How redundant and stupid. The State says its okay to grow marijuana for "medicinal purposes" and the Federal Government can charge the same growers for criminal vioations of the US Code.

In Arizona, sellers of marijuana are encouraged to buy tax stamps. But on the other hand the Prosecutors are still charging people with the illegal sale and possession of this herb.

When I was a cop, (16 years) I never went to one homicide or fatal automobile accident, not one violent crime call, where marijuana played a significant role in bringing these events about. Where as, Alcohol and illegal amphetimines, schedule 1 and 2 drugs, were predominant influences in the violent outcome.

By failing to legitimize the general sale and distribution of marijuana, the State and Federal boys are missing the boat on hundreds of billions of dollars in taxable revenue.

In my view, if they are going to remain inflexible on the issue of marijuana, then outlaw the sale of Liquor. Alcohol abuse is directly responsible for the destruction of many families, many many violent incidents, and over 50% of all fatal motor vehicle accidents. I can safely say that marijuana use has never caused the death of anyone, purely from the use of it and it alone.

And of course, "big brother" wants his tens pounds of flesh, whether it is legal or illegal. Welcome to true capitalism in all of it's decadent glory. For those of you who are unaware, they have ignored or removed almost all fundamental protections afforded each of us under the U S Constitution.

Keep this in mind, all of you. When you agree to alloow our government to remove any freedom you and I enjoy, like cigarette smoking or laws like "emminent domain", etc., you merely make probable that they will continue to abridge or remove more of your personal freedoms.

Post Scipt:

The feds need to rethink the Schedule 1 Narcotic classification of Marijuana circa 1970) Morphine is also a Schedule 1 Narcotic, and Marijuana does not belong in the same category as morphine, heroin, or cocaine.

Hear, hear. While we are at it, how about a more sensible drugs policy over here instead of the usual reactionary nonsense we are subjected to?

#3: The burden of proof lies upon you. To take a rather flippant example; if I were to postulate that fresh air is fatal and should be outlawed, should it be so until you prove it is not true?

California has legalized marijuana for medicinal purposes. As a person who does not use illegal drugs I would like to say that I support legalization. When my father was suffering the effects of chemotherapy marijuana was his only relief. I had to break the law to provide him with the only effective drug we could find(marinol did NOT work). I can say years later that I would do so again without hesitation even at the risk of incarceration.

3 I would like to clarify the statement at the risk of stepping on Combat Vet's toes (sorry CV). Marijuana alone has never been proven to cause the death of someone.

Chairman Gordon at the risk of stating the obvious I think both the article and the well structured opinion of CombatVet 68 emphasise the need for this issue to be looked into by the powers that be.My concern is that even if it were to be legalised(which I would support up to a certain strength)the extra revenue generated would be wasted by the political elite of the UK.Like Pete W i would hope for a sensible solution.However with our current calibre of politicians more concerned with alleged racism on 'Zlist'Celebrity BB, to give another flippant example than important issues, i'll not hold my breath.

#1- combatvet- "marijuana use has never caused the death of anyone". I guess that's true, as long as no one drives stoned. I had a friend who was in several car accidents while driving stoned. If it is legalized for everyone, it will be abused.

This is good news for cannabis law reform, tax=legitimisation,legitimisation =legalisation.
Pay the tax and you will achieve full re-legalisation, if it were not the case it would not be called a tax it would be called a fine!
Chairman Gordon that sort of red herring that you use ,much like a schoolboy debater, will not work,you Sir, give us the name of one single person that has died as a direct result of cannabis intoxication,just one Gordon,I challenge you to do this.

Addition:
To CombatVet68 ,I think you might be interested in this organisation called L.E.A.P ,Law Enforcement Against Prohibition , its tailor-made to suit you(I know,pathetic pun) They are doing good and need more ex-police as well as serving police to join with them and stop PROHIBITION and the INSANE drug war against our fellow citizens and move towards RE-legalisation of formally legal drugs.

http://leap.cc/audiovideo/LEAPpromo.htm

#1 CombatVet68
Today a ban on marijuana tomorrow the concentration camps then eh? I DONT THINK SO!

The old civil liberties arguement doesn't count for the Californians who voted for leftie Nancy Pelosi.

She just visited the police state of Syria - smiling politely with her head covered so as not to offend the "big brother" regime.

Surely it can't be long before our dear Chancellor, Gordon Brown, cottons on to this idea as a way to grab even more cash from us. Imagine the tax revenues this would generate in the UK for him!

