This Ought to Make the Libertarians Happy

[GarMan]

That took you a minute?

I picked my nose too, if it makes you feel any better.

Depends on what article you read. I read one that said 1 out of 6 people in prison were there for mj related crimes and 25% of those were for simple possession type deals. Take just that % and it is a monumental waste of money. Throw in the other stuff (trafficking, etc.) which would diminish to a large degree were it legalized and then it is colossally dumb.

I think that's a serious stretch.  I'd like to see some real stats on that, not these misunderstood or fabricated ones.  My biggest issue is with the trafficking and distribution channels.  Of course, that wouldn't be a problem if there wasn't a demand. 

We are now, and have been for a while the #1 country in the world afa % of the poulation in jail. We just passed the 1 % mark last year.. There was 1 out of 99 people incarcerated in jails /prisons last year. One huge reason is because we simply love putting people away for victimless/moral crimes.  Some people just love to thump their bibles.

Again, I'd like to see some stats on that.  And, this victimless/moral crimes argument is weak.  Perhaps, if you grow your own for personal consumption, it's victimless.  Oh, what's this?  Victimless crime?
http://www.11alive.com/rss/rss_story.aspx?storyid=127572

[AUChizad]

Again, I'd like to see some stats on that.  And, this victimless/moral crimes argument is weak.  Perhaps, if you grow your own for personal consumption, it's victimless.

Guess what? If it were legal, it would be 100% victimless. The 1930s Mob had plenty of victims as well.

Oh, what's this?  Victimless crime?
http://www.11alive.com/rss/rss_story.aspx?storyid=127572

Aside from the absurdity of using this as an example as if it is common for everyone who smokes pot to stuff a cat in their bong...are you with PETA now, by the way? How many endlessly more stupid things have been done when people were drunk? How many bar fights have resulted in serious violence? How many "Hey man watch this" type situations?

Again, I'm not condemning alcohol, but everything you have said so far to condemn marijuana can be said IN SPADES about alcohol. I know you are incapable of self-thought. If Sean Hannity says it, then by God, it's the Gospel.

Oh, and I'm the one in an ivory tower. 

[GarMan]

Guess what? If it were legal, it would be 100% victimless. The 1930s Mob had plenty of victims as well.

Oh yeah...  All of the problems would go away overnight.  You 26 year olds with all of your life-long experiences and worldly advice have all the fuckin' answers.   

Aside from the absurdity of using this as an example as if it is common for everyone who smokes pot to stuff a cat in their bong...are you with PETA now, by the way? How many endlessly more stupid things have been done when people were drunk? How many bar fights have resulted in serious violence? How many "Hey man watch this" type situations?

Get off your platform of ignorant superiority for just one fuckin' minute and have fun with the dumbass article.  It's just another dope smoking moron doing something stupid.  Do I care about anything in that article? NO!  But, at least he's not going to lose any multi-million dollar endorsements for this stupid stunt like that cocky twirp, Phelps.   

Again, I'm not condemning alcohol, but everything you have said so far to condemn marijuana can be said IN SPADES about alcohol. I know you are incapable of self-thought.

No, it can't...  You haven't posted one fuckin' reference to support you pathetic opinion.  Instead, you go trolling for "role models", and float the childish excuse of "if they did it, it must be safe" as sole support for your position.  You've limited your support structure to your immediate circle of influences and your "vast" 26 years of experiences.  You're the one incapable of any "self-thought".  You don't know enough about the topic to have any credibility on it, and you've ignored every attempt to bring science and stats into the discussion.  Do you really believe that your limited scope of influences qualifies you to be an "expert" on the matter?  Now, that's fucking arrogant!   

Here's an idea...  Go find a random sampling of 100 know-it-all, pot-smoking, 20-somethings.  Let's put them through some tests to measure their problem solving ability.  Let's keep track of them for a decade, and give them the same test.  Let's do it again after another decade.  Let's review the results and compare our findings with those of their non-pot-smoking peers.  With all of the science behind this, do you really think they'd be on par with each other?   :thumbsup:

If Sean Hannity says it, then by God, it's the Gospel. 

At least, Hannity would bring reference-able facts and stats to the discussion to support his position.  You've brought nothing to the table short of what's in your empty skull, and there really isn't much there...   

Oh, and I'm the one in an ivory tower.   

Why, yes...  Yes, you are!   :eyeroll:

By the way, how was the wedding yesterday?  Did you escort the bride down the aisle?  And, did you help him get dressed into his gown before the wedding? 

[tiger88]

Again, only the immediate short-sided view...  I think the current down-breeding trend of our American society really doesn't need anymore stimulation to accelerate our decline.  Public schools are a fucking joke.  Now, many of our universities are turning to shit, or at a minimum, they're churning out shit-for-brain kids who can't think or do anything without explicit directions and extensive babysitting.  The civil rights movement has adopted socialist and communist ideals pushing them for decades.  Now, we've got a President who seems to be a Marxist worshiper legislating wealth redistribution and a gross expansion of the federal government to rule over the peasants.  And, you guys want to legalize pot?   

Yes. The revenue generated from doing so could help attack many of the problems with society that you point out here. People who want to are going to smoke anyways for the most part and all it is doing is costing the government billions to ATTEMPT to police it. I really don't think mj use would go off the boards if it were legalized/de-criminalized. It would have a temporary spike and then level out a bit in my opinion.

I suppose that your solution to the problems you've listed here is to contiue as we are now and waste billions trying to police it while we continue to improve on our #1 standing among all countries for imprisoning our population? Wow, that is really smart.

I wish I had the stats on successful people who indulge in drugs. I  know a few millionaires from my days in sales and elsewhere and have known some people who were closely connected to political figures and there is no shortage of drug usage in any of those circles. Kinda like in college where the many frats have some serious drug usage going on. Hell, pot is probably the minority drug in a lot of frats and sororities.

But lets forget all the common sense stuff and just keep arresting people for smoking doobies and holding small amounts of pot. Lets fill the federal prisons with those who supply their needs.

[tiger88]

I picked my nose too, if it makes you feel any better.
I think that's a serious stretch.  I'd like to see some real stats on that, not these misunderstood or fabricated ones.  My biggest issue is with the trafficking and distribution channels.  Of course, that wouldn't be a problem if there wasn't a demand. 
Again, I'd like to see some stats on that.  And, this victimless/moral crimes argument is weak.  Perhaps, if you grow your own for personal consumption, it's victimless.  Oh, what's this?  Victimless crime?
http://www.11alive.com/rss/rss_story.aspx?storyid=127572

Yeah, if you were really digging for some gold, that would explain it.


It is surprisingly hard to find inmate/mj stats and such, but I did find an interesdting one for now that comes from the fbi. It is from 2007 and states that nationally that year approximately 40% of all drug related arrests were for simple mj possession. Only approx. 5% were for trafficking and distribution. Granted there probably aren't as many in federal pens for simple possession there is a tremedous waste of time, lives, and resources that goes into trying to fight a war that is a complete waste of time.

fbi stats

[AUChizad]

Bear with me. My response was so long it wouldn't let me post. I've tried stating my case succinctly, but GarMan won't accept any argument from me, so I have to copy & paste from other sources, like he does.

Oh yeah...  All of the problems would go away overnight.  You 26 year olds with all of your life-long experiences and worldly advice have all the fuckin' answers.   

This is evidence of your lack of cognitive ability. Tell me how a violent crimes over a drug deals would persist when you can buy marijuana at the package store, or at least from a licensed doctor. No, instead bring my age into the argument as if it were relevant at all. That's your M.O. though. Ignore facts, or anything really pertaining to the argument itself, and cling to whatever you possibly can to attack the credibility of whoever's arguing against you.

