Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Marijuana Laws Are A Prime Example Of Broken Federal Government

November 15, 2012 by  

Marijuana Laws Are A Prime Example Of Broken Federal Government
UPI
Pro-medical marijuana demonstrators protest outside a fundraiser for President Barack Obama in Oakland, Calif., in July.

As the Federal government undoubtedly prepares to pounce on Colorado and Washington after voters in each State opted to legalize recreational marijuana use, it seems the Feds are fighting a losing battle with the American psyche.

Antiquated Federal prohibition on marijuana brought forth when “Reefer Madness” was considered an acceptable argument against recreational or medical use of the drug will drive the Drug Enforcement Agency to come down hard on States that, through populist vote, accept the drug for recreational purposes. And sporadic prosecution will likely continue against States that have allowed forbidden medical marijuana initiatives to pass against the will of the Federal government.

The problem with the Federal War on Drugs and the government’s obstinacy in admitting it may have been wrong about marijuana (and other drug) policy is that it is making unwitting hypocrites of nearly everyone involved.

Conservative who hold general disdain for a burgeoning police state and champion self-responsibility in making choices in the American spirit of liberty also champion a Federal drug war against marijuana because of archaic societal views and junk science from the early 20th century.

Fiscal conservatives who argue that drug users are a sap on society’s resources have no qualms about spending thousands of dollars per nonviolent drug offender to fill overcrowded prisons and providing untold thousands of dollars more to law enforcement agencies throughout the Nation to round up the offenders.

A Presidential Administration that claims to understand the benefits of marijuana as a medical product hides behind Federal laws to quash States that allow and regulate its use. And a Congress — listen up, Republicans — that claims to hold in high regard the rights of States to operate with as little Federal meddling as possible rolls over each time the criminal Department of Justice tramples the will of State residents.

Looking at the numbers, it isn’t hard to understand why — despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary — the criminals in charge throughout government have such a hard time admitting that they were probably wrong about marijuana back in the day. According to drugsense.org, between State and Federal government the United States has spent almost $36 billion on the War on Drugs this year. That money has led to some 1.5 million drug-related arrests and about 9,500 drug-related incarcerations.

That’s a lot of fines, court costs and jobs for judges, prison employees, police and lawyers. Likewise, there is an entire industry that thrives (simply because certain drugs remain illicit) by selling drug tests as well as kits to help users mask drugs in the very same tests.

With the explosion of methamphetamine across the United States and the horrific destruction the drug causes, the drug war remains defensible by law enforcement and communities that don’t want a criminal class of doped up zombies roaming the streets. The same argument has been used for the drug war at the height of crack and heroin epidemics in the Nation.

But the people citing meth, crack and heroin to embolden support for the drug war often leave out a key fact: Marijuana arrests continually make up nearly half of drug-related arrests throughout the Nation.

“As in past years, the so-called ‘drug war’ remains fueled by the arrests of minor marijuana possession offenders,” NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano said in a recent press release. “Cannabis prohibition financially burdens taxpayers, encroaches upon civil liberties, engenders disrespect for the law, impedes upon legitimate scientific research into the plant’s medicinal properties, and disproportionately impacts communities of color. It’s time to stop stigmatizing and criminalizing tens of millions of Americans for choosing to consume a substance that is safer than either tobacco or alcohol.”

Indeed, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that more than 37,000 annual U.S. deaths, including more than 1,400 in Colorado, are attributed to alcohol use alone (this figure does not include accidental deaths). But the CDC does not even have a category for deaths caused by the use of marijuana. The argument that marijuana-related car accidents would compete with drunk driving figures do not apply to these statistics; as mentioned before, they do not include accidental deaths.

What the figures do explain, however, is why the alcohol industry frequently lobbies against State initiatives to legalize marijuana.

There is another key player in the fight against American marijuana reform, perhaps the most evil and well-funded of all: the pharmaceutical industry.

The included chart, taken from a 2010 paper entitled “Medical Marijuana: Therapeutic Uses and Legal Status” from the University of Connecticut School of Pharmacy, lists some of the medical conditions that independent medical experts in a number of States have said marijuana could be used to treat.

Imagine the sheer number of pharmaceutical drugs that would find competition from an easily grown plant in treating the conditions and the financial implications that would result for a number of big-name drug makers.

The decision made by voters in Colorado and Washington last week to lighten up on recreational marijuana laws and the decisions made by a handful of other States in recent years to allow the drug for medical benefit are not going to stop the prosecution from the Federal government (paid for by police unions, private prison corporations, alcohol manufacturers, Big Pharma and prison guard unions) anytime soon.

What is coming to an end, however, is the willingness of the American public to believe that Federal officials are working in the citizenry’s best interest when it comes to marijuana prohibition. Oftentimes, lawmakers appear to be simply doing what keeps the money flowing to their coffers from monied special interests. A Rasmussen telephone poll conducted just yesterday relates the following:

  • Only 7 percent of American adults think the United States is winning the war on drugs.
  • Fifty-one percent of respondents said alcohol is more dangerous than pot, while 24 percent said pot is more dangerous and 24 percent aren’t sure.
  • Eighty-eight percent of respondents said they had not smoked marijuana in the past year.
  • Sixty percent said State governments “should decide whether marijuana is legal in a state,” while 27 percent said that responsibility belongs to the Federal government.
  • Thirty-four percent said that the United States spends too much on the drug war; 23 percent of respondents said we don’t spend enough; and 24 percent said drug war spending is “about right.”

As with so many other issues, Americans defining themselves as both conservatives and as liberals have a common gripe against the Federal government when it comes to the marijuana debate as it relates to personal liberty and States rights. The issue, it seems, is yet another pushing the Nation dangerously close to the realization that, for decades, “government for the people, by the people” could be more accurately described as government against the people to the benefit of a few.

Sam Rolley

Staff writer Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After learning about many of the biases present in most modern newsrooms, Rolley became determined to find a position in journalism that would allow him to combat the unsavory image that the news industry has gained. He is dedicated to seeking the truth and exposing the lies disseminated by the mainstream media at the behest of their corporate masters, special interest groups and information gatekeepers.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Marijuana Laws Are A Prime Example Of Broken Federal Government”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • eddie47d

    End the Drug Wars and stop our Incarceration Nation. Marijuana is not a Substance I drug so why is it still labeled as such by the Feds.This war is hurting our economy and giving people felony convictions for its use which takes away job opportunities for them. Our judicial system is overwhelmed with minor drug infractions and that is costing us big time. Its not an effective use of taxpayer resources.

    • http://google David

      Consumption beyond milk and cookies illegal? States rights or fight! The moral problem is anything that is done in excess, including food.

    • Vicki

      Something that Eddie47d and I agree on :)

      End the war on (some) drugs and help reduce the size of the government (federal and state). Well it should but government will just heavily tax marijuana and continue to grow. But in a different direction.

      • nickkin

        Dream on Vicki…..the size of government will grow and it will be able to take over auto-insurance companies and hire thousands of claim specialists and agents and no matter what your driving record is, you will be able to get insurance, similar to pre-existing health conditions….lots of $$$$, lots of government jobs, jobs, jobs. What a utopia we will be in. Smoke heavily, Be Happy !!

      • http://none Judith Fullbright

        The war on drugs and illegal guns have not produced much. They are only trying to take guns way from law abiding citizens.There is a drug house down the street from me, every drug users, including teen agers know where it is and where to get drugs, this has been there before we bought our house in 1993..seems these agencies are not doing their job nationally and locally. Smoking cigs. has been banned in public due to the dangers of second hand smoke, yet legallizing Pot is ok..people can get their kicks from the second hand smoke I guess. Remember you can get a traffic ticket for being under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs. So more DUI’s coming I guess.

    • nickkin

      Whats left Eddie? Gambling is okay, it helps with taxes, alcohol okay, it sooths the mind and people become inventive. Medical mar. cures throngs of people like a medicine man in the injun times. Now, rec. marijuana…..taxes, share of the wealth with the casino’s and real cool inventive times, no need of a police force, limited judges, close the jails….america, heaven on earth. One more thing to add, which i totally agree on…open carry gun….holster and all. Whoopee…back to the wild west and east.

      • Vicki

        For a TRULY free people it is not possible for the possession of anything grown, created, obtained without fraud or theft, to be illegal.

        So Nickkin. Do you want freedom or slavery? Do you want to live under the boot of big government or do you want to live free to make your own decisions on the morality of possessing something? Do you want to choose what you eat and drink or do you want nanny bloomberg and company to tell you what they will permit you to consume?

        The choice is, as it always has been, simple. Black or white. A binary choice

        Freedom or serfdom.

        Choose as you will but please stop using government thugs to force YOUR choice on us.

      • Jungletrump

        Your big government rant makes me sick. Everyday I work my butt off to take care of millions of people in prison for a crime with no victims. You short sightedness is barely worth comment. Oh, but no worries, it’s not your fault just everyone elses. No worries you don’t have to take any responsibility for yourself. Now, go to your room, you are grounded. I don’t want to see you in public education again until you show some maturity and self worth.

  • Iris D. Lynch

    I am not a pot smoker and I am 79 years old. I see the isue as being one of unbridled power by the government, nothing more nor less. I have known of many (mostly young males) caught up in the web of illegality for this stupid drug. Lives and families have been shattered. To what end? Power, money (power) and the entire cartel of law enforcement that has swelled with the illegality. The year I was born, all of these drugs were made illegal. Until then you could purchase cocaine at any ‘drug’ store. Since then, drug enforcement has become a profitable industry. Ugh!

    • Robert Smith

      The reason so many go with the drug laws is simple hate. They are enforced disproportationately agains minorities. When they go to jail they are taken out of society as far as voting, serving in the military, and bunches of other opportunities.

      America needs to get over hate.

      Rob

      • jt

        “The reason so many go with the drug laws is simple hate.”

        Really?? Please cite your research on this.

        As if the race card weren’t already played out ad nauseam, you’re seriously going to claim that Americans support the war on drugs because they’re racists? WOW…approximately what portion of your own perception of reality do you attribute to racism? Do you believe that human biology (and indeed the process of evolution that created it) are racially biased against blacks because they are more likely to suffer from sickle-cell anemia?? Your “logic’ here is so utterly ridiculous, that you have quite effectively outed yourself as someone hopelessly mired in personal victimhood as a cultural standard for your way of life.

      • http://bellsouth.net unique

        Bob, I am with you. The Government and Congress aremaking money off of keeping POT illegal.

      • jt

        unique:

        Did you even READ Rob’s post??

        He said NOTHING about anyone making money by keeping pot illegal. His ENTIRE post was a claim that marijuana laws are based completely on racism, to persecute blacks and deny them opportunities (as if white, asian, hispanic, and native American people are never arrested, charged and incarcerated for pot violations).

        Let me guess…..you’re tokin’ right now, aren’t you?…..;-)

      • Sol of Texas

        The article centrally presents a cost-benefit analysis of the “war on drugs”. The war is clearly lost (as was prohibition). It is supported by a neo-temperence movement. As observed, it has given rise to counter-productive methods for identifying and “curing” people of drug addictions.

      • Robert Smith

        jt, jt… Just google “Racism and pot”.

        For example at: http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/why-is-marijuana-illegal/

        There I found: “One of the “differences” seized upon during this time was the fact that many Mexicans smoked marijuana and had brought the plant with them, and it was through this that California apparently passed the first state marijuana law, outlawing “preparations of hemp, or loco weed.”

        Rob

      • Robert Smith

        Jt bleats: “Did you even READ Rob’s post??”

        Did you?

        You claim: “His ENTIRE post was a claim that marijuana laws are based completely on racism, to persecute blacks and deny them opportunities”

        Nope, quit lying about what I posted. I first focused upon hate and then minorities.