#13
Thanks for your input. I would point out that studies which have associated marijuana use with the onset of schizophrenia (no other mental disorder has been studied) have taken care to point out that those who have a family history of schizophrenia and smoke pot are more likely to be diagnosed with schizophrenia in later life. The distinction is important. Pot doesn't cause schizophrenia, it is a genetically heritable illness.

I believe such studies are of little use in debating the issue of drug legalization. One can argue that those who drink alcohol are far more likely to have Wernicke-Korsakoff Syndrome (Alcohol Related Dementia) yet we still permit the recreational use of alcohol.

Marijuana should be legalized and taxed, like any other product. Too many lives are destroyed by Prohibition.

If you allow your kids to smoke marijuana ... is that potty-training??

California in bid to impose 7.25% sales tax on cannabis

Now that's getting high.

Seems fair to me ... if it is legalized.

Nobody dies from marijuana, nobody. I have searched and researched and asked every single government agency I can find and there are no incidents of any death from marijuana anywhere.
To those who fall for the government lie that this is a dangerous substance I challenge you to find one single solitary case in all of history where marijuana was the cause of death.

What a load of Bally hoo.
Cannabis has been a herb used in medicine for hundreds if not over a thousand years. In the 1930s, cannabis was made illegal, due to Valium being invented. The wonder drug, that is harder to weane someone off, than heroin. Vallium also made huge rewards for the pharmicutical companies.
Cannabis was given some terrible propaganda by our government. Reefer madness, black mans drug, etc etc during the 60s and 70s. It is now a revenue earner for the government as drug money, profits, proceeds and fines are put back into policing as a money saver for the exchequer.
The people who were involved with hippy during the 60s are now at retiral age. The mass hysteria publicised in the scare mongering has never arrisen.
David Cameron the Tory leader seems none the worse for wear. He wouldnt have smoked the low grade stuff the lower paid can afford. He was on the purer, less interfered with herb.
The government are not going to legalise cannabis. There are too many people employed in :- Policeing, Convicting, Punishing etc.
Police would have to lay off the drug squad, court personell as half of all court cases are drug related. Social workers/probation officers who pick up the convicted after release from prison.
As a policeman, my father always said, he would rather arrest a person on cannabis than alcohol. Cannabis users are not violent as cannabis is a calming drug, whereas someone on alcohol is unpredictable and potentialy very dangerous.
There are too many untruths and paranoia regarding cannabis. Another case of nanny state Big Brother using the drug laws to make users suspects and frighten the public with thier propaganda.

Further to my previous post. 22,
The UK government have changed thier stance since the 60s and 70s etc, as there has been a loosening of the drug laws.
If the government really wanted to take control of cannabis a reletively mild to meduim effect drug, seperate from heroin, cocaine etc. Then they could easily do so.
The government only need legalise cannabis. Open government approved outlets(coffee shops) selling cannabis at a reasonable price,(different strengths= different price) ie, shandy has the least alcohol needing much more to have effect say than Brandy(a spirit) where Beer, wine, port etc are in the middle.
The public given the option of guarenteed quality, would flock to the coffee shops.
The government could make a good profit, get a return from taxes and put criminals out of business almost overnight.
If the government keep prices down the black market would be out of business. The government would also have direct access to the drug taking public to educate them away from a drug dependency.
My father a policeman, said to criminalise the youth going through phases and rebellion was an abuse of the law.
As with alcohol users, cannabis users dont abuse the recreational element of thier pleasure.
Alcoholics are recognised as having an illness tied to alcohol. Abusers of cannabis are recognised in Holland as being ill, why does the UK not help thier cannabis abusing sufferers instead of criminalising them.
An old age pensioner lady a few weeks ago, was condemned, convicted and embarressed on TV for being a helpfull old lady. She grew cannabis(cutting out the criminal element) made the cannabis into herbal remedies, for distribution to the sick, in pain, and terminal patients who modern medicine could not assist.
If the goverment wasnt such an ass, they could wipe out half of all crime. Half the expense to the courts. Raise taxes instead of fines. Centralise supply and standardise quality.
If ca

This is really cool,a majority in agreement.I have never in quite a few(well many) years of smoking weed seen anyone become violent or agressive when using pot only!Legalisation may even be productive towards Peace.More joints,fewer bullets.Who wants to start a war and ruin your buzz.My bowl is lit for Peace!

BTW I'm not liberal or conservitive just free.