Get off your platform of ignorant superiority for just one fuckin' minute and have fun with the dumbass article.  It's just another dope smoking moron doing something stupid.  Do I care about anything in that article? NO!  But, at least he's not going to lose any multi-million dollar endorsements for this stupid stunt like that cocky twirp, Phelps.   

This meant nothing. You fail to point out how this is TYPICAL behavior in any way of marijuana use. You fail to distinguish how alcohol use is ANY BETTER when it comes to making people do insanely stupid things that can harm themselves and others. Instead, you talk about MY ignorant superiority, completely oblivious to the irony that this coming from the guy trying to argue that every one who has ever used marijuana is worthless burnout scum, and doing so by claiming that I can't possibly have any insight on the topic  and all of my opinions are moot because I'm younger than you. Then, because you're backed into a corner you throw in a bonus slam at someone that shatters your stereotype by dogging an American Hero just because in your small mind doing so supports your particular argument.
 

No, it can't...  You haven't posted one fuckin' reference to support you pathetic opinion.  Instead, you go trolling for "role models", and float the childish excuse of "if they did it, it must be safe" as sole support for your position.  You've limited your support structure to your immediate circle of influences and your "vast" 26 years of experiences.  You're the one incapable of any "self-thought".  You don't know enough about the topic to have any credibility on it, and you've ignored every attempt to bring science and stats into the discussion.  Do you really believe that your limited scope of influences qualifies you to be an "expert" on the matter?  Now, that's fucking arrogant!   

First of all, I don't need a fucking scientific study to tell me that people do stupid shit when they're drunk. Are you arguing that no one has ever injured themselves while intoxicated from alcohol? Where is your study that supports this statistic?
However, since you're so hellbent on me providing a link, here's what 5 seconds of googling provided. Next time, I suggest you do the same.

http://www.saferchoice.org/content/view/24/53/

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.

Withdrawal: Presence and severity of characteristic withdrawal symptoms.

Tolerance: How much of the substance is needed to satisfy increasing cravings for it, and the level of stable need that is eventually reached.

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.

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.

Source: Jack E. Henningfield, PhD for NIDA, Reported by Philip J. Hilts, New York Times, Aug. 2, 1994 "Is Nicotine Addictive? It Depends on Whose Criteria You Use."  See, http://drugwarfacts.org/addictiv.htm

 
2. Deaths from the two substances.  There are hundreds of alcohol overdose deaths each year, yet there has never been a marijuana overdose death in history.  The consumption of alcohol is also the direct cause of tens of thousands of deaths in the U.S. each year.

In 2001, there were 331 alcohol overdose deaths and 0 marijuana overdose deaths. Source: U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC). http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5337a2.htm

Excessive alcohol consumption is the third leading preventable cause of death in the United States (1) and is associated with multiple adverse health consequences, including liver cirrhosis, various cancers, unintentional injuries, and violence.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control reported 20,687 “alcohol-induced deaths” (excluding accidents and homicides) in 2003.   Source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/alcohol.htm

The CDC has no reports of “marijuana-induced deaths.”  (In reality, there may be 2-5 deaths each year attributed to marijuana, but this article -- http://bbsnews.net/bw2005-02-01.html -- describes how these are actually deaths attributable to other causes but “blamed” on marijuana due to the way the data is collected.)

 3. Alcohol is one of the most toxic drugs, and using just 10 times what one would use to get the desired effect can lead to death. Marijuana is one of – if not the – least toxic drugs, requiring thousands times the dose one would use to get the desired effect to lead to death.   This “thousands times” is actually theoretical, since there has never been a recorded case of marijuana overdose.

The most toxic recreational drugs, such as GHB (gamma-hydroxybutyrate) and heroin, have a lethal dose less than 10 times their typical effective dose. The largest cluster of substances has a lethal dose that is 10 to 20 times the effective dose: These include cocaine, MDMA (methylenedioxymethamphetamine, often called "ecstasy") and alcohol. A less toxic group of substances, requiring 20 to 80 times the effective dose to cause death, include Rohypnol (flunitrazepam or "roofies") and mescaline (peyote cactus). The least physiologically toxic substances, those requiring 100 to 1,000 times the effective dose to cause death, include psilocybin mushrooms and marijuana, when ingested. I've found no published cases in the English language that document deaths from smoked marijuana, so the actual lethal dose is a mystery. My surmise is that smoking marijuana is more risky than eating it but still safer than getting drunk.

Despite the health risks and social costs, consciousness-altering chemicals have been used for centuries in almost all cultures. So it would be unrealistic to expect that all types of recreational drug use will suddenly cease. Self-management of these substances is extremely difficult, yet modern Western societies have not, in general, developed positive, socially sanctioned rituals as a means of regulating the use of some of the less hazardous recreational drugs. I would argue that we need to do that.

Source: The American Scientist, the Magazine of Sigma Xi, the Scientific Research Society. http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/50773?&print=y

 
4. Long-term marijuana use is far less harmful than long-term alcohol use.

There is little evidence, however, that long-term cannabis use causes permanent cognitive impairment, nor is there is any clear cause and effect relationship to explain the psychosocial associations.

There are some physical health risks, particularly the possibility of damage to the airways in cannabis smokers. Overall, by comparison with other drugs used mainly for ‘recreational’ purposes, cannabis could be rated to be a relatively safe drug.

Source: Iversen, Leslie. Current Opinion in Pharmacology. Volume 5, Issue 1, February 2005, Pages 69-72. Long-term effects of exposure to cannabis. University of Oxford, Department of Pharmacology.

 
5. The United Kingdom's Science and Technology Select Committee considers alcohol far more harmful than marijuana.

The committee commissioned an assessment of 20 legal and illegal stimulants in order to bring some logic to the country’s drug classification.  Based on this study, they made recommendations to the government, including a recommendation that alcohol be considered among the most harmful drugs.  Cannabis was considered significantly less harmful.  (See chart below.)  As you can see in the chart below, cannabis was recently rescheduled in the UK and is now a Class C substance (with A being the most harmful).



Source: New Scientist Magazine. Issue 2563.  August 2006, page 5. Drug-danger 'league table' revealed.

 
6. There has never been a documented case of lung cancer in a marijuana-only smoker, and recent studies find that marijuana use is not associated with any type of cancer. The same cannot be said for alcohol, which has been found to contribute to a variety of long-term negative health effects, including cancers and cirrhosis of the liver.

It could be interesting to note in the chart the difference between what people usually consider the most likely serious harms associated with marijuana and alcohol.  While there has never been a documented case of lung cancer in a marijuana-only smoker, there are clearly thousands of deaths by liver disease directly associated with alcohol – 12,360 in 2003, to be exact. [See, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/alcohol.htm .  Note also on this page that “alcoholic liver disease” is a separate category from “alcohol-induced deaths, excluding accidents and homicides.”  Thus the 20,687 cited in #2 (as “deaths from alcohol consumption” could easily be 33,047.]

    Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection

    By Marc Kaufman, Washington Post Staff Writer, Friday, May 26, 2006; Page A03

    The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.

    The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.

    "We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."

    Federal health and drug enforcement officials have widely used Tashkin's previous work on marijuana to make the case that the drug is dangerous. Tashkin said that while he still believes marijuana is potentially harmful, its cancer-causing effects appear to be of less concern than previously thought.

    Earlier work established that marijuana does contain cancer-causing chemicals as potentially harmful as those in tobacco, he said. However, marijuana also contains the chemical THC, which he said may kill aging cells and keep them from becoming cancerous.

    Tashkin's study, funded by the National Institutes of Health's National Institute on Drug Abuse, involved 1,200 people in Los Angeles who had lung, neck or head cancer and an additional 1,040 people without cancer matched by age, sex and neighborhood.

    They were all asked about their lifetime use of marijuana, tobacco and alcohol. The heaviest marijuana smokers had lighted up more than 22,000 times, while moderately heavy usage was defined as smoking 11,000 to 22,000 marijuana cigarettes. Tashkin found that even the very heavy marijuana smokers showed no increased incidence of the three cancers studied.