        Your own comprehension / reading skills seem to be in question.

        Rob

      • jt

        rob:

        I stand by my characterization of your post. If you disagree, then I suggest you find a more effective method to convey your point, because my interpretation of what you ACTUALLY said is spot-on.

        Furthermore, if you don’t agree with my opinion of what you posted, then that’s fine, BUT it doesn’t indicate that I LIED about anything. I don’t agree with much of what you post here, but I’ve never been compelled to accuse you of being a liar simply because I disagree with you. Personal attacks are the last resort of those without a valid point to make.

        Lastly, perhaps you can, in your infinite capacity for “creative truth-telling”, point out where you discussed the government keeping pot illegal for monetary gain, as described by “unique”.

      • nickkin

        Well then Robert..rather then put them in jail, let’s put them in the military and assign them to foreign embassies…….only the most high will survive !

      • Frank Kahn

        Robert, while I disagree with JT in his assertion that you said it was to keep BLACKS down, I will point out that your post is racially hinged. Yes you said the word HATE first, but you used it to describe racial motivation (against minorities) for the war on drugs, in that it puts minorities in jail and by virtue of their conviction out of many modern jobs.

        While I might agree with the idea that some original laws were passed to target specific minorities in this matter, that is not the current motivating impetus of the laws. It is, indeed, a money making war. It has fueled the confiscation and liquidation of billions of dollars of citizens assets which goes directly to law enforcement.

        Now, that being said, I am sure that there are places where the local enforcement agencies target minorities when looking for illegal drug use. This is more a local prejudice than an overall national war on drug prejudice.

      • http://Facebook michael a, morris

        JT…I didn’t read anything about racism against blacks in Robs post. He did mention racism, however, he didn’t single out blacks. Why is it that you take it upon yourself to assume he was referring to black people?

      • jt

        Frank Kahn:

        “Robert, while I disagree with JT in his assertion that you said it was to keep BLACKS down,”

        Frank, THIS is a direct quote from robby’s post—–

        “When they go to jail they are taken out of society as far as voting, serving in the military, and bunches of other opportunities.

        America needs to get over hate.”

        Exactly HOW do you interpret that statement as NOT claiming that the purpose is to keep blacks down? And remember, as to the validity of his claim, there MAY indeed be more minorities prosecuted for drug violations…….BUT COULD IT BE that this is a result of more minorities COMMITTING drug-related crimes????? In order to refute that possibility, you would need to compile reliable data on actual percentage of related crimes committed by minorities, versus those committed by non-minorities, and then compare enforcement and conviction RATES within each group, not just simple numbers.

        It’s like saying that there are more white people on welfare than black people on welfare (which is true). But to then conclude that whites, as a race, are more dependent on welfare than blacks would be wholly inaccurate, because you need to look at the percentage of each ethnicity as a function of welfare enrollment, and not simple totals.

        The same holds true for drug law enforcement. Simple numbers are deceptive and easily manipulated to “prove” a non-existent “truth”.

        Just more “lies, damned lies, and statistics”….. I suppose…

        • Frank Kahn

          Dont start on me jt, you were wrong in claiming he said BLACKS, the word black is nowhere in his post. You can assume, from previous posts by him, that he implied BLACKS, but that is not what you said.

          And, yes, your assuming that minority automatically means black is a form of racism. If you dont like that assessment then too bad.

          As to the rest of your tirade, you are correct in saying that pure numerical statistics can be very deceptive if all factors that contribute to them is not considered.

          If it can be proven that the majority of crimes are committed by minorities, then the majority of prisoners in prison being minorities is just a correlation of facts not proof of discrimination.

      • jt

        michael a, morris :

        Are you REALLY going to debate semantics here? He claimed hate, and disproportionate enforcement against minorities (which is debatable), and then claimed a purpose of denial of “a bunch of other opportunities” for those poor victims of enforcement.

        My reply was just that: a reply to HIM regarding his post, and not a public dissertation on the precise grammatical meaning of it. Because he never used the word “blacks” does not prevent me from understanding the meaning of his post, given his posting history here. Read through his other posts, and then come back here and repeat your report of my “discrepancy”.

        Evidently, it’s okay to blatantly play the race card here, but not okay to call someone on it. Imagine that…..

        If someone wants to whine and cry about discrimination, then whatever, but it’s a different matter altogether to make baseless claims about racism directed at specific groups of people or specific policies, without a shred of supporting argument. And what’s worse is allowing those baseless claims, and then DISALLOWING any rebuttal by (once again) crying “racism”. THIS is why so many important discussions never happen in this country. Political correctness has denied the possibility of open discussion for the sake of relieving certain people of “discomfort” or “offense”. What a waste of the precious little time that remains to cure the ills of our nation….pathetic.

      • Robert Smith

        “Exactly HOW do you interpret that statement as NOT claiming that the purpose is to keep blacks down? ”

        Actually I was also thinking of Hispanics. That is where the original hate was directed, but it also technically wouldn’t be right to consider Hispanics a “race.” But the hateful effect is exactly the same.

        So, rather than splitting hateful hairs look at the history of drug laws, who they impact, and answer the question: Why are minorities targeted so much more often than whites?

        There are a lot of white kids out there who get probation (if that) rather than going to jail. There are several folks working on that injustice, including Robert Zellner. It is well documented no matter how much you want to deny it from the right wing politics of blame.

        Rob

      • jt

        Frank Kahn:

        Since you wish to engage in semantics:

        I never claimed that robby SAID “blacks”.

        I characterized his post to MEAN “blacks” primarily.

        I think you FULLY understand what I was saying, (as well as what robby was saying) and you decided to attack me on ridiculous grammatical idiosyncrasies relating to my post.

        But hey, if you want to finely parse grammar, then your assertion that I claimed “minority” means “black” is wholly unfounded, and blatantly WRONG on its face. We are not talking about general speech, but rather a particular post (and even in that regard, your assessment is unfounded). You are reaching here, and your racism is showing.

        Care to follow??????

        • Frank Kahn

          Wrong again jt, he said minority not black, you said black not minority.

          It is not rocket science to infer that you were, in fact, substituting the word black for his word minority.

          This is not arguing semantics, the word minority does not mean black, nor does the word black mean minority.

          Horses are animals. If I say, I saw an animal on the road today., and you say, What color was the horse you saw?, you would be wrong for the same reason.

          Just because a horse is an animal, saying the word animal does not mean horse.

          Just because blacks are a minority, saying the word minority does not mean black.

          Nor, does my pointing out that you were using the wrong word make me a racist.

        • Frank Kahn

          ps. If you meant to say primarily blacks, you should have said it instead of what you did say.

      • jt

        WRONG AGAIN, Frank Kahn:

        Once again, I never SAID that he SAID “blacks”. What about that is beyond your ability to comprehend? YOU are placing meaning into my post which was not present in and of itself. I never claimed to repeat what he SAID. You continue to misrepresent what I said, based on your own militant racism.

        You said:
        “It is not rocket science to infer that you were, in fact, substituting the word black for his word minority.”

        Is it then, not “rocket science” to infer that he was in fact substituting the word “minority” for the word “black”?

        You are fully without substance, and thus, you resort to semantic B.S.

        You are found out…..

        • Frank Kahn

          The problem with your trans juxtaposition is that you did it and you only assume that he did. And the word infer is personal, so you might wrongly infer what he meant, but I did not. He has even given you links to prove that he was referring to Mexicans (Hispanic) instead of blacks.

          And, I am not wrong, you implied (by substituting black for minority) that he was saying blacks.

          As I said before, this is not about semantics, it is what you said versus what he said.

          You need to look up the phrase militant racism before using it. Besides the fact that I have not said anything racist, the word militant is not even close to describing my attempts to get you to see your wording error.

      • jt

        robby, you said:

        ” Why are minorities targeted so much more often than whites? ”

        Please provide evidence that this is indeed happening, and that they are targeted BASED ON THEIR RACE, rather than just their presence in high-crime areas.. (REAL RESEARCH, not some worthless google finding)

      • Jungletrump

        Robert, I’m sure there are instances that led you to believe this is why the Feds are against legalization. However, using money logic, you are taking these people out of the workforce and putting them into institutions funded by our taxes revenues. That is a double hit the entire economy.
        I would add, that since the government rarely does anything based on money logic, you may have point. I’ve often pondered on why they lifted prohibition on alchohol but not on other drugs. The only thing I could come up with is that like big oil blocks alternative fuel, big drug companies block illegal drugs as it would be competition from a natural source.

        Wait and see, I have a hunch when, Johnson and Johnson have cornered the market on weed, it will then be legal. The corporatist want full control of the cash flow, they could careless about the tax revenue.

      • jt

        Yeah, frankie, it IS about semantics, because we BOTH know what he meant, and he NEVER refuted that meaning.

        The “link” he provided was only after the fact, when he was called on his (your) post.

        How many usernames do you post under, anyway? At least I have the balls to stick to my own name. Nice try though…..

        • Frank Kahn

          jt is not a name, I use my real full name and it is not frankie. I only use one name here.

      • http://Facebook michael a, morris

        JT…
        How could I possibly disallow you from making a statement, We all have our points and perceptions and we don’t always agree, however, I merely pointed out the “fact” that Rob didn’t use the word black.
        You seem to be very intelligent and well read but you need to learn that others may offer opinions that differ from yours. This doesn’t disallow conversation it opens it up to more points of view and different perceptions.
        I don’t agree with Robs theory of racism, but, I do believe the government doesn’t want to relinquish any of the revenue or the opportunity to acquire revenue from the illegalities of drugs in society.

      • jt

        Whatever frankie.

        • Frank Kahn

          Show some dignity and respect, my name if Frank not Frankie

      • jt

        michael:

        We’re both bright enough to know that people can impart specific meaning through many different grammatical means. We both know what robby meant. Don’t play tiresome games with me. It’s getting old.

      • jt

        I show respect where it’s earned, frankie. Are we clear?

        • Frank Kahn

          NO, you are not clear, you are acting like a spoiled little kid who throws a tantrum and starts calling people names just because you cant win an argument.

      • http://www.facebook.com/bryan.burtnick Bryan Burtnick

        Oh lord…leave it to a flaming Liberal to make a discussion about prohibition seem to boil down to how Whites allegedly “hate” Blacks. Pure leftist/Black Nationalist poppycock.

      • jt

        Really, frankie??

        By all means, PLEASE show me where I “called people names because I can’t win an argument”.

        I made a valid point about robby’s “race card” post, and you decided to defend his pathetic cries of victimhood by parsing grammar. THAT is not an argument, but rather a shallow attempt at an end-run around the real point. No tantrum on my part, though YOU do seem to be coming a bit unglued….

        ONCE AGAIN (and for the LAST time), I never claimed that robby used the word “black”. That doesn’t preclude my use of the word in a characterization of his post as I interpret it. You have no argument, because it’s based on textual minutia not disputed by me. I focus on ideas and concepts, not grade school grammar parsing. You failed to counter my point, and so you resorted to attacking text. That’s about as impressive as nitpicking on someone’s spelling errors, because you are incapable of making your own point.

        If all you have is “distract, deflect, and defile”, then you never had a point to begin with.

        • Frank Kahn

          Your insistence on calling me the degrading name Frankie, instead of my actual name is a form of name calling. Plus, you started calling me a racist and accused me of using militant racist acts. You are doing it because you have failed (lost) this argument. It is an argument by definition whether you want to admit it or not. You misrepresented his statement when you used the word black instead of minority. It is you that is attempting to use semantics to defend your incorrect word choice. I dont claim you said he said black, I am saying that he did not say black and you did. I dont care what you inferred from his words, you assumed something that was not said. It is not grade school grammar, grammar is not the issue. Nor, am I trying to deflect or deceive when I point out your mistake.