Gordon #24 It is impossible, even in theory, to disprove a non-specific negative. It is quite obviously impossible to "prove" that nobody has ever died of cannabis, or pure air as mentioned, without seeing the death certificate of everybody who has ever lived. In the same way it is impossible to prove that the law of gravity works everywhere. Nonetheless the working assumption is that gravity always works & equally. in the absence of any evidence of cannabis killing, the assumption should be that it doesn't.

To reverse your answer to 21 - how hard did you look?

#1 CombatVet68 - Very well put & right on!
# 3 - Get real - where is your logic formed?
#10 Was your friend injured driving a 10mph?
#13 Peanuts kill more people do to alergic reaction & choking - shall we outlaw peanut butter? Most states no longer require blood tests prior to marriage - they are considering a stupidity test to prevent more morons being produced.
#25 - very well put - some logic for #3 to consider.
#3 - In America one is innocent until proven guilty! So argue your case of guilt better!

#29 Show me your credentials instead of taking pot shots. We have an expert witness what do you have?

I love it; "pot shots".

:-)

Gordon, you are merely being cantankerous and nit-pickity. Have you ever taken a course in Logic? Logically, there is NO METHOD to prove a negative. The closest method would be Reductio Ad Absurdum (but this can only be used to disprove a premise).

Think about it: If NO ONE has died, then you need at least ONE DEATH to prove the conclusion false. Since the argument is that NO ONE HAS DIED, the onus is upon YOU to supply the one death which proves the claim false. Get Busy.

I suspect CombatVet is 100% Correct and will ABSOLUTELY grant him this: People getting toked up do not engage in violent crimes. People smoking pot, get mellow, giggle a lot and then get the munchies. I can only imagine the comedy where a pack of stoners attempt to get high and rob a liquer store! Let alone attempt to hold a gang war. Throw a bag od potato chips at them, and they would promptly forget what the fight was about, and end up stuffing chips in their mouth and giggling at each other.

If you just want to be presnicketity, then go for it! Logically, however, since it is impossible to prove a negative, the onus would be upon YOU to prove the statement false. You may continue to be contankerous and argumentative just as soon as you provide the ONE DEATH which proves your argument.

#36 Chairman Gordon

In response to your inquiry, allow me to say that I first went through Police Certification after graduating from the University of Tulsa in 1978, having obtained a Bachelor of Science degree in Criminal Justice. I worked employed with the Tulsa Police Dept., as a patrol officer, then later as a Sergeant.

I left there after 7 years and took a position with the Amarillo Police Dept (better money, benefits, and at the behest of my former partner). I obtained police certification in Oklahoma, Texas, and last in Utah as a State Police Officer. I was shot once in the line of duty during a raid on a Meth Lab.

CombatVet:

I'm not sure, I may owe you an apology. Due to your virulent Cheerleading for Bush and Crew over the Iraq war, I had you pegged as one of the Right Wing Militant Nationalist crowd. Then, you had to go and write this -

"And of course, "big brother" wants his tens pounds of flesh, whether it is legal or illegal. Welcome to true capitalism in all of it's decadent glory. For those of you who are unaware, they have ignored or removed almost all fundamental protections afforded each of us under the U S Constitution."

Being fully aware of who "they" are, and who represents "Big Brother," it would appear that you are NOT a Huge Bush fan, and that perhaps you are NOT ready to spit on the Constitution for "Your Guy."

In addition, your arguments above are clearly grounded on common sense and reality, something the Right Wing Militant Nationalists lost touch with at least 5 years ago.

Gordon:

"Can you post links to empirical medical studies by WHO or some other recognised authority?"

More appropriately, CAN YOU? I only ask, because logically, that is all you need to do to prove your argument. And Yes, I have a University Degree and have taken at least two course in Logic.

I carefully explained in the post above WHY your logic is flawed, and (like water off a ducks back) apparently NO ONE is able to penetrate what passes for your mind...