    "This is the largest case-control study ever done, and everyone had to fill out a very extensive questionnaire about marijuana use," he said. "Bias can creep into any research, but we controlled for as many confounding factors as we could, and so I believe these results have real meaning."

    Tashkin's group at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA had hypothesized that marijuana would raise the risk of cancer on the basis of earlier small human studies, lab studies of animals, and the fact that marijuana users inhale more deeply and generally hold smoke in their lungs longer than tobacco smokers -- exposing them to the dangerous chemicals for a longer time. In addition, Tashkin said, previous studies found that marijuana tar has 50 percent higher concentrations of chemicals linked to cancer than tobacco cigarette tar.

    While no association between marijuana smoking and cancer was found, the study findings, presented to the American Thoracic Society International Conference this week, did find a 20-fold increase in lung cancer among people who smoked two or more packs of cigarettes a day.

    The study was limited to people younger than 60 because those older than that were generally not exposed to marijuana in their youth, when it is most often tried.

    Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html

[AUChizad]

7. Studies find alcohol use contributes to the likelihood of domestic violence and sexual assault and marijuana use does not.

Of the psychoactive substances examined, among individuals who were chronic partner abusers, the use of alcohol and cocaine was associated with significant increases in the daily likelihood of male-to-female physical aggression; cannabis and opiates were not significantly associated with an increased likelihood of male partner violence.

…the odds of any male-to-female physical aggression were more than 8 times (11 times) higher on days when men drank than on days of no alcohol consumption. The odds of severe male-to-female physical aggression were more than 11 times (11 times) higher on days of men’s drinking than on days of no drinking. Moreover, in both samples, over 60% of all episodes occurred within 2 hours of drinking by the male partner. (page 1557)

Source: Fals-Stewart , William, James Golden, Julie A. Schumacher. Journal of Addictive Behaviors. 28, pages 1555-1574. Intimate partner violence and substance use: A longitudinal day-to-day examination. Research Institute on Addictions, University at Buffalo, State University of New York

 
8. Studies find alcohol use contributes to aggressive behavior and acts of violence, whereas marijuana use reduces the likelihood of violent behavior.

Alcohol is clearly the drug with the most evidence to support a direct intoxication-violence relationship.

Cannabis reduces likelihood of violence during intoxication…

Source: Hoaken, Peter N.S., Sherry H. Stewart. Journal of Addictive Behaviors. 28, pages 1533-1554. Drugs of abuse and the elicitation of human aggressive behavior. Dept. of Psychology, University of Western Ontario. Dept. of of Psychiatry, Dalhousie University.

 
9. Alcohol use is highly associated with violent crime, whereas marijuana use is not.

About 3 million violent crimes occur each year in which victims perceive the offender to have been drinking at the time of the offense.

Two-thirds of victims who suffered violence by an intimate (a current or former spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend) reported that alcohol had been a factor.

Among spouse victims, 3 out of 4 incidents were reported to have involved an offender who had been drinking.

Source: U.S. Department of Justice. Bureau of Justice Statistics. National Crime Victimization Survey 2002.

 
10. Alcohol use is a catalyst for domestic violence in Denver.

Alcohol is involved in nearly 50 percent of all domestic violence cases in Denver, and the use of alcohol by the perpetrator is a predominant factor in fatal cases of domestic violence.

Marijuana is not mentioned as a correlating or causal factor in cases of domestic violence in Denver. 

Source: Abrams, Margaret L., Joanne Belknap, Heather C. Melton. When Domestic Violence Kills: The Formation and Findings of the Denver Metro Domestic Violence Fatality Review Committee. March 2001.

 
11. Alcohol use is prevalent in cases of sexual assault and date rape on college campuses. Marijuana use is not considered a contributing factor in cases of sexual assault and date rape, as judged by the lack of discussion of marijuana in sexual assault and date rape educational materials.

A Harvard School of Public Heath study found that 72 percent of college rapes occurred when the female was too intoxicated by alcohol to resist/consent.  Source: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/cas/Documents/rapeintox-pressRelease/

Comparisons between alcohol and marijuana with respect to sexual assault are very difficult.  This is because it does not appear as if marijuana is a significant contributing factor.  The best way to "prove" this is through observation that many organizations dedicated to studying and educating about sexual assault do not list marijuana as a substance associated with incidents.  Here is a good example from the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network:  http://www.rainn.org/types-of-assault/sexual-assault/drug-facilitated-assault.html

Note their description of alcohol:  "Alcohol is the most commonly used chemical in drug facilitated sexual assault. In large part this is due to the fact that alcohol is easily accessible and a chemical that many people use in social interactions."  Given the fact that marijuana is also "easily accessible" and used widely in "social interactions," it is quite telling that marijuana is not even listed at all on this "Drug Facilitated Assault" page.

Another example:  A Web site sponsored by the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services lists alcohol, but not marijuana, as putting a person at risk for unwanted or risky sexual activity:  http://www.4woman.gov/faq/rohypnol.htm#5

Go ahead. Rip the source, completely ignoring all of the sources they site.

Here's another reference you will no doubt dismiss as a bunch of hippie garbage...I'm fairly positive that the P.H.D. who published this is over 26, so maybe his research is valid. Hopefully the sources he explicitly sited are over 26 as well, or I wasted a whole 5 minutes googling, copying and pasting.

http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3475#1

Myth: Marijuana is a Dangerous Drug
Any discussion of marijuana should begin with the fact that there have been numerous official reports and studies, every one of which has concluded that marijuana poses no great risk to society and should not be criminalized. These include: the National Academy of Sciences' "Analysis of Marijuana Policy"(1982); the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse (the Shafer Report) (1973); the Canadian Government's Commission of Inquiry (Le Dain Report) (1970); the British Advisory Committee on Drug Dependency (Wooton Report) (1968); the La Guardia Report (1944); the Panama Canal Zone Military Investigations (1916-29); and Britain's monumental Indian Hemp Drugs Commission (1893-4).

It is sometimes claimed that there is "new evidence" showing marijuana is more harmful than was thought in the sixties. In fact, the most recent studies have tended to confirm marijuana's safety, refuting claims that it causes birth defects, brain damage, reduced testosterone, or increased drug abuse problems.

The current consensus is well stated in the 20th annual report of the California Research Advisory Panel (1990), which recommended that personal use and cultivation of marijuana be legalized: "An objective consideration of marijuana shows that it is responsible for less damage to society and the individual than are alcohol and cigarettes."

References: The National Academy of Sciences report, "Marijuana and Health" (National Academy Press, 1982), remains the most useful overview of the health effects of marijuana, its major conclusions remaining largely unaffected by the last 10 years of research. Lovinger and Jones, The Marihuana Question (Dodd, Mead & Co., NY 1985), is the most exhaustive and fair-handed summary of the evidence against marijuana. Good, positive perspectives may be found in Lester Grinspoon's Marihuana, the Forbidden Medicine (Yale Press, 1993) and Marihuana Reconsidered (Harvard U. Press 1971), which debunks many of the older anti-pot myths. See also Leo Hollister, "Health Aspects of Cannabis," Pharmacological Reviews 38:1-20 (1986).

Myth: One Joint Equals One Pack (or 16, or maybe just 4) Cigarettes

Some critics exaggerate the dangers of marijuana smoking by fallaciously citing a study by Dr. Tashkin which found that daily pot smokers experienced a "mild but significant" increase in airflow resistance in the large airways greater than that seen in persons smoking 16 cigarettes per day.1 What they ignore is that the same study examined other, more important aspects of lung health, in which marijuana smokers did much better than tobacco smokers. Dr. Tashkin himself disavows the notion that one joint equals 16 cigarettes.