          Actually, it was you that deflected his statement from the generalization of minority to the specific black. And that is my POINT.

      • jt

        Okay frankie. Now you’re just being ridiculous. ;-)

        I have to tell you, it’s bordering on a form of comedic entertainment for me now.

        You never HAD a valid point of argument to begin with, regardless of what you think you had. And to be honest, even robby never disputed my interpretation of his post until there was a third party making note of a so-called discrepancy in my choice of words.

        You’ve outed yourself as one of those people who completely misses the point of a discussion, in favor of dissecting and disputing HOW it’s being discussed. It’s a ridiculous waste of time, but as I’ve noted, it’s becoming mildly entertaining now. It’s almost like debating Robbin Williams or Steven Wright on the ultimate cause of paint drying on a mid-summer afternoon in Arizona. Now THAT’S a discussion I’d enjoy. Can you imagine?…..It would be hysterical (though probably not as dry and witty as this one).

        How long have you struggled with OCD anyway? Sorry….that’s personal, and really none of my business. I shouldn’t have asked.

        Hey, maybe we can exchange emails, and become pen-pals, as it were (or keyboard pals, I guess). I do SO ENJOY our little chats…BTW, do you like grits? I have a fantastic recipe for garlic grits with spinach (it’s just as good with collards) that we have every Thanksgiving. I’d be happy to share it with you. Just let me know…;-)

        • Frank Kahn

          I did not miss the point of your racist remarks to him. I also did not miss his racially oriented phrasing in his post. Those were not the issue of my response to you.

          HIs failure to dispute your word before me might have been due to his not being aware of your post before me.

          OCD is not a valid diagnosis since I have many discussions I participate in here and they are many and varied in subject matter.

          I hate grits and spinach (which collard greens are similar to). I dont like asparagus or broccoli either, so please dont try to make it a racial thing just because I dont like those particular southern foods.

      • jt

        Hey frankie…..me again. Sorry, I forgot to mention that I never called you a racist, as you claimed. I merely observed that your racism was showing through your efforts.

        Okay, that’s all. Thanks again, frankie……bye…

        • Frank Kahn

          Saying my racism is showing is the same as calling me a racist. You cant have racism showing without being a racist. Get a clue you ignoramus.

      • Wil

        Rob, as I say, people that consistently feel the need to bring race into everything,where no one else is,or continually need to bring up the fact that we have a “black” president,really should look in the mirror at their own race issues before they make ad hominem attacks accusing others.

        • http://smoovious.wordpress.com Smoovious Laxness

          > Rob, as I say, people that consistently feel the need
          > to bring race into everything,where no one else is,or
          > continually need to bring up the fact that we have a
          > “black” president,really should look in the mirror at
          > their own race issues before they make ad hominem
          > attacks accusing others.

          +1000

      • jt

        Howdy frankie,

        It’s telling that you artfully characterize robby’s post as “racially oriented phrasing”, while directly claiming that I made “racist remarks” to him. Interesting…

        Perhaps you’d like to demonstrate your basis for that claim.

        So now you’ve descended into childish personal attacks twice. First, when I address a post by robby, wherein he blames racism for the war on drugs, and I respond to that idea. Let me explain something to you: When responding to claims of racism, it is nearly impossible to address the subject without discussing it. The mere discussion of racism as a topic does not make one’s comments racist in nature. You then felt the need to insert yourself into the exchange between the two of us, rather than simply commenting on the article. That was your choice.

        And now you call me a racist AGAIN, as well as an “ignoramus”. Nice. And I DO believe that is a direct violation of the posting rules here. Please don’t debase yourself like that….it’s embarrassing.

        Further, why in the world would I ever attribute your personal taste and culinary preferences to your racist leanings? Again, you’re just being ridiculous, though your childish ad hominem suggesting that I WOULD do this was obvious. Just so you know, collards are brassicas, and are similar to kale, but not very similar to spinach at all.

        BTW: You never mentioned whether or not you’d like to become pen-pals. ;-)

        • Frank Kahn

          Kale, is also more closely related to broccoli, which I hate. I hate all dark green vegetables, as they have a disgusting taste.

          Racially oriented phrase is similar to racist, however it might not be racist. All minorities are not minorities because of racial concerns. I explained the reason that your comment was racist. It is accurate and I will not back down.

          Ignoramus is a person who is ignorant. Your argument on this subject suggests that you are ignorant, therefor an ignoramus. It can be called an insult but, it is also a descriptive term for someone who has no knowledge.

          You calling me a racist is an insult also, but it can be used as a descriptive term also.

          I joined the conversation because you made an assumption and changed the meaning of his post. If, he had been referring to Russians or Bosnia’s (both of which are minorities and not black) you would have been totally off the mark.

          To continue this discussion is rediculous, since you will never be able to admit your ignorant mistake, and, since I am correct in my statements, I will never change my view of the facts.

          And, I already told you my name is Frank, and changing it to a childish sounding name as Frankie is an insult. I use my real name, so I expect you to use my real name also.

          By the way, why do you not use your real name? You think it sounds cool to be called jt?

      • jt

        Dearest frankie,

        Actually, you really never explained your flawed logic. That’s understandable, considering the lack of substance in your thought process. I gave my interpretation of robby’s post, and did not, as you say “change it’s meaning”. You have every right to your own misguided opinion of my statements, but you saying that I made a racist remark does not make it so. Much like your assertion that dark green vegetables “have a disgusting taste”. That is YOUR OPINION, but you stated it as though it were some sort of universal truth. That is a clear example of your arrogance. Plenty of people have an entirely different view of those vegetables. The point is that your own closed-mindedness and arrogance are the reasons why you believe that your opinion is the only one possible, and is beyond question.

        I am fully able to admit when I am mistaken, regardless of your slanted view on that subject. I fully realize that you lack the character to see the limitations of your own perspective, let alone admit them to yourself. Because of this, I never expected you to understand anything beyond your own opinion.

        And once again, I never called you a racist. You can interpret my statements any way you wish, and if playing the role of victim makes you happy, then so be it. It is a bit ironic though, given the fact that you directly engaged in childish name-calling directed at me, and then followed with a pathetic attempt to rationalize it. You are certainly more well-spoken than the average child, but debating with you is rather like trying to reason with a toddler.

        Regarding my username: It is far closer to my actual name than many other usernames here. I chose it because that’s what most of my friends call me, and it appears in my email address as well. It has nothing to with “sounding cool”, but I’m not surprised by your one-dimensional childish theory on that as well.

        At any rate, I hope that your Thanksgiving day is enjoyable.

        • Frank Kahn

          Stating facts is not rationalization. You said I was using militant racism, that is calling me a racist.

          Dark green vegetables have a disgusting taste is not an opinion, it is a fact. The fact that they dont taste that way to you is your personal fact. To say my fact is an opinion is your opinion. My fact is based on me and proven to have a scientific biological cause.

          You changed the focus of his post from minority to black. YOU CAN DANCE AROUND IT FROM NOW UNTIL JESUS COMES BACK BUT IT WILL STILL BE A FACT.

          I do not feel like a victim of your ignorance in saying I am a racist, it is not true so I have no problem with you lying about it.

          jt is not your name, close does not count. KD lang used initials too. KD sounds like Katie but that was just to make his name sound feminine.

          As I stated before, you changed the meaning of his post from minority to black. That is a fact, not my opinion, not semantics and not childish in any normal course of discussion.

      • jt

        YO frankie boy!!!

        How’s it going? Look, I didn’t mean to keep you in suspense. I just forgot about our little chat, but now I’m back. Did ya miss me?

        Okay, first off, you’re not “stating facts” in a vacuum here. You ARE rationalizing your endless stream of verbal diarrhea by engaging in “creative” opinions, and then claiming them to be facts, to say the least.

        I’m not talking about green vegetables. I used your own statement regarding them to illustrate a perfectly valid point regarding your own closed-minded self involvement and arrogance. But instead of seeing that point, you embarked on a completely ridiculous little tirade of truth-stretching and creative manipulation of verbal minutia in a pathetically failed attempt “make your statement correct”. This is very much what small children do when they are playing a game, and things are not going their way. They try to change or make up rules as they go along.

        Actually, your assertion that “Dark green vegetables have a disgusting taste is not an opinion, it is a fact.” was quite a gift to me. You further prove my point by making that ridiculous statement. The only FACT here, dear frankie, is that it is an OPINION, not a “personal fact” as you put it. Nice try though…well, not really, as it was pretty lame indeed. So, in your little imaginary world, where you are always correct and anyone who disagrees is wrong (simply because you say so), you can basically say whatever you want and then make up new rules to support your “correctness”? Wow, I’ll bet that comes in very handy for someone with nothing but accusations, snarky comments, childish ad hominems, and baseless assumptions, huh? I can see why you rely so heavily on such nonsense.

        First, you call me names in childish attacks, and then try to rationalize it by spewing all manner of bullsh!t, and then you follow it up by lying that I engaged in name calling directed at you, when in point of fact I did no such thing. It was a stretch at best, in both cases. Of course in your little make-believe world, you can rearrange reality to suit your own purposes. I, however, don’t reside in your little world, I live in the real world, where I know what I said, and I know what you said. So, you can huff and puff all you want, but just because you say something doesn’t ensure it’s accuracy, efficacy, or even it’s truthfulness, particularly given your propensity for “flexible” re-interpretation.

        The bottom line here, frankie boy, is that every time you open your mouth, you only diminish your own credibility along with the relevance of your opinions.

        Oh, and BTW: My USERNAME is perfectly valid. If you don’t like it, then too bad. I never claimed it was my “name”, but guess what….a USERNAME is not REQUIRED to be a name as it appears on one’s driver’s license. But of course, you have to have an issue with THAT as well, saying “close doesn’t count”. REALLY?? Are you serious? Who the HELL are YOU to decree what “counts”? Do you plan to tell countless others here that their usernames aren’t up to your standards? That’s more of that arrogance I mentioned earlier. Can you POSSIBLY be any more childish and petty here?? Once again, every time you open your mouth you become less relevant, and for that I both thank and pity you.

        • Frank Kahn

          Actually, jt, you did say “at least I use my real name” in one of your posts. I will be happy to take the time to find it for you if you have forgotten.

          I dont make things up to suit this world. There are many scientific studies that verify the fact that some people are genetically wired to find the taste of certain dark green vegetables to be gross. I have included a link to one such study for support of my truthful assertion. It is not my opinion, as I said before, it is a scientifically supported fact.

          http://www.precisionnutrition.com/research-bitter-blind

          If you look closely you might find vegetables like kale, broccoli and spinach in there. I believe that it was either this one or another study that also included (by name) collard greens.

          And, if I said you called me a name, it is true even if it was only implied by your choice of phraseology.

      • jt

        Wrong again frankie boy. What I said was that I “stick to my own name”, meaning that I use only one name on this forum. I never said my “real name” (indicating a given name) as you claim. So stop lying.

        The fact that there is a scientific basis for YOUR OPINION that those vegetables have a disgusting taste FOR YOU is not the issue, because it doesn’t preclude it from being your opinion, and not a universal truth. Please refrain from acting so stupid, as I know that you are smarter than that.

        And once again, you insist that something is true and factual, simply because you say it is so. That is patently ridiculous on it’s face. You claim that you interpret what I said as implying something that was not stated, and therefore I did in point of fact say something that was not actually said. How do not see how absolutely irrational that assertion is? Do you suffer from NPD and delusional episodes?