32 chairman Gordon.
You make an arguement with zero policy policeing in NYC. You however neglected to mention if the crackdown by law inforcement which saw a reduction in crime has had any effect on drug taking.
The drug users werent stopped from using drugs, they only had to go out and find the new criminal dealers who replaced the previous traders.
From police reports we are told that most low level street dealers are in fact junkies cought in thier addiction. They on the whole do not make profits but feed thier cravings. These poor people are slaves to a drug, often abandoned in poor income, poor housing and having poor prospects of upward mobility. They demand our pity rather than our wrath.
If the government sponsored a drug dependency organisation. Addicts would be able to feed thier cravings without danger to the public. The cost to businesses outlets from shop lifting would crash, the cost to insurance companies would plummet too. The costs to policy holders for insurance would fall, the cost to the public purse for police and courts would be reduced. The costs to NHS through reduction in transmittable diseases, HIV, Hepatitus, or Ulcers etc, would all fall. Through these organisations, addicts could be aided towards reduction and ending of thier dependency.
The savings to be made would be enormous in relation to how much it currently costs the country.
The public would be able to recognise a win,win,win, situation. Addicts themselves would stop thier criminal behavior, no longer having to sell all thier possesions before going out to steal and rob.
Heavy handed treatment of the vulnerable in our society, should be left in the dark ages.
Modernise the legal system and help these poor people. The cost of crime in the UK could be drasticaly reduced with a little support by government instead of the stalanist type regime we currently see.
All addicts will tell you, they never intended becomong addicted. Alcohol, B

Chairman G:

As a former Director of two drug rehab programs I don't know if I qualify as an expert, but I have done some research on this subject. I started collecting information various drugs over twenty years ago and I gradually came to the same conclusion as most people in the industry - pot just doesn't cause dangerous physical problems.

I am positive no death has ever been attributed to Marijuana use in the USA. There were two fatal accidents several years apart where Marijuana was judged to have POTENTIALLY contributed. One was a train accident where an employee of the railroad had traces of Marijuana in his system. The other incident occurred in Nevada. A Nevada Legislator was killed in an automobile accident by a driver with Marijuana in their system. This accident derailed an attempt to legalize pot in Nevada (during elections held just days after the accident).
(Please do not misinterpret me to advocate driving under the influence of Marijuana. Anyone familiar with it must admit that it impairs judgement, vision and response time. That said I would much rather drive with someone high on pot rather than alcohol.)

To my knowledge that is it. Marijuana was not judged to be the culprit in either case, but its influence could not be ruled out either.

There have been literally hundreds of studies during the past 35 years that have not yielded one iota of evidence of death caused by Marijuana use or even serious medical problems caused by usage.

As for the Schizophrenia charges - I beleive the gentleman from Austrailia was referring to a UK study that showed a connection between a higher frequency of schizophrenia among daily users who STARTED USING AT OR BEFORE AGE 12. (Don't ask me how that works!)

Finally mr. G., I am afraid your silly challenge is about as fatuous as me asking you to prove no one has died from writing stupid emails...

Can you prove THAT?

The Peoples Republic of California should refer back to one that state's oldest aphorisms:

"Weed will get you through times without money far better than money will get you through times without weed"

#36 Chairman Gordon

I do not take offense at your comments, for they are reasonable inquiries. I have not performed a historical study to determine or prove the vailidity of my argument concerning "no deaths directly related to the use of Marijuana". If it is important, perhaps you could call the Medical Examiners office in Los Angelos, New York City, or Miami (Florida) and ask them what records they maintain which might show the number of deaths they have recorded which were the direct result of cannibis use.

However, during the course of my years of experience, numerous violent or domestic calls I have respnded to, and over 4800 hours of specialized training in Law Enforcement, I have never seen or heard of one single incident wherein cannabis use resulted in the users death. Not ONE!

Alcohol abuse, over 3000 deaths that I have direct and personal knowledge of, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of lives that have been shattered due to this chemical dependency.

In Korea, in the 50's, the public first became aware of "brain washing" techniques used to interrogate prisoners by the North Koreans. Our government developed a military training program, called "Psychological Operations" (Psy Ops for short). I know, for I attended this school when I was in Army Special Forces.

My point being...our government has been using many of these mind tricks and various forms of propaganda to manipulate the minds and attitudes of the American people. Ergo, the propaganda concerning the use of marijuana started back in the late 60's in a "big way". Please understand that I am not a proponent for legalizing Cocaine, Heroine, Lysergic Acid, or Methamphetimines, etc.

To the Government, the laws which criminalize the possession and use of Marijuana are "big money" producers for the government. Arizona's number one cash crop or largest industry is their Dept of Corrections and Courts System.

You can do it easily yourself.

Start by "Googling" 'harvard pot studies'. Then follow the links. You will never run out of material!

That will get you going. If you want to ask some specific question I will try to find answer for you.

#40 Rainman

Thanks for the "cudo's". Sorry, never claimed to be a big Bush supporter, however, I do develop my views from both current and historical events, seasoned with Scriptural predictions. I also form opinions which are rooted in what I consider common sense. Having been a professional soldier for 12 (Army Special Forces, Vietnam 1968).