A more widely accepted estimate is that marijuana smokers consume four times as much carcinogenic tar as cigarettes smokers per weight smoked.2 This does not necessarily mean that one joint equals four cigarettes, since joints usually weigh less. In fact, the average joint has been estimated to contain 0.4 grams of pot, a bit less than one-half the weight of a cigarette, making one joint equal to two cigarettes (actually, joint sizes range from cigar-sized spliffs smoked by Rastas, to very fine sinsemilla joints weighing as little as 0.2 grams). It should be noted that there is no exact equivalency between tobacco and marijuana smoking, because they affect different parts of the respiratory tract differently: whereas tobacco tends to penetrate to the smaller, peripheral passageways of the lungs, pot tends to concentrate on the larger, central passageways.3 One consequence of this is that pot, unlike tobacco, does not appear to cause emphysema.

Footnotes

1. D. Tashkin, "Respiratory Status of 74 Habitual Marijuana Smokers," Chest 78 #5: 699-706 (Nov. 1980).

2. T-C. Wu, D. Tashkin, B. Djahed and J.E. Rose, "Pulmonary hazards of smoking marijuana as compared with tobacco," New England Journal of Medicine 318:
347-51 (1988).

3. Donald Tashkin et al, "Effects of Habitual Use of Marijuana and/or Cocaine on the Lung," loc.cit.

Myth: Prohibition Reduces the Harmfulness of Pot Smoking

Whatever the risks of pot smoking, the current laws make matters worse in several respects: (1) Paraphernalia laws have impeded the development and marketing of water pipes and other, more advanced technology that could significantly reduce the harmfulness of marijuana smoke. (2) Prohibition encourages the sale of pot that has been contaminated or adulterated by insecticides, Paraquat, etc., or mixed with other drugs such as PCP, crack and heroin. (3) By raising the price of marijuana, prohibition makes it uneconomical to consume marijuana orally, the best way to avoid smoke exposure altogether; this is because eating typically requires two or three times as much marijuana as smoking.

Unlike the government, NORML is interested in reducing the dangers of pot smoking; California NORML and MAPS (the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies) are currently researching the use of waterpipes and other advanced smoke reduction technology.

References on Marijuana and Smoking: Donald Tashkin, "Is Frequent Marijuana Smoking Hazardous To Health?", Western Journal of Medicine 158 #6: 635-7; June 1993; Research Findings on Smoking of Abused Substances, ed. C. Nora Chiang and Richard L. Hawks, NIDA Research Monograph 99 (National Institute on Drug Abuse, Rockville, MD 1990); NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES Report,op. cit.; California NORML, "Health Tips for Marijuana Smokers."

Myth: Marijuana is a Major Road Safety Hazard

A growing body of research indicates that marijuana is on balance less of a road hazard than alcohol. Various surveys have found that half or more of fatal drivers have alcohol in their blood, as opposed to 7 - 20% with THC, the major psychoactive component of marijuana (a condition usually indicative of having smoked within the past 2-4 hours).1 The same studies show that some 70% - 90% of those who are THC-positive also have alcohol in their blood. It therefore appears that marijuana by itself is a minor road safety hazard, though the combination of pot and alcohol is not. Some research has even suggested that low doses of marijuana may sometimes improve driving performance, though this is probably not true in most cases.2

Two major new studies by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration have confirmed marijuana's relative safety compared with alcohol. The first, the most comprehensive drug accident study to date, surveyed blood samples from 1882 drivers killed in car, truck and motorcycle accidents in seven states during 1990-91.3 Alcohol was found in 51.5% of specimens, as against 17.8% for all other drugs combined. Marijuana, the second most common drug, appeared in just 6.7%. Two-thirds of the marijuana-using drivers also had alcohol. The report concluded that alcohol was by far the "dominant" drug-related problem in accidents. It went on to analyze the responsibility of drivers for the accidents they were involved in. It found that drivers who used alcohol were especially culpable in fatal accidents, and even more so when they combined it with marijuana or other drugs. However, those who used marijuana alone appeared to be if anything less culpable than non-drug users (though the date were insufficient to be statistically conclusive). The report concluded, "There was no indication that marijuana by itself was a cause of fatal accidents." (It must be emphasized that this is not the case when marijuana is combined with alcohol or other drugs).

The second NHTSA study, "Marijuana and Actual Driving Performance," concluded that the adverse effects of cannabis on driving appear "relatively small" and are less than those of drunken driving.4 The study, conducted in the Netherlands, examined the performance of drivers in actual freeway and urban driving situations at various doses of marijuana. It found that marijuana produces a moderate, dose-related decrement in road tracking ability, but is "not profoundly impairing" and "in no way unusual compared to many medicinal drugs." It found that marijuana's effects at the higher doses preferred by smokers never exceed those of alcohol at blood concentrations of .08%, the minimum level for legal intoxication in stricter states such as California. The study found that unlike alcohol, which encourages risky driving, marijuana appears to produce greater caution, apparently because users are more aware of their state and able to compensate for it (similar results have been reported by other researchers as well5) It should be noted that these results may not apply to non-driving related situations, where forgetfulness or inattention can be more important than speed (this might explain the discrepancy in the Baltimore hospital study, which looked at accidents of all kinds). The NHTSA study also warned that marijuana could also be quite dangerous in emergency situations that put high demands on driving skills.

Footnotes

1. Dale Gieringer, "Marijuana, Driving, and Accident Safety," Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 20 (1): 93-101 (Jan-Mar 1988).

2. H. Klonoff, "Marijuana and driving in real-life situations," Science 186: 317-24 (1974).

3. K.W. Terhune et al., "The Incidence and Role of Drugs in Fatally Injured Drivers," NHTSA Report # DOT-HS-808-065 (1994).

4. Hendrik Robbe and James O'Hanlon, "Marijuana and Actual Driving Performance," NHTSA Report #DOT-HS-808-078 (1994).

5. Klonoff, loc. cit.; A. Smiley, "Marijuana: On-road and driving simulator studies," Alcohol, Drugs and Driving: Abstracts and Reviews 2#3-4: 15-30 (1986).

[AUChizad]

Myth: Marijuana Prohibition Improves Public Safety

There is no evidence that the prohibition of marijuana reduces the net social risk of accidents. On the contrary, recent studies suggest that marijuana may actually be beneficial in that it substitutes for alcohol and other, more dangerous drugs. Research by Karyn Model found that states with marijuana decriminalization had lower overall drug abuse rates than others; another study by Frank Chaloupka found decriminalization states have lower accident rates too.1 In Alaska, accident rates held constant or declined following the legalization of personal use of marijuana.2 In Holland, authorities believe that cannabis has contributed to an overall decline in opiate abuse. Recent U.S. government statistics show that the highest rates of cocaine abuse in the West were in Nevada and Arizona, the states with the toughest marijuana laws.

Footnotes

1. Peter Passell, "Less Marijuana, More Alcohol?" New York Times June 17, 1992.

2. Michael Dunham, "When the Smoke Clears," Reason March 1983 pp.33-6.

Myth: A Single Joint Has Effects That Linger for Days and Weeks [28]

While it is true that THC and other cannabinoids are fat-soluble and linger in the body for prolonged periods, they do not normally affect behavior beyond a few hours except in chronic users. Most impairment studies have found that the adverse effects of acute marijuana use wear off in 2-6 hours, commonly faster than alcohol.1 The one notable exception was a pair of flight simulator studies by Leirer, Yesavage, and Morrow, which reported effects on flight simulator performance up to 24 hours later.2 The differences, described by Leirer as "very subtle" and "very marginal," were less than those due to pilot age. Another flight simulator study by the same group failed to find any effects beyond 4 hours.3 Similar "hangover" effects have been noted for alcohol.4

Chronic users may experience more prolonged effects due to a build-up of cannabinoids in the tissues. Some heavy users have reported feeling effects weeks or even months after stopping. However, there is no evidence that these are detrimental to safety.