        As I told you before, the more you say, the less relevant you become.

        BTW: you never answered my question as to whether or not you missed me…oh well.

        • Frank Kahn

          Okay I will answer your question, NO, I dont miss you, but I enjoy your petty attempts at changing reality. You want to parse words? Technically everything is an opinion if you use your logic.

          The FACT that my OPINION (IN YOUR DEFINITION) is based on GENETICS and is scientifically proven to be REAL might not convince you that you are WRONG. The chemical composition of certain types of DARK GREEN VEGETABLES give a bitter taste that is described by ALMOST ALL PEOPLE who are not BITTER BLIND, as being GROSS, DISGUSTING, YUCKY, NASTY AND AWFUL. It has been shown to be the reason behind a large portion of children avoiding such vegetables, when given a choice. This is a FACT, not something I MADE UP to suite my OPINION.

          YOU SAID “AT LEAST I USE MY REAL NAME”, NOT “I ALWAYS USE MY NAME OR THE SAME NAME”.

          YOU ARE FULL OF BULL $HIT ABOUT NOT IMPLYING I AM A RACIST. THE SENTENCE YOU USED WAS “YOU ARE USING MILITANT RACIST WORDS HERE”. THAT IS SUCH A STIFF IMPLICATION IT BORDERS ON ACTUALLY SAYING THAT I AM A RACIST.

          KEEP TWISTING IN THE WIND J? T? YOU ARE PROVING OF YOURSELF EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE TRANSPOSING TO ME.

          CERTAIN DARK GREEN VEGETABLES TASTE HORRIBLE TO A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF THE HUMAN POPULATION, THAT IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT NOT AN OPINION.

    • http://smoovious.wordpress.com Smoovious Laxness

      I have been a heavy pot smoker, and I have been a light pot smoker, and a non-smoker… the entire time, I am also a pretty regular cigarette smoker.

      Pot is not addictive. I don’t care how many people keep saying it is, they are using some warped definition of addiction to justify their opinion, and are typically someone who has never used it.

      Quitting pot is nothing. I have had jobs where I was subject to drug testing, and quitting smoking pot was no problem whatsoever for the duration of that job.

      Try to quit cigarettes, on the other hand, and there we have a problem.

      Problem is, I enjoy smoking. I like playing with the smoke. The act of smoking, in itself, is relaxing in a non-chemical sense.

      If I could smoke pot, legally, and give up cigarettes, I would be much better off. I wouldn’t feel compelled to light up even a fraction as often as I light up a cigarette.

      Currently, I haven’t smoked pot in 10 years… (except for 1 night 8 years ago when I met a relative for the first time, and did the whole peace-pipe thing).

      In 2002, my car was searched, and my dugout was found with pot in it. I ended up getting a misdemeanor possession charge, to which I plead guilty to. I got probation, and had to attend some sort of class over it. This class, automatically assumes you’re an addict. I wasn’t an addict, so I didn’t just go along with the program like everyone else did.

      This is the thing. Just the fact you have an arrest for marijuana, you are automatically labelled an addict, regardless if you are or not. The same goes for the ‘distribution’ charge… you can get charged for distribution, regardless if you are or not. Some of my friends like buying in quantity. It is cheaper, they divide it up, stick it in the freezer, and pull out what they need when they need it, never selling any of it.

      Then, the marijuana charge, interferes with your livelihood. Five years after I was released from probation (sentenced to 12 months, my PO released me from it after just over 4 months), I got my CDL Class A license.

      40 years old… I hated the old jobs I had, spent all my savings helping my mom out, literally nothing left to my name. Perfect time to make a big change and start a new life. (you’d be surprised how free you feel when you have nothing left)

      I got hired in with Arrow Trucking… this company had serious senior management issues, which I won’t bother going into, but the rest of the people there were great. There aren’t a lot of companies who are willing to give guys a no-holds-barred second chance, and few of the guys who got hired in, wasted it. I moved up into Heavy Haul (oversize), and my new career was taking off better than I had hoped.

      Then Arrow folded. (senior management issues)… after 27 months with that company, all of the people I had worked under were already gone, no company to get references from, we were lucky that one of the supervisors had taken the employee list home with him so he could send us employment verification letters.

      That’s all I had. I was hoping that my record with that company would go a long ways to offset my 2002 conviction, but all I have is this “yes I was employed there” letter, no references, no history, nothing.

      I haven’t worked in my new career since. With the economic downturn, companies are being pickier when it comes to experienced drivers, and others are just taking people out of the driving schools, and I fall in the middle. When a company says they are willing, then, they later end up turning me down because of insurance. Even if I offer to pay the additional insurance costs myself. After all, it is my conviction, why should they pay the extra to cover me? But even that doesn’t fly.

      Even if marijuana was decriminalized in our city, state, and national, the conviction still stands.

      Marijuana did nothing to damage my life, it isn’t a scapegoat for people’s bad choices, it isn’t the evil that the opposition like to make it out to be.

      The War on Drugs, is what damaged my life, turning me into something I never was, or will be.

      As far as the federal government is concerned, we’re all addicts, regardless of the reality of what genuine addiction is. Even the most casual pot smoker, once convicted, is automatically an addict, and that is all he will be regarded as.

      I’m a damned good truck driver. I follow all of the regulations that I’m supposed to. I pay solid attention to my load and the people around me. I care more about getting there safely with no damage, than I care about deadlines. I can handle over-wide, over-length, over-height, and over-weight, with 2 or 3 pilot cars to coordinate while I do it.

      I’m not one of those idiots who make marijuana their whole identity and reason for getting up in the morning. I just don’t like alcohol.

      But, none of that makes a damned bit of difference to the government or the insurance companies. All they see, is a marijuana addict, thanks to my misdemeanor possession conviction, of enough pot, to fill 3 or 4 one-hitters.

      This is no reason to ruin someone’s life over, and I’m one of the luckier ones. There are people serving time in prison, with longer sentences, than many do for committing murder.

      The more people our government can make criminals out of, the more people they can dismiss as not being worth responding to.

      The War on Drugs, is long overdue, to end.

      – Smoov
      – Squeaker

      • http://nw9t.wordpress.com wisill

        You bring up a good point, in regards to being labeled an addict because you smoked pot. In comparison that’s the same mentality level as calling everyone who ever has a beer or glass of wine on occasion an alcoholic.

      • http://yahoo LCpl RAY

        a good friend of mine has a cloud hanging over his head as well, cost him some damn good jobs. I think that once you’ve done your time, probation or what ever, it should really be over. Once you have been through the system it never goes away. I have heard him say if it doesn’t get better and they ” the Government” do not change the way they do things, he will be the bad guy they think he is. By the way they guy doesn’t even smoke pot. I would hate to see it go that way but I see his point, every place he go’s they do a background check and he’s done in, when is enough, enough. He is a good guy and until he told me about his past scrape, I would have never guessed.

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “Smoovious Laxness,”

        I AGREE WITH YOUR COMMENTS ON MARIJUANA VERSUS TOBACCO SMOKING. AS A DAILY LIQUOR-DRINKER, I HAVE NOTICED MY CRAVINGS FOR A CIGAR ARE NOT AS STRONG AS MY DESIRE FOR ALCOHOL.

        I SMOKED MARIJUANA, PRIMARILY, IN COLLEGE; THE LAST TIME I SMOKED A “JOINT” WAS 9 JULY 1995. MY SISTER DIED ON 16 APRIL 2005. AT THAT POINT, I STARTED SMOKING FIVE OR SIX CIGARS DAILY. NOW, I SMOKE THREE OR FOUR CIGARS DAILY.

        [SINCE CHILDHOOD, I HAVE BEEN DRINKING LIQUOR; LIKE ME, MY FATHER DRINKS LIQUOR. MY ELDEST BROTHER PREFERS WINE; MY OTHER BROTHER PREFERS BEER].

        I THINK CONSTANT ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION HAS AN IMPACT ON CRAVINGS FOR TOBACCO. MARIJUANA IS A NON-ISSUE FOR LIQUOR-DRINKERS.

      • nickkin

        Whow smoovious…..what a life to relate to the youth of our country…..so inspiring, so tantalyzing….something every parent should hang their parental teaching on. Them darn old cigs…..your life would have been so much more productive if only you did weed first. The blame game to governemt who is now your long life friend, and the police force that put your record @ odds with society. I do have to give you some credit though….you didn’t use the old—-blame Bush statement !

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “Whow, nickkin!”

        YOUR COMMENTS DISPLAY YOUR AGE. NOT WANTING TO TALK ABOUT THE REAL AND “GRITTY” ASPECTS OF LIFE DOES NOT HELP YOUTH – IT HURTS THEM. CONSTANT FEAR OF EMPLOYER SUBSTANCE-TESTING IS A PROBLEM MANY YOUNG-ADULTS ACROSS THIS COUNTRY ARE DEALING WITH.

      • Robert Smith

        From Wisill: “calling everyone who ever has a beer or glass of wine on occasion an alcoholic.”

        Or in the case of wine and transubstantiation a cannibal. Literally drinking the blood…

        Eeeewwwwwww.

        Rob

  • SamS

    You have to wonder what the motivation behind the federal government issuing high fines and jail time for simply marijuana possession. Also why when some states want to legalize it the threats start and other states that decriminalize it, such as Chicago recently has, they turn a deaf ear and blind eye to it. In Chicago if you get caught with up to 15 marijuana cigarettes you are fined up to $500 after being given a ticket. You’re not arrested, not taken to jail, not forced to spend time in prison and I don’t believe there’s any criminal record of the incident.

    You also never hear of any threats being made against Alaska where possession of less than 4 ounces in your home is legal for your own personal use. You can also grow up to 25 plants with no penalty, but you can’t sell it, for your personal use only. The catch is you have to be in a private residence, that right to privacy is protected under Alaskan law, unlike the other 49 States. So if it’s legal in Alaska under these guidelines, why can’t it be legal everywhere to that extent?

    • boyscout

      Sam, there’s no wonder about government motivation. NORML (privately funded at the grass roots level[punny, no?]) advocate against prohibition. Big pharma, Alchohol, Tobaco & others favor the status quo. Just imagine a twin pan ballance weighing in on each side of the issue. Wow Just imagine.

  • http://gillysrooms.blogspot.com GILLY FROM AUSTRALIA

    I have never smoked pot and never intend to anytime into the future,but have seen what it does to many people who took the habit for all the usual reasons and got hooked and in an unknown percentage has lead to them experiencing psychotic episodes. Now whether this group would have had these psychotic episodes anyway as apparently 3 in 100 do so statiscally we may never know, however just as weed killer can kill people, I believe that weed/pot should be legalised to remove the element which prohibition tends to encourage its use.

    Where the cops should concentrate punishment is if people are tested to be driving or working under the influence where it will endanger other peoples lives on the roads and in the workplaces, that is when your justice system should prosecute, but if silly people want to use smoke or whatever other drug in their own homes, then as with any other dangerous chemicals already available in the home like ajax, dishwashing liquid, amonia, disenfectant, dettol etc should be legal in my opinion.. Possession or sale is good when there is no prohibition and then anyone can grow it like wheatseeds or brocholli. If they want to grow it…sure grow it and selling it unregulated will increase the supply and no one who wants it will need to pay prohibition prices and soon no one will want to grow it as there will no longer be super profits available to be made by anyone and no one will bother importing it by hiding it it all manner of hiding places.