I am a conservative, but wrong is wrong, and right is rigth, in my opinion. If Bush is wrong, I have no reservations about telling him so. He is wrong on the issue of detaining suspected or accused terrorist without benefit of judicial process or review, which is contrary to protections afforded all men under the U S Constitution.

I sincerely attempt to make objective informed decisons on world event without allowing my own personal bais to influence my views. I don't get it right all the time, but I am comfortable with the outcome thus far.

Chairman G:

To narrow it down - Google Dr. Lester Greenspoon at Harvard Medical School. He directed several studies for the U.S. Government for over twenty years investigating the effects of Marijuana use.

This is only a good starting point - there are literally hundreds of good studies.

#41 Chairman Gordon

In response to your question, allow me to offer this as my reasons for "moving around alot".

I left Oklahoma for better money, better benefits, and due to a close personal tie to my former partner when I joined the Amarillo Police Dept.

I left Amarillo and moved to Utah, four years later because of my parents who were elderly and needed my assistance, they lived in Utah, having moved there in 1962.

I was shot and took my medical pension as a result of a gun battle in which I was shot twice, during a meth lab raid. Now does that answer your question to your satisfaction?

Allow me to say that I never once used marijuana and rarely found myself drunk (off duty) on alcohol during the time I was a uniformed police officer. In fact, I arrested dozens of people during my law enforcement career for "dealing". Possession charges, Well, no...I usually made them dump it, seized it, or flush it, when I found someone holding.

On a different plain of thought, allow me to say that by contrast, no one can deny that alcohol abuse is far more lethal and destructive in it's uses or abuse than marijuana could ever hope to be. Its all about the money.

Yet, we know that the US Justice dept went after big tobacco for the money, nothing more, nothing less. "We will use these millions and millions of dollars to pay for medical treatment of those who suffer from tobacco related use". What "hog wash"! The Salt Lake Tribune and the Los Angelos Herald both related news stories about the recieving of millions of dollars from this "legalized theft" from the tobacco industry, saying..."what shall we do with all of this money"?
"how will we spend it"?

There was not one word about spending it on those who suffer from Emphizema (sic), or any other respiratory disease. Just another contrived, well structured propaganda ploy to manipulate the hearts and min

CombatVet: Perhaps I spoke too quickly. If you are merely spoiling for a fight and looking to be adversarial, referring to me as "Rainman" is one good way to kick it off. As I have not taken liberties with your handle, I would appreciate you not doing so with mine (if you want to be civil, that is).

We are just going to have to "agree to disagree" or religion. I have a college degree with a scientific background (I am a Licensed Preofessional Civil Engineer), and I see many things in the bible which are just "magic." Scientists do not believe in magic.

Second, the bible is rife with contradictions and historical inaccuracies. As a MORAL guide for living your life, the books of Matthew, Mark and Luke and sound enough, but the entire Old Testament is nothing more than Ancient Hebrew Mythology. The Book of Revelations reads like someone write it while doing some of GalacticCannibals "shrooms."

I served 16 Years in the Marine Corps to protect American Freedoms, and that includes those I have no use for. I believe that you have the right to believe ANYTHING YOU WANT TO, because the first Amendment says so. It also says I have the right NOT to believe. So...

You do your thing, and I'll do mine...

Chairman G:

The only point I am making is that if you take the time to search it out you will the preponderence of data shows pot not to be a serious medical threat.
You cansearch it out yourself and you will not find any claims of death by Marijuana.

There was a study from the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA finding chronic usage irritated the airways, caused chronic coughing and could contribute to infections or possible lung irritation, but I think The University of California, San Francisco study published in the American Journal of Cardiology summed it up best: "In conclusion, although Marijuana use was not independently associated with ANY CARDIO-VASCULAR RISK FACTORS, it was associated with .." overeating, smoking and other drug use.

Sorry G., If you follow those links like little spiders all through the web and outside of non-professional or
serious academic studies you will hav a tough time finding data to prove Marijuana use is "lethal".

There are all sorts of other problems associated with chronic usage. In fact most long term users
I have known have expressed a desire to quit or at least stop daily use.

Sadly, as long people debate the red herring of the physical dangers of pot the real negative effects will continue to be overlooked. Those negatives may not be dramatic, but they can and do negatively impact the quality of abusers lives.

39 here are some studies:
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n1106/a09.html?275821
http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/155/1/141
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006...

I won't answer to possible psychological and societal problems associated with cannabis. The question was whether it is fatal or not. If there had been one provable death caused by cannabis the govt. goons would have been all over it.

