Captain's Quarters -

Good deal, Capt! I live in a small town where it has been easy to watch a lot of people from childhood well into their adult years, who took up with MJ at different times of their lives, different amounts of use , different reasons for use.

I've never seen it be a healthy change in a single person. I've never seen it make a single person a better citizen, or a healthier family member, make their family relationships stronger.

I've watched some very endearing children turn into very ugly grown-ups.

I am convinced that the reason that previous studies haven't shown more destructiveness in the use of MJ is because of the prejudices of the researchers. We tend to think of researchers as being clinical , methodical, and businesslike, professional - but we see these days, that most are not terrible dispassionate about their projects.

One of the strangest things to see is elementary age children who are users because their parents have it so casually around the house, that it is too easy, and not discouraged at all.

If you have children the same age, and see those children often, you watch them change - it is almost like watching a human being disintegrate before your eyes.

ummm....

what was I gonna post about again...?

C'mon, why won't you tell me what I was gonna post about...!

What was that noise?

And that is why some folks don’t smoke it. I know it may be a shock, but the folks that smoke weed like the effects. One can safely assume that the billion folks on this plant that smoke weed don’t have this effect. Since there is no know deaths associated with weed, what is the justification for jailing 60,000 folks a year in the USA?
I mean come on. Maybe you are so surprised due to congressional miss labeling of the drug. Any medical person knows it is a hallucinogen. Is it the drugs fault that congress labeled it a Narcotic?
How many guys come home, have a joint and then beat their wife up? How many guys come home, have a six pack and beat their wifes up?
Furthermore dose any one think schizophrenics should drink alcohol?
Give us a break. We are not criminals just because you don’t want us to do something in the privacy of our homes. Do you prefer to have 50% of the population viewing the police as the enemy? How hard do you think it is for a thirteen year old to get a joint? Easy right, now how hard is it for the same teen to get a bottle of booze? It is much harder. Your current policies put the drug in the hands of our youngsters. Then you make them enemies of the state.
Stop it. Humans have smoked this drug forever. The only danger here is the police. Oh, thank you for jailing me so that I won’t smoke that joint. Come on. If the Republicans weren’t so stupid, they could dominate.

And the 'dosages' involved in this study were----?

Yeah we all know that you can get a little 'paranoid' when toking, and that it is a mild form of hallucinogen. This is 'news' ? Why did they just not ask users if they experienced these effects when toking ? The researchers might have saved themselves a great deal of time and money, but this was likely funded by a grant so I guess they kept themselves 'gainfully' employed for an extended period at least. Tax dollars at work.

Is this not like EVERYTHING else in life ? Moderate --- not so bad.
Excessive--- not so good.

A few drinks after work every so often is pretty much good clean fun.
A few MORE drinks each and every day is pretty much a slow-motion train wreck.

And this subject is not one to be 'reviewed' in isolation. Grass 'can' be harmful to SOME if used foolishly, but the WAR ON DRUGS IS harmful to many more and to society at large as well.

Color me unimpressed or at least unconvinced by this 'study'. I really don't see the point of ostentatiously 'proving' the obvious ,which is what these results seem to do.

The study is irrelevant to the question of marijuana legalization.

Society in general - there will be exceptions, of course - does not consider marijuana usage to be a criminal act. I don't. I think the people I know who smoke dope are making a somewhat foolish choice, but I don't consider them criminals.

Cap'n: your choice is not "Dope" or "No Dope". You might like to think it is - but all the laws in the world are not going eliminate marijuana smoking. These laws are - quite rightly - considered idiotic by a substantial enough element of the population that they do nothing but:
- promote contempt for the law
- provide subsidies to organized crime
- allow "Gotcha!" enforcement of the law by the authorities.

There isn't a drug on this planet that doesn't have negative effects. Prozac makes some people suicidal. Ritalin creates severe depression in teenagers.There is a whole generation of housewives in this country who are drug addicts, wholly dependent on Xanax for their daily survival. Even the nitrous oxide that dentists use on kids as anaesthesia kills more brain cells than all of these drugs combined.

I'm not a smoker, I have way too much studying for all that. But this is all just common sense. One need only look at the external data on how many people have been killed from the intake of THC, or by a person under the influence of the drug, and compare it to how many people die from alcohol poisoning and druck driving every year. It's a simple ratio of 0 to 100,000. Anyone besides me see the small difference there?

5% of all deaths from diseases of the circulatory system are attributed to alcohol.