References on Accidents and Drug Testing: Alcohol, Drugs and Driving: Abstracts and Reviews Vol. 2 #3-4 (Brain Information Service, UCLA 1986); Dale Gieringer, "Marijuana, Driving, and Accident Safety," Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 20 (1): 93-101 (Jan.-Mar 1988); Dr. John Morgan, "Impaired Statistics and the Unimpaired Worker," Drug Policy Letter 1(2): May/June 1989, and "The 'scientific' justification for drug urine testing," The University of Kansas Law Review 36: 683-97 (1988); John Horgan, "Test Negative: A look at the evidence justifying illicit-drug tests," Scientific American, March 1990 pp. 18-22, and "Postal Mortem," Scientific American, Feb. 1991 pp. 22-3; Dale Gieringer, "Urinalysis or Uromancy?" in Strategies for Change: New Directions in Drug Policy (Drug Policy Foundation, 1992).

Footnotes

1. Alison Smiley, "Marijuana: On-Road and Driving Simulator Studies," Alcohol, Drugs, and Driving 2 #3-4: 121-34 (1986).

2. V.O. Leirer, J.A. Yesavage and D.G. Morrow, "Marijuana Carry-Over Effects on Aircraft Pilot Performance," Aviation Space and Environmental Medicine 62: 221-7 (March 1991); Yesavage, Leirer, et al., "Carry-Over effects of marijuana intoxication on aircraft pilot performance: a preliminary report," American Journal of Psychiatry 142: 1325-9 (1985).

3. Leirer, Yesavage and Morrow, "Marijuana, Aging and Task Difficulty Effects on Pilot Performance," Aviation Space and Environmental Medicine 60: 1145-52 (Dec. 1989).

4. Yesavage and Leirer, "Hangover Effects on Aircraft Pilots 14 Hours After Alcohol Ingestion: A Preliminary Report," American Journal of Psychiatry 143: 1546-50 (Dec. 1986).

Myth: Pot Kills Brain Cells

Government experts now admit that pot doesn't kill brain cells.1 This myth came from a handful of animal experiments in which structural changes (not actual cell death, as is often alleged) were observed in brain cells of animals exposed to high doses of pot. Many critics still cite the notorious monkey studies of Dr. Robert G. Heath, which purported to find brain damage in three monkeys that had been heavily dosed with cannabis.2 This work was never replicated and has since been discredited by a pair of better controlled, much larger monkey studies, one by Dr. William Slikker of the National Center for Toxicological Research3 and the other by Charles Rebert and Gordon Pryor of SRI International.4 Neither found any evidence of physical alteration in the brains of monkeys exposed to daily doses of pot for up to a year. Human studies of heavy users in Jamaica and Costa Rica found no evidence of abnormalities in brain physiology.5 Even though there is no evidence that pot causes permanent brain damage, users should be aware that persistent deficits in short-term memory have been noted in chronic, heavy marijuana smokers after 6 to 12 weeks of abstinence.6 It is worth noting that other drugs, including alcohol, are known to cause brain damage.

Footnotes

1. Dr. Christine Hartel, Acting Director of Research, National Institute of Drug Abuse, cited by the State of Hawaii Dept of Health, Alcohol and Drug Abuse Division in memo of Feb. 4, 1994.

2. For an overview, see NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES Report, op. cit., pp. 81-2. R.G. Heath et al, "Cannabis sativa: effects on brain function and ultrastructure in Rhesus monkeys," Biol. Psychiatry 15: 657-90 (1980).

3. William Slikker et al., "Chronic Marijuana Smoke Exposure in the Rhesus Monkey," Fundamental and Applied Toxicology 17: 321-32 (1991).

4. Charles Rebert & Gordon Pryor - "Chronic Inhalation of Marijuana Smoke and Brain Electrophysiology of Rhesus Monkeys," International Journal of Psychophysiology V 14, p.144, 1993.

5. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES Report, pp. 82-7.

6. "Cannabis and Memory Loss," (editorial) British Journal of Addiction 86: 249-52 (1991)

Myth: Marijuana Causes Birth Defects

While experts generally recommend against any drug use during pregnancy, marijuana has little evidence implicating it in fetal harm, unlike alcohol, cocaine or tobacco. Epidemiological studies have found no evident link between prenatal use of marijuana and birth defects in humans.1 A recent study by Dr. Susan Astley at the University of Washington refuted an earlier work suggesting that cannabis might cause fetal alcohol syndrome.2

Although some research has found that prenatal cannabis use is associated with slightly reduced average birth weight and length,3 these studies have been open to methodological criticism. More recently, a well-controlled study found that cannabis use had a positive impact on birthweight during the third trimester of pregnancy with no adverse behavioral consequences.4 The same study found a slight reduction in birth length with pot use in the first two months of pregnancy. Another study of Jamaican women who had smoked pot throughout pregnancy found that their babies registered higher on developmental scores at the age of 30 days, while experiencing no significant effects on birthweight or length.5

While cannabis use is not recommended in pregnancy, it may be of medical value to some women in treating morning sickness or easing childbirth.

Footnotes

1. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES Report, p. 99.

2. Dr. Susan Astley, "Analysis of Facial Shape in Children Gestationally Exposed to Marijuana, Alcohol, and/or Cocaine," Pediatrics 89#1: 67-77 ( January 1992).

3. Dr. Barry Zuckerman et al. "Effects of Maternal Marijuana and Cocaine Use on Fetal Growth," New England Journal of Medicine 320 #12: 762-8 (March 23, 1989); Dr. Ralph Hingson et al., "Effects of maternal drinking and marijuana use on fetal growth and development," Pediatrics 70: 539-46 (1982).

4. Nancy Day et al., "Prenatal Marijuana Use and Neonatal Outcome," Neurotoxicology and Teratology 13: 329-34 (1992).

5. Janice Hayes, Melanie Dreher and J. Kevin Nugent, "Newborn Outcomes With Maternal Marihuana Use in Jamaican Women," Pediatric Nursing 14 #2: 107-10 (Mar-Apr. 1988).

Myth: Marijuana Leads to Harder Drugs

There is no scientific evidence for the theory that marijuana is a "gateway" drug. The cannabis-using cultures in Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America show no propensity for other drugs. The gateway theory took hold in the sixties, when marijuana became the leading new recreational drug. It was refuted by events in the eighties, when cocaine abuse exploded at the same time marijuana use declined.

As we have seen, there is evidence that cannabis may substitute for alcohol and other "hard" drugs. A recent survey by Dr. Patricia Morgan of the University of California at Berekeley found that a significant number of pot smokers and dealers switched to methamphetamine "ice" when Hawaii's marijuana eradication program created a shortage of pot.1 Dr. Morgan noted a similar phenomenon in California, where cocaine use soared in the wake of the CAMP helicopter eradication campaign.

The one way in which marijuana does lead to other drugs is through its illegality: persons who deal in marijuana are likely to deal in other illicit drugs as well.

Footnote

1. "Survey: Hawaii war on pot pushed users to 'ice,'" Honolulu Advertiser, April 1, 1994 p. 1.

Here's an idea...  Go find a random sampling of 100 know-it-all, pot-smoking, 20-somethings.  Let's put them through some tests to measure their problem solving ability.  Let's keep track of them for a decade, and give them the same test.  Let's do it again after another decade.  Let's review the results and compare our findings with those of their non-pot-smoking peers.  With all of the science behind this, do you really thing they'd be on par with each other?   :thumbsup:

"All the science" 

At least, Hannity would bring reference-able facts and stats to the discussion to support his position.  You've brought nothing to the table short of what's in your empty skull, and there really isn't much there...   

Better? I can copy & paste links all day, but this post is long enough as it is. Because I have the cognitive ability to retain knowledge, utilize logic, and state my case without copying and pasting from a biased webpage, I didn't realize this was a requirement.