Prohibition of a plant that is less lethal than alcohol and tobacco is stupid in the extreme. Only criminals and politicians have benefited from these laws.

#57 RainBird

My humblest apologies in addressing you as "Rainman". It was my failure to address you my your name due to a simple oversight. I was not attempting to belittle you, merely a typo. Sory once again.

CombatVet: Accepted, and no worries, it's forgotten.

Obviously, Chairman Gordon has neither your "Cop-on-the-Street experience, nor my own "mis-spent youth" experience. Any damn fool who has been around people smoking pot knows that they as big a bunch of giggling mellow fools as can be found anywhere on the planet.

I think once while smoking pot, we had an idea to rob a convenience store, but we got derailed when someone pointed out that they had chili-dogs there. From chili-dogs, we went to potato chips, then french fries...anyway, we all ended up eating from a jar of pickles and watching batman on TV.

Stoners can't concentrate long enough to actually carry out an act of violence, and don't have enough ambition to get straight long enough to achieve any sort of attention span. I'd hate to think where I might have ended up had I not stopped smoking that stuff. Today, you have kids who are 25-30 years old still living with Mom and Dad, so they can work at McDonalds and get high in the basement...AND THEY DON'T CARE! That's the major tragedy of weed: it simply destroys your ambitions and allows you to be happy being a freeloader living in your moms basement.

Although, I will ABSOLUTELY give you another point you made: it is no worse than alcohol in that regard. BOTH can lead to a life devoid of ambition.

The most common affects of maijuana use is the impact it has on the lungs and respiratory system.

It interacts with certain brain cells which creates a euphoric 'high" and as a result reduces drive and iniative in the average user.

It is best if no one smokes cigarettes, uses marijuana, avoids all forms of alcohol except for the occasion glass of wine with a meal, and when you hit 50 plus, one shot of hard liquor a day to help the circulatory system. As Jesus said..."take a little (not a lot) wine for the stomachs sake."

Life teaches that almost anything done to excess can be harmful, But the "good book" also said..."(that God) gave us the herbs of the fields for our healing." Last time I looked, marijuana is a herb.
The truly sad thing about all of this is that people go to prison, pay out the ying yang, have their lives destroyed, for violating the rediculous laws pertaining to use or possession of this insignificant "weed".

The hypocracy of our government knows no bounds. The most prolific of criminals occupy some of the seats in our Congress and Senate. Yet they enact laws which result in the imprisonment of countless citizens, who do not possess a "get out of jail free card" which most of them possess. I've seen fellow officers fired because they arrested some wealthy affluent politicians or their kinsman. Drop the charges or else.

When will the American and British people wake up and realize there are two sets of laws in this country. One set exists for the common man, and the other exists for the wealthy and affluent.

Both Clinton and Nixon should have been charged with felonies and adjudged guilty, but of course they are not subject to the same laws as we common folks. I don't know about youi, but that really cuts me to the bone. No man is above another. No man is better or of greater or less value than another.
What errogance!

#61 Rainbird

HeHeHe, got it right this time! You and I are not far apart on many of these issues. My impression is that you are liberal, while I am conservative on many issues. Yet liberal on others.

It is a pity, however, that you have not opened your heart to the God who revealed Himself to me. But while there is still life, there is hope. Take care out there.

#64 Chairman Gordon

I do not believe that we are adversaries. You have the right to maintain your views on the subject of discussion, just as the rest of us. Perhaps we are merely half right and half wrong on this issue.

I did not discuss the problems which have arisen out of the governments classification of marijuana use or possession as a criminal act. The fact that it is crime, in some instances the classification is a felony and the other is that it is classified as a misdemeanor, depending upon the severity of the alledged offense.

Drug or "dope" dealers who are faced with potential jail time, or worse, may use violence to silence a witness, or due to addiction to Schedule 1 or 2 drugs, might resort to robbery, theft, etc. Would the decriminalization of marijuana change or alter these events.

Perhpas somewhat, moreso when dealing with a user or dealer of marijuana only, but those who remain dealers in illegal drug sale or possession (addictive drugs) distribution will still be acting outside the law and the same acts of criminal wrong will occur.

My mother is a drug addict. But she is a legal drug addict because her addiction is to legal prescription drugs. Her dependency upon them is alarming, to say the least.

#34TSW so true a mellow mind makes for peaceful negotiations.sorry took so long just woke up. #49 Rehab is for quitters.

