bubs and bubettes. You fear Truth, plain and simple. Keep smoking, it looks good on ya'll." "Why don't you guys 'channel' your hero Bob Marley, now dead and gone to the maggots. His body riddled with cancer and his mind gone to the nether regions. A lifetime wasted smoking the ganja weed and muttering insane thoughts culled from Rasta."

Canary: "That (cancer) is not what the research scientists (including the one on science daily) were talking about."

The link that I gave http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSHKG10478820080129 is to one of the many uncited sources that you pasted. It is talking about cancer, it is in the title. I did not give links or mention any of the other "studies/college freshmen paper" that you pasted. And seriously, I would question anybody who would try to argue against the harmful effects of inhaling the smoke from marijuana or for that matter inhaling smoke from any organic material. In case you are unaware there are other ways to consume it that are far safer. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=1853086 http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17821306 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16637053

September 15, 2010 at 7:07 p.m.
whatever said...

See the evidence99 part of the url? That is the username of the student who put that on their site.

Actually that's the class identifier I believe, not the username. Which is even worse, because it means you can go back a page and see there's an opposite position paper in the same folder.

September 15, 2010 at 7:10 p.m.
WarrenP said...

Actually that's the class identifier I believe, not the username

whatever! ;-) I guess even a genius is wrong every once in a while.

At least it gives them a better excuse for the wallpaper and clipart since this was Winter Evidence '99. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/evidence99/

September 15, 2010 at 7:26 p.m.
Oz said...

lkeithlu...I had my fun 35 years ago but I do agree with your statement about self medication.

I have mentioned being dyslexic before. It is a mild case, my biggest problem is ADHD. For me pot was a stepping stone to bigger and better things. I found the right drugs but they were the wrong dosage. I knocked on the door of addiction but by the grace of God was spared.

I was diagnosed with ADHD in my forties and placed on the proper medication. I wish I had known about the real problem 35 years ago.

September 15, 2010 at 9:10 p.m.
rolando said...

The proposed legislation won't go far. Pot is illegal; by federal law. [Controlled Substances Act]. The DEA and/or the FDA, as well as Congress, can add or remove substances from the List. Since DEAs funding depends on certain drugs being illegal, and the FDA has a dog in the fight, it is highly doubtful either will ever voluntarily change the List.

As for Congress, the way the TEA Party will soon have a say-so, it probably won't legalize it either.

If they don't, the Calif Prop 19 is dead.

September 16, 2010 at 5:37 a.m.
rolando said...

lkeith -- All those SoCal sunsets into the ocean I've watched and never once saw the "green flash"...

And yes, there are few things as peaceful as watching/listening to the surf.

The closest Tenn offers is a good rain/thunder/lightning storm after dark...very, very few of those in SoCal. Phoenix reportedly has the nation's finest.

September 16, 2010 at 5:43 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

I've seen the green flash, but only at sunrise over the Atlantic! Although I was born in LA, I moved while still an infant. Funny, going back to CA and seeing the pacific coast felt like coming home.

I do see some beautiful sunsets here in TN, especially in the fall. But they lack salt spray and the smell of fish. :)

September 16, 2010 at 9:20 a.m.
rolando said...

Amen, lkeith. [to coin a phrase. :O)

Couldn't say why, but the Atlantic surf is different somehow. Oh well, can't go home again.

I didn't know the flash was at sunrise, too. Stands to reason, though.

BTW, good civil discussion -- Thanx. We CAN do it!

September 17, 2010 at 6:44 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Ditto, rolando. Happy weekend!

September 17, 2010 at 6:06 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.