Why, yes...  Yes, you are!   :eyeroll:

By the way, how was the wedding yesterday?  Did you escort the bride down the aisle?  And, did you help him get dressed into his gown before the wedding? 

Already addressed how insanely hypocritical you calling me an elitist is. Cue an arbitrary, completely irrelevant personal attack (or at least what was intended to be) when you have nothing relevant to say. Glad you're sticking to the script...

[GarMan]

Bear with me. My response was so long it wouldn't let me post. I've tried stating my case succinctly, but GarMan won't accept any argument from me, so I have to copy & paste from other sources, like he does.

Oh yeah...  You've done of helluva job stating your case.  You just haven't provided any real facts to back your position.  Until now, all you've posted is your opinions and perceptions.  It must be an overwhelming stretch for you to share your "sources, like he does" so that we can come to our own conclusions.  Thanks for extending that common courtesy to all of us little folks out here.   :eyeroll:

This is evidence of your lack of cognitive ability. Tell me how a violent crimes over a drug deals would persist when you can buy marijuana at the package store, or at least from a licensed doctor. No, instead bring my age into the argument as if it were relevant at all. That's your M.O. though. Ignore facts, or anything really pertaining to the argument itself, and cling to whatever you possibly can to attack the credibility of whoever's arguing against you. 

This is great.  You hit-and-run posters make it personal, then you accuse the other guy of doing it.  Nice...   :thumbsup:

This meant nothing. You fail to point out how this is TYPICAL behavior in any way of marijuana use. You fail to distinguish how alcohol use is ANY BETTER when it comes to making people do insanely stupid things that can harm themselves and others. Instead, you talk about MY ignorant superiority, completely oblivious to the irony that this coming from the guy trying to argue that every one who has ever used marijuana is worthless burnout scum, and doing so by claiming that I can't possibly have any insight on the topic  and all of my opinions are moot because I'm younger than you. Then, because you're backed into a corner you throw in a bonus slam at someone that shatters your stereotype by dogging an American Hero just because in your small mind doing so supports your particular argument.

It was a dumb article about an idiot.  Get over it!  I thought it was funny. 

I never accused anyone who ever used of being "burnout scum".  I just called them stupid.  And, yes...  Phelps was fucking stupid for the exact reasons that I have previously posted.  Don't get your panties in a wad.  You've selectively ignored many of my words in these posts, so don't play games by pushing this to silly extremes. 

No, it can't...  You haven't posted one fuckin' reference to support you pathetic opinion.  Instead, you go trolling for "role models", and float the childish excuse of "if they did it, it must be safe" as sole support for your position.  You've limited your support structure to your immediate circle of influences and your "vast" 26 years of experiences.  You're the one incapable of any "self-thought".  You don't know enough about the topic to have any credibility on it, and you've ignored every attempt to bring science and stats into the discussion.  Do you really believe that your limited scope of influences qualifies you to be an "expert" on the matter?  Now, that's fucking arrogant!   

First of all, I don't need a fucking scientific study to tell me that people do stupid shit when they're drunk. Are you arguing that no one has ever injured themselves while intoxicated from alcohol? Where is your study that supports this statistic? 

Did I say that?  Where did I say that?  How can anyone with any sort of intelligence even suggest that I was arguing that point?     You're the one who keeps on comparing alcohol to MJ. 

One thing has become overwhelmingly obvious in this entire thread.  You have a brush, and you're not afraid to use it.  You've assembled this straw-man of some Republipuke concocted from your worst stereotypical perceptions and opinions about Conservatives and Republicans, and you jump at the opportunity to attack.  The funny thing is that we probably agree on things more than we disagree, even on this topic, but you're so "hellbent" on disagreement that you're not going to let anything like that happen.   :eyeroll:

However, since you're so hellbent on me providing a link, here's what 5 seconds of googling provided. Next time, I suggest you do the same.

Why?  That doesn't make any sense.  Why would I research items to support your position?   

I'll get to the rest of this later.  I have grown-up work to do...

[AUChizad]

Oh yeah...  You've done of helluva job stating your case.  You just haven't provided any real facts to back your position.  Until now, all you've posted is your opinions and perceptions.  It must be an overwhelming stretch for you to share your "sources, like he does" so that we can come to our own conclusions.  Thanks for extending that common courtesy to all of us little folks out here.   :eyeroll:

I didn't copy & paste from specific sources, because everything that was being said was common knowledge for anyone that has done five minutes of research on the topic. That's like asking me to provide a source that states the Earth is not flat. I wasn't going to insult your intelligence until you demanded it. Since you had such a strong opinion on the matter, I thought surely you would at least pretend to know what you're talking about.

This is great.  You hit-and-run posters make it personal, then you accuse the other guy of doing it.  Nice...   :thumbsup:

Hit and run? Not that this is of any consequence, but I'm a founding member of this board and a moderator with the sixth highest post count on this board. Pointing this out seems silly and a waste of time, but this is another example of a blatant falsehood I'm burdened with disproving to you.

I made it personal? Please refer to post #34, only your second post in this thread. In it you asserted that I was "operating with limited cognitive ability" twice, attacked the moral fiber of my law school friends, along with everyone that pursued that career path, referred to my other friends as "more fucking kids", "young dumb punks", "clowns" and "young twirp pukes" and asserted that they were my "role models" (all themes you've referred to over and over again). What did I saw before this that was personal?

It was a dumb article about an idiot.  Get over it!  I thought it was funny.

You posted it as if to prove a point. You realized the fallacious nature of the reference, so now you're backpedaling by laughing it off as a joke.

I never accused anyone who ever used of being "burnout scum".  I just called them stupid.  And, yes...  Phelps was fucking stupid for the exact reasons that I have previously posted.  Don't get your panties in a wad.  You've selectively ignored many of my words in these posts, so don't play games by pushing this to silly extremes. 

Tell me one reason marijuana use makes you "stupider" than alcohol use. You aren't saying that college kids who consume alcohol on a weekly or monthly basis are going to amount to nothings "not on par with their peers." Remember, the whole argument here concerns the legality of marijuana use. Therefore any argument you make against marijuana, must not also be the case for alcohol, unless you advocate the outlawing of both. You, however, happily condone one, while adamantly condemning the other, despite all the evidence that alcohol is more the more dangerous of the two if anything.

Did I say that?  Where did I say that?  How can anyone with any sort of intelligence even suggest that I was arguing that point?     You're the one who keeps on comparing alcohol to MJ.

You insinuated it here:

Again, I'd like to see some stats on that.  And, this victimless/moral crimes argument is weak.  Perhaps, if you grow your own for personal consumption, it's victimless.  Oh, what's this?  Victimless crime?
http://www.11alive.com/rss/rss_story.aspx?storyid=127572

Pointing to one dumb pothead who abused an animal, as if this guy did this BECAUSE he was on pot, and that it makes people do things similar to this, and that the "victims" are the people (and animals in this case) that are unfortunate enough to be around when someone is partaking in marijuana use. Sarcastically referring to this as a "victimless crime", insinuates that this type of behavior is exclusive to marijuana use, and people are completely responsible when drunk off of alcohol.

One thing has become overwhelmingly obvious in this entire thread.  You have a brush, and you're not afraid to use it.  You've assembled this straw-man of some Republipuke concocted from your worst stereotypical perceptions and opinions about Conservatives and Republicans, and you jump at the opportunity to attack.  The funny thing is that we probably agree on things more than we disagree, even on this topic, but you're so "hellbent" on disagreement that you're not going to let anything like that happen.   :eyeroll:

Pot, meet kettle. I have deconstructed YOUR arguments. You have broadly brushed everyone who uses marijuana, in spite of your backpedaling now.

Why?  That doesn't make any sense.  Why would I research items to support your position?   