Chairman G:

#64 Perhaps you could name one and I will take it from there. The only study I know of from your side of the pond making a conncetion between violence and Marijuana was from New Zealand. It turned out that almost half of their subjects belonged to a group with soical and mental problems that accounted for a frequency of approximately five times the typical population.

With those subjects taken out the Canabis users still had a higher incidence of arrest for violent crimes. However, because the control group was considered to have subjects with similar mental and social problems the study is generally considered flawed and its conclusions suspect.

That is the only one I have heard of - Let me see what you are referring to - I would be very interested in checking it out.

CombatVet: Funny thing, when I got out of the Marine Corps, I *thought* I was a "conservative."

I believe in the BIll of Rights.
I believe (sorry to our European Friends) in the death penalty.
I believe (sorry again) in the right to bear arms.
I believe in SMALLER, LESS INTRUSIVE Government.
I Believe in the Constitutional Concept of "Check and Balances" and think that the "War Powers Act" is a shameful and UN-Constitutional abdication of Congress to their responsibility to Declare War.

But, I also believe that what a woman does with her own body is no one elses business.
I believe that the First Amendment prohibits the Government for forcing religion (or any part of religious beliefs) down our throats. I also believe the first Amendment PROTECTS ones rights to believe (or NOT believe) in any religion they want to.
I believe that a very small (less than 1,000) group of multi-national Corporations and/or individuals (often known as the Military/Industrial/Media Complex) REALLY pulls the strings behind our government, and they don't care a bit what "Joe Public, the stupid working guy" wants or needs.

Conservatives looked at this LAST group of beliefs and promptly threw me out of "their" club.

To be a "conservative" now, you have to sign on for the Whole Hog. You can't just buy the bacon and the sausage. If you won't sign on to the Religious Right agenda...you can't be a conservative.

I have no problem with that.

I Believe in the United States Constitution, and apparently, the "neo-cons" (not to be confused with the "Old Fashioned Conservatives") find the Constitution nothing more than an obstacle to their agenda. The "Patriot Act" has done more to spit on the intent of the Constitution than any other legislation in History. Bush has basically set himself up as an American Ceasar.

#49: The saying you are attempting to quote is "Dope with get you through times of no money, better than money will get you through times of no Dope." It was said by Phineas Freak, of the "Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers" a 70's counter-culture underground comic. It you google them, the entire comic book series is now available in coffeetable format, with each book dedicated to one decade of the comics. Been meaning to get around to ordering these, I believe it is about $65.00 for each book (but well worth having for those who remember them).
Fat Freddy and his cat were always my favorite characters. You can read about them on Wiki...

#70 Rainbird
I also share your beliefs as you stated in the first 5 articles of your post.

Even though I do not support abortion in any form, it is as you say, her fundamental right to have an abortion if she so chooses. However, I strongly object to their using our tax dollars to pay for it.

I also believe in the first amendment protections, however, I also object to the teaching of Darwinism in our schools. This is not an imperical (sic) study, but moreover, a mere theory which has no basis of scientific fact to support it. It is merely conjecture.

Keep the compulsory teaching of any specific religion out of our schools, just allow those students who desire to do so to attend a seminary and to pray, if they choose, without being chastized by their teachers. Have you noticed an increase in extreme violence in our schools lately? Maybe this is happening because they wont Aloo God in Schools. Therefore the protective hand of God is not there to ward off such evil doers. Oh well, it is a theory, just like Darwinism.

From my personal stand point, I have never been a "joiner". I could care less what anyone else thinks about me and my views or beliefs. I "think" for myself and refuse to be led about by the nose and told what to think. I call it the way I see it. For example, only a low intellect moron votes strictly party lines. And only a moron believes everything they hear come from the nightly news. I can't tell you the countless times that I was involved in a "situation" that was later reported by supposed live TV reporters. HA! They only had it half right most of the time.

I regret to inform you that we are fast becoming a "police state". You are absolutely correct in your views about the "Patriot Act."

They are very subtly abridging all men and womens rights, chip away here, chip away there, before you know it there will be no freedoms. Allow the powers that be to take aw

"Five hours - that is better relief than you get from morphine," she said. She did not want to take prescription drugs, which she said caused her up to 15 side-effects.

This little old lady self medicates with marijuana she grows for her own consumption. Pretty gutsy if you ask me.

The pharmaceutical companies want her jailed. They see it as a dangerous precedent which, if the idea spreads, will cost them billions in lost revenues.