    I dont agree that it should be sold by the state or taxed as that will be admitting it is safe, which IT IS NOT, and open up any State to class actions when more people would become affected by the state promoting it and its detrimental effects and for attempting to profiting from its sale to idiots who want to smoke it. Every idiot who wants to run the risk of drinking weed killer can do it now and some people do and die and no one else cares, so why should the State get involved in people desire to committ suicide by brain injury? Why should the police be paid to waste their time stopping cars to arrest thousands of idiots trafficing or using the small amonts of weed, UNLESS they are driving under its influence then sure PROSECUTE HARD, but otherwise stop wasting money chasing small fry and creating congestions in your courts and prisons where silly innocent people can learn some new ways to committ other crimes.

    The police and justice system should be more concerned with bigger issue crimes like attempted burgs, assaults, murders, Corporate crime etc but thats too hard it seems…the soft type issues are easier for police it seems to pick on the silly citizens of your nation.

    The State & Federal role is EDUCATION in the media of its detrimental side effects, just like smoking normal cigarettes are various cancers and polluting the atmosphere with uneccessary creation of smoke…greenhouse gases via use of billions of cigarettes smoked every day around the world.

    Just like when alcohol was legalised again, the crime gangs moved into the other prohibited substances to make their super profits, but your doo gooder cowardly politicians could not make their own decisions, they had to listern to their churches and others and caused this huge waste of resources for so many years banging your heads and still not solved it by doing it your way. Washington and Colorado citizens are showing they have grown up at last and making a stand and hopefully other jealous States dont set them up to fail. I do wonder how many politicians have been supported to continue the prohibition of these drugs to ensure their supporters super profits are protected? How many donated to the Super Pacs, I wonder? And the Drug companies need not worry about competition, because most medical drug users would not buy from backyard concoction makers anyway.

    • Robert Smith

      “Where the cops should concentrate punishment is if people are tested to be driving or working under the influence where it will endanger other peoples lives on the roads and in the workplaces, that is when your justice system should prosecute, ”

      Bingo! perfect. Nothing else really needs to be said except that like alcohol kids shouldn’t generally be involved with it.

      Rob

      • nickkin

        Bingo , perfect….every vehicle can only be started by a drug or alcohol test…every skate board or bike can only be used by a blow tube…..back to horse and buggy…..horses have to be tested too. Bingo…perfect!

    • Paul B.

      IT shouldn’t be a problem for States regulating and selling pot. In Alabama, alcohol is sold in STATE-Owned liquor stores, and I have never heard of the State being sued for selling alcohol to someone who afterwards was convicted of some alcohol related crime, like DWI, or manslaughter for alcohol related accident.

      I like the Alaska laws. Personal growth, consumption, but not distribution. It’s my house, my life and as long as I am not hurting anyone else or impacting their ability to pursue their happiness or creating any social problems, then it should be my choice if I want to smoke pot, or not.

      I agree that legalization or at least decriminalization would drastically cut down on the criminal element as pot is probably the greatest of all transactions in the drug trade.

      The problem with enforcement like alcohol testing for driving, working, etc is that pot stays in the system MUCH longer, even though the effects are only evident at higher concentrations. I guess they could set appropriate levels for unacceptable influence like alcohol at the .5-1% levels.

      Pot is NOT harmless, but like you said, much less harmful than many other easily obtained legal intoxicants.

      It should be a personal choice if you want to be a pot head, or simply an occasional user. Responsibility comes with the personality and the abuser will be likely to find some other substance to abuse if not pot, or obtain it illegally, supporting a variety of other problems.

      • http://gillysrooms.blogspot.com GILLY FROM AUSTRALIA

        A hotel can be prosecuted in the State of Victoria in Australia if the offender had purchased his alcohol at a hotel before he committed a driving or other offence.

        Sometimes it takes many years before some bright lawyer gets a few thousand pot users together who thought that the State must have checked that the drug was beneficial but it later was proven to be very harmful and might take a State with lots of money to burn in a long drawn out court case to gain compensation for these poor mentally affected dopes who said they did not know it was harmful and had relied on the State knowledge as comfort that it was a safe product to buy…..along those lines….

      • http://smoovious.wordpress.com Smoovious Laxness

        They could create a test that tells the difference between pre-metabolized and post-metabolized THC, but they have no reason/incentive to do so.

        With marijuana illegal, all they care about, is being able to detect the presence of any amount of THC for the longest period of time possible, for evidence.

        – Smoov

    • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

      “GILLY FROM AUSTRALIA,”

      PEOPLE OFTEN TALK ABOUT DRUG-TESTING IN REFERENCE TO EMPLOYMENT. I WORKED IN “ACADEMIA” FOR ALMOST FOURTEEN YEARS. I HAVE NEVER BEEN TESTED FOR DRUGS.

      IF SOME JOBS ALLOW PEOPLE TO WORK WITHOUT TESTING – AND, THESE EMPLOYEES STILL DO GREAT WORK – HOW CAN EMPLOYERS WHO REQUIRE TESTING JUSTIFY THE SO-CALLED “DAMAGE” DONE BY INTOXICATED WORKERS?

      MY FATHER DRINKS [LIQUOR] DAILY. AFTER HE LEFT HIS SEMI-PROFESSIONAL MUSIC CAREER, HE BECAME AN INDEPENDENT AND INTERNATIONAL TRUCK DRIVER [NORTH AMERICA]. HE DROVE THAT TRUCK FOR THIRTY-TWO YEARS. HIS DRINKING WAS NEVER A PROBLEM.

      DRUG-TESTING FOR EMPLOYMENT IS A JOKE.

      • nickkin

        Everybody can’t be perfect.

      • http://gillysrooms.blogspot.com GILLY FROM AUSTRALIA

        It may be a joke in the USA but not in Australia as employers who permit workers in their factory or work sites who are impaired from drugs or alcohol and cause an accident causing the injury or death of another are held responsible under a court of law and the Compensation liability might transfer from the WORKSAFE AUTHORITY to the employer costing them millions.

        I have for over 20 years called for the drug testing of money market and superannuation retirement savings dealers to ensure they are not taking drug induced risks with the savings of Australians and you should consider such a rule in your country too in my opinion.

      • Jungletrump

        Nikkin, if everybody can’t be perfect, we should probably pass a mandate to help the get their. Dude really, look up self righteousness and narcissism. Your extremely narrowview of life leads me to believe you are a perfect product of public education. You have much to UNLEARN my lil liberal lemming.

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “GILLY FROM AUSTRALIA,”

        I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH YOUR COMMENTS. MY POINT IS, AMERICANS LOVE “TO PARTY” – WHICH ALMOST ALWAYS INCLUDES ALCOHOL; AND FOR SOME, DRUGS.

        PEOPLE CONSIDER THE TIME RANGE FROM 6 PM ON FRIDAY TO 6 AM ON MONDAY TO BE “THEIR TIME TO HOWL!” TO GO TO WORK ON MONDAY MORNING AND HAVE A “DRUG SCREENING” IS “BUZZ-KILL” FOR YOUR WEEKEND. FURTHERMORE – IN THE MEMPHIS AREA – FROM 11PM [SUNDAY NIGHT] TO 2 AM [MONDAY MORNING] IS A “GOOD-PAYING TIME” AT LOCAL CASINOS. SO, WHEN A PERSON HAS AN ABUNDANCE OF “FREE ALCOHOL” IN HER/HIS “SYSTEM” AT 3 AM AND HAS TO BE AT WORK AT 7 AM, THE LAST THING THAT PERSON WANTS [OR, NEEDS] IS A “DRUG-SCREENING.”

  • Larry king

    As amoral as i find pot smoking at the same time i understand one can not legalize morality.Suicide kills and is illegal in all states and the federal laws but has it stopped one person from committing suicide. I only ask one thing about legalizing marijuana which is what guarantee do we have that 5 yrs 10 yrs down the road the same type of rational will not be used to promote legalization of more stronger dangerous drug use.

    • http://gillysrooms.blogspot.com GILLY FROM AUSTRALIA

      Name an illegal drug more dangerous than the olde style legal weed killer please Larry.

      • waltinseattle

        more deadly and illegal: cocaine, heroin, extasy.

        more deadly but legal: nicotine, alcohol, oxycontin, energy drinks…

        gilly: you are entitled to fully uninformed opinions, just dont go acting as if they are facts.

      • http://gillysrooms.blogspot.com GILLY FROM AUSTRALIA

        In my opinion Weedkiller kills faster than cocaine, heroin and extacy. and rest too. but your entitled to your opinions too.

      • Jungletrump

        You both are missing the point. If folks want to kill themselves it is their right. The government is there to protect our right, not to dictate personal behavior.

    • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

      “Larry king,”

      YOU CONTRADICTED YOURSELF.

      ON ONE HAND, YOU SAY, “I understand one can not legalize morality.” THEN, YOU SAY, ” … what guarantee do we have that 5 yrs 10 yrs down the road the same type of rational [e] will not be used to promote legalization of more stronger dangerous drug use.”

      NO OFFENSE, “Mr. king,” BUT, RELIGION NEEDS TO “GET-OUT” OF THE DRUG ISSUE. A-L-L DRUGS NEED TO BE LEGALIZED. WHATEVER ADVERSE IMPACTS EXIST NEED TO BE ENDURED BY THE INDIVIDUAL WHO CONSUMES THE SUBSTANCE.

      DEATH OR DISEASE CAUSED BY SOME SORT OF TOXIC-INTAKE, IS THE INDIVIDUAL’S CHOICE.

    • alpha-lemming

      You’re using the “slippery slope” defense here…. well… here’s the truth.
      Do you know what the REAL gate-way drug is??? It’s not alcohol or pot or any of the other common suspects. It’s the first time your 1.5-2yo toddler spins around like a top in the middle of your living room and comes up with the… “Hey…this is kinda cool” smile on their face.

      • Bruce

        sugar is the #one gateway drug, after spinning until dizziness…..
        But don’t tel the sugar lobby I said so….
        I want my FIX tomorrow.
        And no sugar is not as bad for you as alcohol is, except for your health… diabetes would argue however…

    • George P.

      Larry – “Amoral”? You have got to be kidding. Smoking cannabis is no more amoral than having a glass of wine.

      • http://smoovious.wordpress.com Smoovious Laxness

        I will never understand this need many people have, to foist (im)morality on inanimate objects.

        – Smoov

      • jt

        INDEED.

        Unfortunately, perception plays an inordinately significant role here, and that perception tends to be defined by the lame-stream media in the U.S.

        Only when people do their own thinking does anything ever really change. You cannot “elect” change, and rely on someone else to do it for you…..as in obama or clinton, or george w., because those so-called “choices” are pre-picked for a specific outcome…..BUT you can become part of the REAL change by helping to redefine how political parties function in America. GET INVOLVED IN GRASSROOTS LIBERTARIAN ORGANIZATIONS!….TODAY!

        It matters NOW………but even more so for the future.

    • Robert Smith

      Larry says: “I only ask one thing about legalizing marijuana which is what guarantee do we have that 5 yrs 10 yrs down the road the same type of rational will not be used to promote legalization of more stronger dangerous drug use.”

      It will be like alcohol. Kids ain’t supposed to have it.

      But, who do you trust? A drug dealer who’s motive is to graduate the kids to crack, meth, or horse so the truly become addicted or a state store that won’t sell directly to kids and won’t offer harder drugs to adults?

      I’ll go with the legal side anything because the pushers / dealers have far more incentive’s to hook folks.

      Rob

  • Bob Dirlam

    Sam Rolley, you are a fool. I lived through the 1960;s and 70s when Marijuana Laws were weakly enforced. I had the renters next door to me, high on Marijuana, throw fire crackers at me. When I told them to stop or I would call the police, they told me to shut up or they would kill me. One showed me a butcher knife, another said he had a gun. You can never convince me that Marijuana should be legal.

    • jt

      Maybe those individuals were just a$$holes to begin with. They may also have been using combinations of other drugs or alcohol as well.