Heaven forbid you research a topic before shooting off at the hip, violently debating the side that you inherited from your predefined cookie cutter party line, without bothering with your own individual thought.

[Greaseyweasel]

I love lead paint chips.

With a fine Salsa dip.

[GarMan]

I didn't copy & paste from specific sources, because everything that was being said was common knowledge for anyone that has done five minutes of research on the topic. That's like asking me to provide a source that states the Earth is not flat. I wasn't going to insult your intelligence until you demanded it. Since you had such a strong opinion on the matter, I thought surely you would at least pretend to know what you're talking about. 

Far from common knowledge...  You know that, or at least, you should.  If it were "common knowledge" as you put it, we wouldn't even be having this discussion because your beloved pot would already be legalized.  Right?

Hit and run? Not that this is of any consequence, but I'm a founding member of this board and a moderator with the sixth highest post count on this board. Pointing this out seems silly and a waste of time, but this is another example of a blatant falsehood I'm burdened with disproving to you.

Oh yes...  YOU are a hit-and-run poster.  How many times have you jumped into the political forum to muddy the water in a particular thread and disappear to never post in that thread again?  I've lost count...  Of course, I know that you're a moderator.  BIG F'n DEAL!   

I made it personal? Please refer to post #34, only your second post in this thread. In it you asserted that I was "operating with limited cognitive ability" twice, attacked the moral fiber of my law school friends, along with everyone that pursued that career path, referred to my other friends as "more fucking kids", "young dumb punks", "clowns" and "young twirp pukes" and asserted that they were my "role models" (all themes you've referred to over and over again). What did I saw before this that was personal?

AND, YOU didn't think that using words like "ridiculous" and "ignorance" in your post #33 to me, which comes before #34 by the way, was personal?  What?  ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME???

AND, IF I'M SO FUCKING IGNORANT, DON'T YOU THINK YOU SHOULD HAVE SHARED SOME OF THAT "COMMON KNOWLEDGE" WITH ME?  I mean you're so fucking brilliant as a moderator of this FUCKING board, one would think that you'd FUCKING know better! 

You posted it as if to prove a point. You realized the fallacious nature of the reference, so now you're backpedaling by laughing it off as a joke.

I posted it to demonstrate the absurdity of this.  It was another worthless jab to tease and provoke.  Do you really think that I, of all people, care about kittens?  You don't know me.   :thumbsup:

Tell me one reason marijuana use makes you "stupider" than alcohol use. You aren't saying that college kids who consume alcohol on a weekly or monthly basis are going to amount to nothings "not on par with their peers." Remember, the whole argument here concerns the legality of marijuana use. Therefore any argument you make against marijuana, must not also be the case for alcohol, unless you advocate the outlawing of both. You, however, happily condone one, while adamantly condemning the other, despite all the evidence that alcohol is more the more dangerous of the two if anything.

First of all, most of that is your argument, not mine.  I never said any of that.  My original argument was only about MJ.  You're the one who is constantly trying to compare it to alcohol.  Why don't we compare it to saturated fats or McDonald's Cheeseburgers?  That would make about as much sense.  The last thing this country needs is another drug to fuck with the masses.  The country's in enough of a decline already, and you guys want to introduce another drug.  That just doesn't make any sense to me. 

You insinuated it here:

Pointing to one dumb pothead who abused an animal, as if this guy did this BECAUSE he was on pot, and that it makes people do things similar to this, and that the "victims" are the people (and animals in this case) that are unfortunate enough to be around when someone is partaking in marijuana use. Sarcastically referring to this as a "victimless crime", insinuates that this type of behavior is exclusive to marijuana use, and people are completely responsible when drunk off of alcohol.

WOW...  Take a Pamprin and get some sleep.  You put a whole story together and brought up things that I haven't even debated in this thread.  You're broad sweeping those strokes with that brush of yours, again. 

Pot, meet kettle. I have deconstructed YOUR arguments. You have broadly brushed everyone who uses marijuana, in spite of your backpedaling now.

I haven't backpedaled on anything in here.  I never used terms like "burnout scum" or anything like that.  You have taken much of what I said, multiplied it by 100 and pushed it to silly extremes, and you keep doing that.  You also keep fighting with this Republipuke straw-man that you've built up in your mind by assigning these perceived stereotypical values to me and challenging me on them.  I can't defend them, because I don't have those silly values or beliefs.  Maybe, you should layoff the bong a little. 

Heaven forbid you research a topic before shooting off at the hip, violently debating the side that you inherited from your predefined cookie cutter party line, without bothering with your own individual thought.

There you go again...  Paintbrush meets straw-man.  Look, I have the beliefs that I have because of my own research and experiences.  I said it once before that there's enough research on both sides of this debate to share and review.  You didn't post one fucking thing to support your position until today.  The points in my original post stand.  There is no party line anything there.  MJ fucks with the brain.  How much consumption is necessary to cause this?  I don't really know, but I don't think that anybody knows for certain.  Why take the fucking risk?  That's it...  Nothing more...  Nothing less...  Nothing about alcohol...  Not even anything about kittens... 

[Ogre]

The last thing this country needs is another drug to fuck with the masses.  The country's in enough of a decline already, and you guys want to introduce another drug.  That just doesn't make any sense to me. 

This is the crux of the argument for me.  Pot has already been introduced.  People are using it now, and have been using it for a long time.  I'm of the opinion that if people want to smoke pot, they will do so, whether it's legal or illegal.  Why not let otherwise law-abiding citizens have a say-so over what they want to put into their bodies?  Why piss away billions of dollars fighting a drug that is no more harmful than some substances that are legal, when instead you could be bringing in millions (if not billions) of tax dollars regulating the drug? 

In my opinion, it's not the gubment's place to tell me what I can and can not do to myself, as long as I'm not harming others.  Then again, it's not the gubment's place to do a lot of the things they do, but that's another argument for another day.

[AuburnChopper 3.0]

The only X factor that I can think of that makes me question it would be this, whether you're for legalization or against it:

Would the number of users stay the same, expand slightly, or explode?   I think that most penalties for illegal use are horseshit most of the time, or ridiculously harsh and should be reviewed.  However, I'm not sure that legalizing it and it becoming more readily available to certain age groups and people that shouldn't have their hands on it is a good idea either.

I find myself in the middle of this one...  I think with the right distribution and regulation, legalization is an interesting argument.

[AUChizad]

The only X factor that I can think of that makes me question it would be this, whether you're for legalization or against it:

Would the number of users stay the same, expand slightly, or explode?   I think that most penalties for illegal use are horseshit most of the time, or ridiculously harsh and should be reviewed.  However, I'm not sure that legalizing it and it becoming more readily available to certain age groups and people that shouldn't have their hands on it is a good idea either.

I find myself in the middle of this one...  I think with the right distribution and regulation, legalization is an interesting argument.

It may indeed slightly increase. I myself would partake more often than I currently do, which is next to never. However, use of other more dangerous drugs, alcohol included, would decrease, for a net of around the same. I, for example, may substitute my Saturday night in which I normally drink for instead smoking. At the very least then, I'd be alternating the damage I was doing to my body instead of just drilling my liver. Other more serious drug use would decline as well. Look to countries with legalized marijuana for evidence of that. For one, the same dealers who sell you pot, often also sell harder drugs, and they often aren't hesitant to upgrade you. If pot were purchased at the store, this temptation wouldn't be present.
To repost:

Myth: Marijuana Prohibition Improves Public Safety

There is no evidence that the prohibition of marijuana reduces the net social risk of accidents. On the contrary, recent studies suggest that marijuana may actually be beneficial in that it substitutes for alcohol and other, more dangerous drugs. Research by Karyn Model found that states with marijuana decriminalization had lower overall drug abuse rates than others; another study by Frank Chaloupka found decriminalization states have lower accident rates too.1 In Alaska, accident rates held constant or declined following the legalization of personal use of marijuana.2 In Holland, authorities believe that cannabis has contributed to an overall decline in opiate abuse. Recent U.S. government statistics show that the highest rates of cocaine abuse in the West were in Nevada and Arizona, the states with the toughest marijuana laws.