The courts fined her and ordered her onto a community work program. Little old ladies can go around thumbing their noses at our LAWS!! We don't give a hoot as to what your reasons are, no matter how common sense they are, its our laws and you will have to obey US or go to jail you old "pot smoking" hag.

I wonder if I could get her to fix me some of those marijuana brownies? Hmmmmm.

Legalize it

Legalize it and suffer government control?
Or leave it the way it is?
Hmmmm, indeed.
C. Gordon your arguments are all based on other peoples opinions. Try coming original.
C. Vet your argument is the product of deep consideration of many different points of view.
Who can argue with granny, anyway?

Legalize it and suffer government control?
Or leave it the way it is?
Hmmmm, indeed.
C. Gordon your arguments are all based on other peoples opinions. Try coming original.
C. Vet your argument is the product of deep consideration of many different points of view.
Who can argue with granny, anyway?

#31-Gpreston, Friend wasn't injured. Luckily, the curbs slowed her down. She was a blonde-don"t know if that had anything to do with it. Needless to say, she never became our designated driver. I don't get your 10mph though. BTW- I swear, her last name was preston!!

#49-Markedman, I can't say I agree with you on that phrase, unless you stay stoned all time.

"Big Brother" is better at taking rights now ,than they have ever been.We give them a little here and a little there and eventually it is a big deal.Drug laws in this country are old and out dated .Pot laws are making criminals out of decent people.I am not saying that smoking pot is something we should all do, what I am saying is that you don't put pot smokers in the same class as thieves, peeping toms and domestic abusers."Big Brother has to much power and the American public needs to quit being so polarized politically and see that the Republicans and Democrats are the same power hungry party.America it is time to take back some rights that we have lost,and pot laws and taxation would be a good start.(my wife is from Germany and she says that they are Socialist and Big Brother is not half as bad th ier as it is here) It shouldn't be that way were once the land of the Free now we are the former land of the Free and it is a shame .

In reply to the poster of this post http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=542172007#c... First off you can earn USD$100,000 http://www.jackherer.com/index.html if you can disprove any thing Jack Herer has stated in his books and website writings including no deaths attributable to cannabis toxicity ie.the drug directly kills them ,money,surely thats gets your attention it should be easy money in your opinion!Lets be clear about this ,I have been using cannabis for 38 years,I have made it my business to understand the implications of my actions so I have been studying the subject on and off for at least 33 years additionally I have made sure I have the most up to date knowledge on the subject and run a website on the subject www.drugtestscam.com ,so I am saying that I know a lot more on this subject than you do. You are the one who implies things then denies that you have stated things even though you have at a minimum by implication but whats more annoying is that you admit ignorance on the subject yet maintain others opinion are not factually based or "stupid" <-- http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=542172007#c... then you quote the "first" website you find and because you "found it" its the definitive bottom line . Ha ,the real truth is you involve yourself in a debate to which you admit you no nothing about nor care even ,so why do you bother? Its just trolling ,nothing else and seen your to lazy to do research yourself I'll start you off though because I have criticised your non argument/opinion that is probably as far as you will read and I doubt you will even bother to check the provided link

Further from Judge Young
6. By contrast aspirin, a commonly used, over-the-counter medicine, causes hundreds of deaths each year.

7. Drugs used in medicine are routinely given what is called an LD-50. The LD-50 rating indicates at what dosage fifty percent of test animals receiving a drug will die as a result of drug induced toxicity. A number of researchers have attempted to determine marijuana's LD-50 rating in test animals, without success. Simply stated, researchers have been unable to give animals enough marijuana to induce death.

8. At present it is estimated that marijuana's LD-50 is around 1:20,000 or 1:40,000. In layman terms this means that in order to induce death a marijuana smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times as much marijuana as is contained in one marijuana cigarette. NIDA-supplied marijuana cigarettes weigh approximately .9 grams. A smoker would theoretically have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within about fifteen minutes to induce a lethal response.

9. In practical terms, marijuana cannot induce a lethal response as a result of drug-related toxicity. http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/

No, smoking dope may not kill you right away, but it is not a path that I would advise for anyone. Pot use leads to other drug use -- LSD, mushrooms, cocaine, heroin, you name it. And even if you are able to keep enough sense in your drug addled head, as a habitual user, you are likely to end up one of those forty year old zeros living in the parents basement with a fish tank, a blacklight and a bong hidden behind the bookcase. (I've seen plenty of such losers).
If your convinced that you think better on dope, write down or record some of your brilliant ideas when your stoned, then revisit them when your sober.... If that isn't enough to convince you that dope is stupid, then you may be hopeless.