      I have NEVER in my life (including my years in college) seen marijuana transform a normal, rational, friendly person into a violent, aggressive, or otherwise dangerous individual. I cannot say the same of alcohol….

    • http://gillysrooms.blogspot.com GILLY FROM AUSTRALIA

      PLEASE READ MY NOTES : The police and justice system should be more concerned with bigger issue crimes like attempted burgs, assaults, murders, Corporate crime etc but thats too hard it seems…the soft type issues are easier for police it seems to pick on the silly citizens of your nation.

      Those neigbours might be deceased by now but legalising might not have changed their behaviours for better or worse…they still annoyed you and made threats, but in the end how many police do you need in your police state to nursemaid everyone?

    • http://smoovious.wordpress.com Smoovious Laxness

      Those neighbors didn’t do that because of pot…

      They did that because they were low-lifes who didn’t have any respect for their neighbors.

      Don’t use pot as a scapegoat for their actions. They own their actions, not pot.

      – Smoov

      • nickkin

        Smoov….maybe they became low-lifes because that’s all they did in their form of life..Smoke Pot and maybe some cheap lace..

        • http://smoovious.wordpress.com Smoovious Laxness

          Nope, they didn’t…

          Pot doesn’t make you something you’re not to begin with.

          For that matter, neither does alcohol. They don’t turn you into something you didn’t already have within you to begin with. In the case of alcohol, it just inhibits the facade people hold up that masks their true self.

          If someone is a prick on alcohol or pot, it is because they’re a prick at heart in the first place.

          Using either as a scapegoat for people’s behavior, only excuses their behavior.

          – Smoov

    • waltinseattle

      more deadly and illegal: cocaine, heroin, extasy.

      more deadly but legal: nicotine, alcohol, oxycontin, energy drinks…

      gilly: you are entitled to fully uninformed opinions, just dont go acting as if they are facts.

    • George P.

      pot had nothing to do with your neighbors behavior… no more than if they ate hamburgers. They were scum to begin with.

    • Karolyn

      Are you sure that’s all they were on? Of course, were they upstanding citizens when straight? I would venture to guess the pot had nothing to do with it; they were just lowlifes.

  • Brian Hart

    I am amazed that the most corrupt, evil, vindictive, violent, filthy, blasphemous, federal “government” to ever exist within these United States believes it has the moral high ground to arrest and hold pot smokers. Every one of these dung heap dwellers is addicted to one drug or another. They cause incredible damage to this country every day in the form of evil legislation, to theft, fraud, and murder. NOT ONE of these stinking dirtbags nor their like have the right to imprison citizens while they partake of the same illegal substances and worse!

    I am a 20 year USAF veteran and disabled with all sorts of back damage from Gulf War 1. I eat pain killers like candy but because pot is illegal I can not partake of it’s pain relieving properties. New Mexico has a medicinal pot law but so what. The feds violate Constitutional Amendments 9 and 10 every day carrying out their criminal pursuit of stealing the wealth of the nation for their own personal use. The fact remains that We the People….will always be harassed, attacked, raped, pillaged, murdered by an entity so evil that it’s very existence is a crime against humanity and the Constitution of the United States.

    What I wonder is this, when will we follow in the footsteps of our forefathers and eliminate this traitorous burden on our society? The 2nd Amendment’s entire purpose is not for hunting or sport shooting or gun collecting. It exists solely as an extention of the First Amendment granting the citizens the right to use firearms to forcibly remove the illegal government.

  • http://fedupriders.com John Smith

    Gilly from Australia, your an uninformed idiot.

    • http://gillysrooms.blogspot.com GILLY FROM AUSTRALIA

      John Smith of America, should explain they basis of your claim first, before i would conceed to agree or disagree with your silly and abrupt comments..

      • http://fedupriders.com John Smith

        Its not worth the effort, sorry

      • http://gillysrooms.blogspot.com GILLY FROM AUSTRALIA

        Mr Smith, …Thats what Putin would say when he might not wish to debate anything, as only his point was relevant.

      • http://fedupriders.com John Smith

        Sorry, I should have used the word ignoramus not idiot. You obviously are not an idiot as is demonstrated by your writings
        . However, you are indeed ignorant of the facts.. Listen, I’m just passing thru and do not plan on spending time here to banter back and forth. so I bit you farewell, and good luck in your search for the truth. Have a good day.

      • http://gillysrooms.blogspot.com GILLY FROM AUSTRALIA

        Then move on John Smith and never darken my door again. People who claim to understand the perfect English, Spelling and Grammar are one of the reasons why people did not vote for the know-all snobs in the Republican Party. This post is about ideas and views not passing highly literate English American exams to satisfy intellectuals like you Mr Smith

      • Frank Kahn

        I have seen much worse grammar than yours on this site, I dont know why he dissed you but he might be right about at least one item you put forth.

        It is never a good thing to say something as if it is fact, then claim that you are not sure of it.

        In your original musings you mentioned psychotic episodes that might be related to THC. I have never heard anything that would support this contention. There are, however, other drugs that are mixed with pot, like PCP and cocaine that might precipitate some form of psychotic episode. Some people even mix psychotropic drugs from “magic mushrooms” which can definitely alter your mental state in drastic ways.

        Some of my problem with our governments “education” about pot is that they lie and exaggerate things about it. I have heard them say that pot is a gateway drug to heroin, that all heroin users start out smoking pot. Well, that may be true, but statistically I can prove that they all started out using milk first, so is milk a gateway to heroin? They say that smoking 1 joint is the equivalent of 6 cigarettes. Well, if I only smoke two joints a day that is about a half a pack of cigarettes so why the big whoopla. They say that if you smoke pot you cant perform intellectually at the same level, that it somehow reduces your mental capacity. That is pure BS, a scare tactic to try and make people think pot is more dangerous than it is.

        I agree with you about limiting prosecution to actual situations that cause a real problem in society, like driving under the influence, but I disagree with your making it sound like pot is an extremely dangerous toxic substance.

        And I disagree with your description of Republicans in general. But you have the right to voice your opinion just like me.

  • jt

    I don’t think there exists any rational criteria for the complete prohibition of recreational marijuana use. I also believe that the basis of any claims of it being a so-called “gateway drug” would evaporate were it’s use not illegal in the first place. For example, during prohibition, the same claims could have been (and probably were) made of alcohol. The simple fact that one must violate federal law in order to obtain and use it, makes that action more significant than it would otherwise be.

    I mean, think about it: We’re talking about a PLANT. While alcohol and commercial drugs require a comparatively involved process to produce and render usable, cannabis can be grown nearly as easily as basil or mint, thereby making it a serious threat to both the alcohol and pharmaceutical industries. Imagine the threat to Big Pharma if cannabis were mainstreamed into the world of homeopathic remedies…

    Marijuana use is not only relatively free of adverse side effects, but it actually reduces or ELIMINATES the side effects of a great many so-called “safe” commercially produced drugs, making it’s use in conjunction with professional medical treatment highly desirable in many cases.

    So many decry the destruction of the Earth’s rainforests on the basis of their potential value in terms of medical discovery, yet we continue to shun the use of a long-known and easily obtainable natural substance, simply because of outdated social views that were based on irrational hysteria to begin with.

    This issue should not fall within the authority of the federal government. It is at least a state’s-rights issue, and ideally, an individual choice.

  • GRAMPA

    How much time and money is spent hunting down these “criminals”? Who is getting rich from this ? Does the word prohibition ring a bell? Money and time wasted like trying to fill a bucket with a hole in it.
    God bless America.
    Grampa

  • http://yahoo LCpl RAY

    I’m 51 I never thought I would even try it, a doctor asked me if I would consider it, I’ve been on pain meds for my back for years. I did and it was the first good nights sleep I’ve had in over twenty years. The bad, employers do not have to keep you if you test pos for it. By all outward appearances it’s just about the money. Something else to consider, I have a friend that is a high ranking police officer. He has told me that he has never had a problem with someone that was on marijuana, but if they are drinking they can get violent.

    • http://gillysrooms.blogspot.com GILLY FROM AUSTRALIA

      Where has that high ranking police officer been working all his life to never experience any problems with someone that was just on marijuana?

      • Karolyn

        I’ve never seen anyone get violent on pot, and I spent much of my 20s with a bunch of hippies. Have you even been exposed to people high on pot? There are those who might get paranoid, but not violent.

        • http://smoovious.wordpress.com Smoovious Laxness

          And they also claim that pot smoking causes paranoia… but they have only done that research where it is illegal.

          So, yeah, of course there would be a higher amount of paranoia…

          – Smoov

      • http://gillysrooms.blogspot.com GILLY FROM AUSTRALIA

        Definately severe paranoia, however one can never really know if the combination of other drugs or alcohol would have been taken by those people who have been my tenants and gone on to cause other more dangerous behaviour such as stabbing someone.

        • Frank Kahn

          Sometimes it is drugs, sometimes it is just rage or stupidity.

          I once had a stoned friend point a loaded and cocked 41 magnum pistol at my head. She thought it was funny. I thought I might die. It was my pistol, and it had a hair trigger so her stupid joke could have resulted in murder. You might say it was caused by the pot, but I think it was caused by her innate stupidity.

  • dax

    4 more states trying to make pot legal, Its the 1930′s all over again ! BUY stock in ZIG ZAGS

    • Robert Smith

      “4 more states trying to make pot legal, ”

      And same sex marriage is now legal in some more states.

      I GET IT NOW! Legal pot and same sex couples…

      Same sex couples should be stoned. It says so in the bible doesn’t it?

      Rob

  • rick

    Marijuana was made illegal so that Dupont could replace the Navy’s hemp ropes with their new man-made fibers during WWII. Otherwise, Dupont would have never replaced this product in the marketplace. Hemp was the most efficient and economical method for uses requiring a coarse, durable fiber.

    Dupont budgeted $2 million for that effort. They first replaced the name “hemp” with the much more evil sounding “marijuana” to begin swaying popular opinion on the plant. This effort resulted in a monopoly for Dupont in the manufacture of rope and canvas. They expanded on this original success with the creation of other “long-chain polymers” that are now common in our everyday lives. The government benefited by implementing a “war” on a native plant that grows almost everywhere; and by continuing that war, with all of its new taxes and authorities, for the next 75 years. It was the classic win-win for the military-industrial complex.

    • http://www.facebook.com/dan.mancuso.56 Dan Mancuso

      Interesting bit of history!
      Have you ever tried to keep a knot in a nylon rope as opposed to a hemp rope?

  • dax

    my rep from Texas replied to the idea of medical or legal marijuana and copy pasted this to me

    Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison

    10:22 AM (25 minutes ago)

    to me
    Dear Friend:
    Thank you for contacting me regarding efforts to legalize marijuana. I welcome your thoughts and comments.

    As drug use continues to rise in our country, especially among our youths, I believe we need to send a message that all illegal drug use is dangerous. We can win the war on drugs, but we will not do so by legalizing marijuana or encouraging its use for any purpose.

    Researchers have found that marijuana use can adversely affect brain activity and the respiratory system, lead to increases in heart rate and blood pressure, and impair critical skills related to attention, memory, and learning. In addition, the harmful chemical in marijuana, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), has been linked to low birth weight and impaired motor development in children whose mother used marijuana.

    I appreciate hearing from you, and I hope that you will not hesitate to contact me on any issue that is important to you.