Footnotes

1. Peter Passell, "Less Marijuana, More Alcohol?" New York Times June 17, 1992.

2. Michael Dunham, "When the Smoke Clears," Reason March 1983 pp.33-6.

Myth: Marijuana Leads to Harder Drugs

There is no scientific evidence for the theory that marijuana is a "gateway" drug. The cannabis-using cultures in Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America show no propensity for other drugs. The gateway theory took hold in the sixties, when marijuana became the leading new recreational drug. It was refuted by events in the eighties, when cocaine abuse exploded at the same time marijuana use declined.

As we have seen, there is evidence that cannabis may substitute for alcohol and other "hard" drugs. A recent survey by Dr. Patricia Morgan of the University of California at Berekeley found that a significant number of pot smokers and dealers switched to methamphetamine "ice" when Hawaii's marijuana eradication program created a shortage of pot.1 Dr. Morgan noted a similar phenomenon in California, where cocaine use soared in the wake of the CAMP helicopter eradication campaign.

The one way in which marijuana does lead to other drugs is through its illegality: persons who deal in marijuana are likely to deal in other illicit drugs as well.

Footnote

1. "Survey: Hawaii war on pot pushed users to 'ice,'" Honolulu Advertiser, April 1, 1994 p. 1.

[Thrilla]

Well, shit, at least we know that this is a popular debate.  Excellent arguments abound from both sides.  I'm not sure I've ever seen a topic go 5-6 pages in this forum.  We all need to get together and discuss it further!while passing around a gigantic joint so we can all get as high as a giraffe's asshole

[AuburnChopper 3.0]

Well, shit, at least we know that this is a popular debate.  Excellent arguments abound from both sides.  I'm not sure I've ever seen a topic go 5-6 pages in this forum.  We all need to get together and discuss it further!while passing around a gigantic joint so we can all get as high as a giraffe's asshole

"Oh man, did you get pink eye too?"

"No, I'm just really HIIIIIIIIGH."

[GarMan]

I find myself in the middle of this one...  I think with the right distribution and regulation, legalization is an interesting argument.

Actually, I think I'm with you on that one... 

But, I still find myself siding with the leave-it-alone argument.  I don't think the penalties for minor possession are that significant, unless it's a multiple repeat offense scenario.  Of course, by "minor" I mean a small amount...  Only enough for personal consumption.  From my understanding, it's typically the "intent to distribute" that lands people in jail, but I'm open to review info on that if anybody has it handy. 

[AUChizad]

Actually, I think I'm with you on that one... 

But, I still find myself siding with the leave-it-alone argument.  I don't think the penalties for minor possession are that significant, unless it's a multiple repeat offense scenario.  Of course, by "minor" I mean a small amount...  Only enough for personal consumption.  From my understanding, it's typically the "intent to distribute" that lands people in jail, but I'm open to review info on that if anybody has it handy. 

Again, easily researchable.

http://www.passyourdrugtest.com/Marijuana-Laws/alabama.htm

In Alabama, the least harsh penalty is a $2,000 fine and up to a year in prison.

And as mentioned, you lose your job if they find out, whether that be from your criminal record or from a drug test.

I found this history of its prohibition interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_marijuana_in_the_United_States

DuPont, William Randolph Hearst, and hemp

The decision of the United States Congress to pass the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 was based on hearings,[2] reports[22] and in part on testimony derived from articles in newspapers owned by William Randolph Hearst, who had significant financial interests in the timber industry, which manufactured his newsprint.[23]

Cannabis activist Jack Herer has researched DuPont and in his 1985 book The Emperor Wears No Clothes, Herer concluded DuPont played a large role in the criminalization of cannabis. In 1938, DuPont patented the processes for creating plastics from coal and oil and a new process for creating paper from wood pulp. If hemp would have been largely exploited, Herer believes it would have likely been used to make paper and plastic (nylon), and may have hurt DuPont’s profits. Andrew Mellon of the Mellon Bank was DuPont's chief financial backer and was also the Secretary of Treasury under the Hoover administration. Mellon appointed Harry J. Anslinger, who later became his nephew-in-law, as the head of the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (FBNDD) and the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN), where Anslinger stayed until 1962.[24]

In 1916, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) chief scientists Jason L. Merrill and Lyster H. Dewe created paper made from hemp pulp, which they concluded was "favorable in comparison with those used with pulp wood in USDA Bulletin No. 404."[25] In his book Herer summarized the findings of Bulletin No. 404:[26]

    USDA Bulletin No. 404, reported that one acre of hemp, in annual rotation over a 20-year period, would produce as much pulp for paper as 4.1 acres (17,000 m2) of trees being cut down over the same 20-year period. This process would use only 1/4 to 1/7 as much polluting sulfur-based acid chemicals to break down the glue-like lignin that binds the fibers of the pulp, or even none at all using soda ash. The problem of dioxin contamination of rivers is avoided in the hemp paper making process, which does not need to use chlorine bleach (as the wood pulp paper making process requires) but instead safely substitutes hydrogen peroxide in the bleaching process. ... If the new (1916) hemp pulp paper process were legal today, it would soon replace about 70% of all wood pulp paper, including computer printout paper, corrugated boxes and paper bags.

Hemp was a relatively easy target because factories already had made large investments in equipment to handle cotton, wool, and linen, but there were relatively small investments in hemp production. Big technological improvements in the wood pulp industry were invented in the 1930s; for example the recovery boiler allowed kraft mills to recycle almost all of their pulping chemicals, and other improvements came later. There was also a misconception hemp had an intoxicating effect because it has the same active substance, THC, which is in potent cannabis strains; however, hemp only has minimal amount of THC when compared to recreational cannabis strains.

An alternative explanation for Anslinger's opinion's about hemp is that he believed that a tax on cannabis could be easier to supervise if it included hemp and that he had reports from experiments with mechanical harvesting of hemp reporting that the machines was no success and reports about cannabis farms.[27]

    "The existence of the old 1934-1935 crop of harvested hemp on the fields of southern Minnesota is a menace to society in that it is being used by traffickers in marihuana as a source of supply."[28]

    "they were able to cut only a part of the Tribune Farm crop by machine, two thirds of it they did by hand with a sharp hand cuttertuff".[29]

An argument for the alternative theory is that hemp was not an alternative as material in the new commercial products from DuPont using oil or coal as raw material, the nylon-bristled toothbrush (1938) followed more famously by women's “nylons” stockings (1940). Nylon was intended to be a synthetic replacement for silk not hemp.

This is basically like the CEO of Pepsi-Cola convincing lawmakers that Coca-Cola was a danger to society. He ran a yellow journalism blitz through the papers he owned to eliminate the competition, and it worked.

[GarMan]

Again, easily researchable.

http://www.passyourdrugtest.com/Marijuana-Laws/alabama.htm

In Alabama, the least harsh penalty is a $2,000 fine and up to a year in prison.

And as mentioned, you lose your job if they find out, whether that be from your criminal record or from a drug test.

That's not exactly what I wanted to see.  I was looking for actual stats on convictions for "minor" possession. 

Up to 2.2 pounds...  WOW!  That's significantly greater than the personal consumption amount that I was suggesting.  You'd have a hard time convincing anyone that it was just for your own use.  In my opinion, a fine of up to $2000 and up to a year in jail is nothing for toting 2.2 pounds of pot around town. 

There are pretty tough penalties for a lot of things, but you rarely get the max unless you're a repeat offender.  Take DUI for instance...  You almost NEVER get the max on the first offense unless there were some other gross circumstances.  Just something to consider...