    Sincerely,
    Kay Bailey Hutchison
    United States Senator

    284 Russell Senate Office Building
    Washington, DC 20510

    WE CAN WIN THE WAR ON DRUGS?????? 1970′S TO NOW that’s an expensive war

    • jt

      The irony here is that every one of the adverse effects and health risks cited in that letter can also be said of alcohol, tobacco, and a GREAT MANY commercially produced drugs (both prescriptions and over-the-counter). Yet, we correctly leave the use of those substances subject to individual choice, while demonizing the use of marijuana, despite it’s beneficial qualities and demonstrated LOWER long-term health hazards as compared with those other substances.

      Add to that the risks associated with other legal and easily obtained chemicals that kids use as inhalants to get high (glue, ether (as in engine starting fluid), nitrous oxide, certain concentrated solvents and cleaners, and common cigarettes dipped in various chemicals) which are FAR more dangerous than cannabis, and it becomes clear that the predicted risks of legalization are miniscule when compared to the alternatives already being used as substitutes.

      • Motov

        Not to mention aerosols, paint, or mixing chlorine bleach with ammonia. And I will say the brain damage claim about pot is a lie. For me during high school it kept me from flunking subjects because I was able to sit and listen to the teacher, with out it I would not have been able to sit still and listen. I was also far less destructive when I was high than I was if I didn’t have any. I will even say I seem more intellectual because my attention in conversation also improved, my mind doesn’t dart around, and I can focus more on the subject being discussed. Now I find it helps my Parkinson’s disease, especially when dealing with the tremors, I can turn off the tremors better, I also get better sleep.

    • JDL

      Effects of Alcohol:
      Immediate Health Risks
      Excessive alcohol use has immediate effects that increase the risk of many harmful health conditions. These immediate effects are most often the result of binge drinking and include the following—

      Unintentional injuries, including traffic injuries, falls, drownings, burns, and unintentional firearm injuries.6

      Violence, including intimate partner violence and child maltreatment. About 35% of victims report that offenders are under the influence of alcohol.7 Alcohol use is also associated with 2 out of 3 incidents of intimate partner violence.7 Studies have also shown that alcohol is a leading factor in child maltreatment and neglect cases, and is the most frequent substance abused among these parents.8

      Risky sexual behaviors, including unprotected sex, sex with multiple partners, and increased risk of sexual assault. These behaviors can result in unintended pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases.9, 10

      Miscarriage and stillbirth among pregnant women, and a combination of physical and mental birth defects among children that last throughout life.11, 12

      Alcohol poisoning, a medical emergency that results from high blood alcohol levels that suppress the central nervous system and can cause loss of consciousness, low blood pressure and body temperature, coma, respiratory depression, or death.13
      Long-Term Health Risks
      Over time, excessive alcohol use can lead to the development of chronic diseases, neurological impairments and social problems. These include but are not limited to—

      Neurological problems, including dementia, stroke and neuropathy.14, 15
      Cardiovascular problems, including myocardial infarction, cardiomyopathy, atrial fibrillation and hypertension.16
      Psychiatric problems, including depression, anxiety, and suicide.17
      Social problems, including unemployment, lost productivity, and family problems.18, 19
      Cancer of the mouth, throat, esophagus, liver, colon, and breast.20 In general, the risk of cancer increases with increasing amounts of alcohol.
      Liver diseases, including—
      Alcoholic hepatitis.
      Cirrhosis, which is among the 15 leading causes of all deaths in the United States.21
      Among persons with Hepatitis C virus, worsening of liver function and interference with medications used to treat this condition.22
      Other gastrointestinal problems, including pancreatitis and gastritis.23, 24
      References
      Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Alcohol-Related Disease Impact (ARDI). Atlanta, GA: CDC.
      Mokdad AH, Marks JS, Stroup DF, Gerberding JL. Actual causes of death in the United States, 2000. JAMA 2004;291(10):1238–1245.
      Bouchery EE, Harwood HJ, Sacks JJ, Simon CJ, Brewer RD. Economic costs of excessive alcohol consumption in the United States, 2006 . Am J Prev Med 2011;41:516–24.
      Dawson DA, Grant BF, LI T-K. Quantifying the risks associated with exceeding recommended drinking limits. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2005;29:902–908.
      U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. In: Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010.Chapter 3 – Foods and Food Components to Reduce [PDF 967 KB]. 7th Edition, Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 2010, p. 30–32.
      Smith GS, Branas CC, Miller TR. Fatal nontraffic injuries involving alcohol: a metaanalysis. Ann of Emer Med 1999;33(6):659–668.
      Greenfield LA. Alcohol and Crime: An Analysis of National Data on the Prevalence of Alcohol Involvement in Crime [PDF 229 KB]. Report prepared for the Assistant Attorney General’s National Symposium on Alcohol Abuse and Crime. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 1998.
      The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. No safe haven: children of substance-abusing parents . New York: Columbia University. 1999.
      Naimi TS, Lipscomb LE, Brewer RD, Colley BG. Binge drinking in the preconception period and the risk of unintended pregnancy: Implications for women and their children. Pediatrics 2003;11(5):1136–1141.
      Wechsler H, Davenport A, Dowdall G, Moeykens B, Castillo S. Health and behavioral consequences of binge drinking in college. JAMA 1994;272(21):1672–1677.
      Kesmodel U, Wisborg K, Olsen SF, Henriksen TB, Sechler NJ. Moderate alcohol intake in pregnancy and the risk of spontaneous abortion. Alcohol & Alcoholism 2002;37(1):87–92.
      American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Substance Abuse and Committee on Children with Disabilities. 2000. Fetal alcohol syndrome and alcohol-related neurodevelopmental disorders. Pediatrics 2000;106:358–361.
      Sanap M, Chapman MJ. Severe ethanol poisoning: a case report and brief review. Crit Care Resusc 2003;5(2):106–108.
      Corrao G, Rubbiati L, Zambon A, Arico S. Alcohol-attributable and alcohol-preventable mortality in Italy. A balance in 1983 and 1996. European J of Public Health 2002;12:214–223.
      Corrao G, Bagnardi V, Zambon A, La Vecchia C. A meta-analysis of alcohol consumption and the risk of 15 diseases. Prev Med 2004;38:613–619.
      Rehm J, Gmel G, Sepos CT, Trevisan M. Alcohol-related morbidity and mortality. Alcohol Research and Health 2003;27(1)39–51.
      Castaneda R, Sussman N, Westreich L, Levy R, O’Malley M. A review of the effects of moderate alcohol intake on the treatment of anxiety and mood disorders. J Clin Psychiatry 1996;57(5):207–212.
      Booth BM, Feng W. The impact of drinking and drinking consequences on short-term employment outcomes in at-risk drinkers in six southern states. J Behavioral Health Services and Research 2002;29(2):157–166.
      Leonard KE, Rothbard JC. Alcohol and the marriage effect. J Stud Alcohol Suppl 1999;13:139–146.
      Baan R, Straif K, Grosse Y, Secretan B, et al. on behalf of the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer Monograph Working Group. Carcinogenicity of alcoholic beverages. Lancet Oncol. 2007;8:292–293.
      Heron MP. Deaths: Leading causes for 2004 [PDF–3.16MB]. National vital statistics reports; vol 56 no 5. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2007.
      Schiff ER. Hepatitis C and alcohol Hepatology 1997;26 (Suppl 1): 39S–42S.
      Lesher SDH, Lee YTM. Acute pancreatitis in a military hospital. Military Med 1989;154(11):559–564.
      Kelly JP, Kaufman DW, Koff RS, Laszlo A, Wilholm BE, Shapiro S. Alcohol consumption and the risk of major upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Am J Gastroenterol 1995;90(7):1058–1064.

      This doesn’t even address the PERMANENT personality disorders which doctors who drink deny along with killing brain cells (you know the nerve cells that don’t regenerate as the alcohol companies deny).

      • nickkin

        Where can I get some NON-BRAINDEAD MARIJUANA because the pot heads I have met had trouble remembering what their name was and where they were.

    • Robert Smith

      “Kay Bailey Hutchison”

      Another right wing robot nut job.

      Rob

      • jt

        AAH YES……more childish name-calling, huh rob?

        You really should consider expanding your teeny tiny bag of tricks to include a defensible point or two. Hmmm…probably too much to expect, huh?

    • Jungletrump
  • JDL

    When alcohol is once again under prohibition, opponents have a voice, but in the meantime I refuse to listen to a bunch of pontificating alcoholics

    • Jungletrump

      Thanks for not enlightening us and waisting our time.

  • jt

    There have been quite a few people here (myself included) weighing in on the discussion of the legitimacy of recreational marijuana use. But the real point is that those opinions, whether FOR or AGAINST it are decisions for the individual, and NOT for the federal government to IMPOSE on the public as a whole.

    Once legalized, state governments can STILL legislate to restrict it’s use as in the case of alcohol, tobacco or prescription medications (legal age, operating a vehicle or equipment, etc.). The whole point is that people have become MUCH too comfortable with having a government that decides how people should live and what behavior is “acceptable” within one’s own home.

    • Vicki

      Indeed. The core point is allowing the federal (or even state) government the power to tell us what we can not have. It is only a tiny step to telling us what we MUST have. I.E. Obamacare.

      “For a TRULY free people it is not possible for the possession of anything grown, created, obtained without fraud or theft, to be illegal.”

      Think back to the first laws restricting possession and you will know how long it has been since we were free.

    • Jungletrump

      Excellent point jt. I was just thinking, isn’t it odd that when our laws put these folks in prison, it is actually society (us) that is paying the price?

  • http://www.facebook.com/badger.brigadon Badger Brigadon

    Good article, bad beginning.
    “As the Federal government undoubtedly prepares to pounce on Colorado and Washington after voters in each State opted to legalize recreational marijuana use”

    While I agree with the gist of the article, starting it with a strawman argument is very poor reporting.

    • Jungletrump

      You have to report it that way (nowadays) just to get a liberal person to read past the first paragraph.

  • Motov

    Between pot and booze,…pot is far safer than booze.
    People are far less likely to get into fights when they smoke pot vs drinking booze.
    People are far less likely to die from smoking pot vs booze, booze can become toxic if consumed in great quantities (Killed famous people like John Bonham of Led Zeppelin).
    Prohibition of booze did not work, just as prohibition of pot is also not working.
    Prohibition only makes otherwise ordinary people into criminals, just because they like getting high.
    We must end prohibition of pot now!

  • William C

    Prohibition doesn’t work, its hard for me to imagine that anyone disagrees with me. People who want to drink are going to drink, and people who want to smoke pot are going to smoke pot. Just because the federal government says “don’t do that” it is not going to stop them, as a matter of fact there are studies that show teenagers are more likely to try certain things they are told are bad, or told not to do than if it just was not talked about.

    As far as its harm to society, I find it very difficult to believe that pot is more dangerous than alcohol. When my friends drink they go out and party, they get in fights, they generally act like fools, they get behind the wheel of a car, ect. When my friends smoke pot they sit on their couch and watch tv or play video games, what harm are they to society exactly?

    As far as danger to the consumers health, cigarettes are much, much worse. Cigarettes have all sorts of chemicals, preservatives, and poisons in them. Pot is just the plant material. Not to mention all the chemical fertilizers and pesticides that are required to grow tobacco. Marijuana is a “weed” it can be grown almost anywhere, with nothing needed but water and sun! Marijuana also is a completely usable plant, every part of it has benefits so there is very little that would need to be wasted. Alcohol is responsible for thousands of deaths every year, cigarettes kill hundreds of thousands as well… Marijuana kills 0 people every year! You can drink your self to death and die from alcohol poisoning, but you cannot smoke enough marijuana to OD, if I remember correctly from my college classes you would have to smoke something like 1000 joints in an hour and the professor said that you would pass out before you could get 25% of the way.

    “Crime doesn’t pay” the US currently has thousands of people locked up because they were caught with a joint a few times. Our jails are severely over crowded, and in many cases esp states that have the 3 strikes and you are out laws, they are letting violent criminals out to roam the streets again and hold the pot head. This further causes extra dangers and damage to society, as well as not making any sense economically which I will discuss further. One of my biggest concerns is young teenagers and kids smoking. Here is the problem though, the distributors of marijuana currently don’t care how old the buyer is, they only care about the sale. When I was in high school it was very difficult for me to get my hands on alcohol, every now and then someone would get a fake ID, or their older brother or sister would buy it. With marijuana on the other hand, I could buy as much as I wanted to at school any time of day. If it were made legal and we set a minimum age on it, it would actually keep it away from kids and teenagers much more effectively… Can anyone argue that is not a good reason to legalize and regulate it? Personally if a 40 yr old wants to smoke let him, but I would prefer to do whatever is the best to keep it out of the hands of my kids. Now, it is also important to note that by legalizing marijuana, you will be putting all of the low life drug dealers out of business, you will be taking money away from these sorry people and putting it in the hands of legitimate hard working Americans on farms and in factories.

    Lastly and unfortunately the most important is the economics behind it. We spend billions of dollars every year unsuccessfully trying to prevent it’s use. So basically we take billions of dollars and flush them right down the drain because they are not preventing anything. Now make it legal and watch as marijuana becomes the nations #1 cash crop in less than 5 years. All of the sudden not only are we saving those billions of dollars trying to stop people from using it, we are taxing the every living crap out of it, and we are bringing in billions of dollars in tax revenue. Now this is something else to keep in mind, and something they try not to talk about. The price to the consumer would remain relatively unchanged, even with heavy taxation. Currently there are so many middle men, so many risks that have to be taken, and it is grown in remote areas and the cultivation is laborsome. Let it be grown on a normal farm where machines can be used, and cut out all the middle men, and the price should be about the same after the excessive taxes that the consumer is paying. Growing anything commercially saves money, no one has to be paid to sneak it across borders, no one is paid the transport it in small portions, there are no middle men that all take their cut and mark up the product.

    Pretty much I cannot see one reason why this has not been changed. I am ultra conservative, as are most of my (much) older friends that I eat with, they all agree as well. It seems that the only people that are dumb enough to want to keep it illegal are the ones in Washington, but I think we all know they don’t have brains.

    • nickkin

      Washington has had a run on bad pot laced with who knows what. I don’t think it will change in the next four since obozo is a great pot-man from way back!

  • Tom Kalkhof

    Time for the Republicans to propose a solution to fix the budget by legalizing and taxing marijauna. The savings in law enforcement and legal cost as well as imprisonment will go a long ways at reducing wasteful spending. Perhaps this action might bring youger people to realize Republicans may be able to change from ways that have not worked.

  • r.p.

    Well Sam: We’ll see what happens. The fight ahead of us might be similar to the fight we see right here on your OP ED. A lot of opinions and mis/information will be thrown at each other, some claiming the credentials that reinforce their belief. But it seems claims are still made, lacking in facts but undoubtedly not lacking in emotion. It’s never been more important than NOW to be well armed with the facts to support your argument. There are a great many new studies being released from laboratories world wide that are finding out some remarkable things about this “gifted” plant. In the past few years our government has reluctantly granted permission for scientific studies here at home (finally). The reports have been nothing short of amazing.

    Just to mention, I haven’t seen anything to support ANY of the claims in the alleged reply to jt, from Senator Kay. As a matter of fact, most of those claims were published in the propaganda piece by Curtis L Janeczek, titled “Marijuana, Time For A Closer Look”, which was heavily promoted by Nancy Reagan in her “Just Say No” campaign. The scientific community soundly refuted most of the claims and named it after Ronnie’s “voodoo economics”, hence “voodoo science”. The rest of the claims were debunked later by Jack Herer in his book “The Emperor Wears No Clothes” where he cited the actual studies that the Reagan group used as their source that disclaimed their claims. In other words, “They were lying!! And they knew it!!”

    Sadly it seems, many people are still suffering from that propaganda campaign, and that of the previous “Reefer Madness” campaign. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth about the risks. Also I might ad, is a recently released 25 year study conducted by the Auto Insurers Association that concluded “pot smokers” were in fact safer drivers and in most cases had even faster reflexes ( high or straight) than non pot smokers, Non alcoholics, and alcoholics (high or straight). The study concluded with a statement that I paraphrase here. “It’s ironic that a pot smoker would be penalized by the industry for the mere charge of possession as they are treated the same as a DUI”.

    There are many remarkable things that are coming out. Lab rats with cancerous organs show improvements and in most cases completely repair the organ being treated with hemp oil. We haven’t found a land mammal on earth yet that doesn’t have THC receptors throughout their bodies and organs and brains. And MAN has an explosion of both types THC1 and THC2 receptors and then again an explosion of them in our brain. A college study found an increase flow of electrons between the left and right sides of our brain when high……..Oh now I see why the government wants to keep it illegal………………………NEVER MIND!!!!!

  • Jungletrump

    Maybe your delivery was bad Bob, you see you threatened them first did you not? Had you not been so self righteous about it they may have easily said, sorry dude, we’ll keep it down. I’m guessing this wasn’t the only time your smug attitude has pissed people off.

  • Jungletrump

    Dang it Bruce! Now they are gonna make sugar illegal!

  • nickkin

    Vicki…..when you comment please don’t use drugs…..your writing like brain-dead , woman.

  • jt

    michael:

    We’re both bright enough to know that people can impart specific meaning through many different grammatical means. We both know what robby meant. Don’t play tiresome games with me. It’s getting old.

  • Bill Coleman

    What good comes from being addicted to a substance unless it is to relieve unbearable physical pain? I don’t want to see more people killed by “pill drunk” drivers or babies born with addictions or more people dependent on government because of the results of their substance abuse (etc.). In the end, the only people who will benefit from “attempting to make things better by making things worse” will be the invaders who are depending on their success to be aided by the collapse of the USA from within. Also, why should anything about the alcohol industry affect my views on other addictive substances? Try asking an addict who made them addicted and watch them blame anyone but themselves (unless they have a temporary case of “jailhouse religion”). I have seen a person on government assistance because they are addicted to nicotine. My point is that the line against substance has to be drawn somewhere and people who cross that line should pay the legal price regardless of who they are.

  • Wisdom

    Even if Big Pharma “proves” medical pot doesn’t work, they overlook the Placebo effect. When people dying of cancer claim it relieves their pain, it does. They are not making that up. So if the mind wants to believe and help relief suffering, why not? Especially when our brightest really don’t understand all the wonders the brain works.

  • anonymous

    it is not just pot that needs to be legal, all drugs need to be legal, there are many medical uses for recreational drugs and they work better than the drugs currently used or prescribed and many have the same addiction rate or lower.When i was young, i got a really large gash on my leg that took 21 stitches and they used cocaine to numb it, i did not feel any pain and did not get nausea watching them stitch me up and felt fine when i left .10 years later i got another gash on my arm that took 8 stitches, they gave me a local anesthetic and i felt every stitch and got very sick watching them stitch it up and felt like s-it for the next few hours, obviously the current legal drugs barely work and have horrible side effects compared to the illegal drugs.

  • Motov

    So I guess that’s really the issue, BIG Pharma vs Us “peons” of course we already know who has the BIG bucks to spend to get laws that benefit them, and since 1913 congress can legally rob us and pay BIG pharma. We who smoke pot already know how much more effective it is vs any pill they came out with to ease our lives with, Pot is natural, Pills are highly refined chemicals,…kinda like natural foods vs artificial foods.
    As long as there is demand for pot (I got news for ya,.. that demand will never diminish).
    Someone will fill that need. the deeper you drive it underground, the more you’ll be seeing
    people getting high, and that is a fact. Ending prohibition makes too much sense to ignore. Everyone wins with legalized pot, Only the fat cats win by keeping it illegal.

  • http://www.facebook.com/dixie.davis.9 Dixie Suzan Davis

    These State laws are a good example of modern lawlessness. Indicative of a collapsing America. The States United are United by a contractual document, it is called the US Constitution.
    US Constitution; Article VI —THIS CONSTITUTION, AND THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES WHICH SHALL BE MADE IN PUSUANCE THEREOF; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.—-

    Any state law or Constitution which is in direct violation of the US Constitution or any Federal laws mad in pursuance thereof are illegal and null and void. The Judges in every State shall be bound to recognize the Supreme Law of the Land is not referendums by state voters, rather it is the US Constitution.

    US Constitution, Article VI —The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and ALL EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL OFFICERS, both of the United States and OF THE SEVERAL STATES, SHALL BE BOUND BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION, TO SUPPORT THIS CONSTITUTION.—–

    All executive officers are to execute the laws of the Federal government which are the Supreme law of the Land over any State law in contradiction. Marijuana possession, distribution, or sale is a Federal crime. All ingaged in violating those Federal laws are arrestable, and triable for the offence. State judges are to be cognizant of that. All County Sheriffs in all states commit malfeasance in office for failure to arrest. All members of State Legislatures who promote criminal activity are subject to arrest for conspiracy to subvert Federal criminal law.

    The point is very clear. This is not a States rights issue because the States have delegated powers to the Federal government in this matter and it moutside State jurisdiction. When lawless elements of State citizenry attempt to put color of law to what is a lawless act, this does not make it legal noir lawfull. The way to change the law is for Congress to change it.

    Quote—An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.— U.S. Supreme Court, Norton v. Shelby County, 118 US 425 (1886)

    • Frank Kahn

      Oh Dixie, you are so mislead. It is, of course, against the constitution for any state to make a LAW that is contrary to a LAW enacted, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTION. There are, however, certain restrictions placed on the legislative branch as to what laws they are constitutionally allowed to make. It is funny that you should use the term “color of law”, since all laws, unconstitutionally, passed by the legislature are in fact not law, but color of law.

      I give you a quote of your quote.

      “Quote—An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.— U.S. Supreme Court, Norton v. Shelby County, 118 US 425 (1886)”.

      This ruling cuts both ways, although it was directed at subversion of a federal law, it can also be held that any law unconstitutionally enacted (an unconstitutional act) by the legislature is in fact not a law and is as if it had never been passed.

      Then you have to go back to what laws (areas of control) were granted to them in the constitution. Was making pot illegal within their jurisdiction?

      And, just for a bit of thought, do you really want the federal government to have complete power over your life?

  • Jenasus

    Marijuana is not a drug. Drugs are man made.
    Plant a seed and grow some weed. Let it dry and get high.
    Johnny Pot Seed says, “A joint a day keeps the doctor away.”
    Support your local marijuana grower.
    Buy American Frown Marijuana. (BAGM)

  • s c

    Individual state’s rights is where it’s at, folks. Once you get past the b s myth that demands that ONLY Uncle Scam can do anything, then you can appreciate the difference between crap and apple butter.
    Uncle Scam has ONE main talent. That is, EVERYTHING the gubmint touches turns into crap – it’s only a matter of time. Colorado has a chance to make Uncle Scam look like the scum-sucking retard that he really is. Colorado will make so much money so FAST that Uncle Scam will feel forced into stopping ANY success that ANY state has with legalized weed [recreational or whatever the case may be]. It’s also a way to CREATE J O B S.
    Like it or not, THAT makes every state DANGEROUS to Uncle Scam.
    See the old fart for what he is, people. With this economy (Obummer has done NOTHING to make better), a job is a job is a job (sorry, gubmint jobs don’t count).
    Bring the troops HOME – N O W !

    • Motov

      And since our POTUS is in the White House, and very illegally, how can he expect the citizens to be following laws, when His example demonstrates he should be in jail?

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.