15% of all deaths from diseases of the respiratory system are attributed to alcohol.

30% of all deaths from accidents caused by fire and flames are attributed to alcohol.

30% of all accidental drownings are attributed to alcohol.

30% of all suicides are attributed to alcohol.

40% of all deaths due to accidental falls are attributed to alcohol.

45% of all deaths in automobile accidents are attributed to alcohol.

60% of all homicides are attributed to alcohol.

--Alcohol Consumption and Morality in the U.S., 1950–2000

Ed.... how can you seriously justify the claim that marijuana has now been proven to be just as bad as alcohol?

Heading Right: "That puts a big dent in activists’ claims for legalization. Prior to these studies, advocates claimed that marijuana had no more harmful effects than alcohol, was less addictive, and did not leave people with the sensory impairments of alcohol intoxication. Having proven connections to hallucinatory experiences and psychotic reactions, those arguments have been effectively refuted."

You're joking right? Effectively refuted? Okay... have it your way.

Nothing in this study does anything to relate the effects of marijuana to the effects of alcohol, much less its addictive nature. Stick to the facts, PLEASE avoid the spin for once! These are sceintific studies we're talking about here, they should be treated as such by sticking to the cold hard facts.

Cap,
This is the problem for conservatives. That is why there are so many conservative Libertarians. It is also why it is so easy for the Republicans to lose power in swing elections. So many of us hold our noses and vote with the republicans due to the supposed fiscal conservatism. If the republicans got on the right side of this issue, just imagine! The tax revenue would balance the budget. The prison dividend would mean we could go back to jailing car thieves. The drug would be out of the hands of our children. Folks wouldn’t grow up hating law enforcement people. Farmers would have a new league crop. The USDA even stated that paper made from Marijuana is better than paper made from trees. They also concluded one acre of pot would produce as much paper as five acres of trees. Also, there is the clothing that would be made. Furthermore the pot seed is the second best source of plant protein on the plant. The voters....just think about how stupid the republicans are on this issue, and why? The can not come up with one good reason.
Why Why Why

RustyW +1.

As for all the pro-pot/anti-alchohol folks out there, your arguments suck. No one is going to legalize MJ because alcohol is bad. Get a grip.

Go back and read RustyW's comments. Twice.

Rustyw ... well said ... but never gonna happen. To many closed minded people like Paul A'Barge around. Paul you need to chill out and light one or two up.

Do we really have enough confidence in the state of the art of the mental health professions to really know that they've identified "psychotic reactions"? This sounds a little like the environmentalists and their insistence on "settled science".

Hey, what about second hand ganja smoke causing psychosis in other people? I don't want to go to a concert where some people are smoking weed and walk out with psychosis because of their selfish behavior. I just want to listen to music, not have to breathe in smoke that will make me go nuts. And the jury is still out on whether second hand marijuana smoke causes cancer.

Second hand smoke is a science that is well founded, just like global warming.

I've seen little kids walk into a restaurant, breathe in second hand smoke for twenty minutes, and walk out with cancer. It's that dangerous.

Haha... jr, your a funny guy. Do you have magical powers that allow you to shoot x-rays out of your eyes? That'd be a pretty cool trick to be able to detect cancer in people just by looking at them. Obviously you haven't been to too many concerts. I've been to outdoor, indoor, jam band, heavy metal and hip hop shows all chock full of drug addicts and potheads. To think that second hand smoke may have health related risks is one thing, but to think that it could get you 'high' just by being near it and possibly induce psychosis is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. So, don't be afraid to go out and have some fun.... if I was half as paranoid and delusional as you I would never leave my house.

... British and American researchers have found evidence that THC, one of the two active ingredients in cannabis, provoke psychotic reactions even in healthy people. How will this impact the legalization argument?

It won't, much like concerns over the safety of RU486 didn't really impact the debate over whether or not to make it legal for use in this country. Safety / harmful side effects isn't the issue in deciding whether or not marijuana should be legalized or not. Like it or not, the debate is whether or not the government should outlaw the use of a drug that many people believe to be essentially innocuous, or (for libertarians) whether the government has any right at all to interfere with what you decide to take into your body, be it tobacco, trans fats, alcohol, mary-jane, crack, or anything else.

Personally, I don't care whether people smoke marijuana, though of course I think that there should be stiff penalties if people commit crimes (such as DUI) while they're "toking".

It's funny, though, that some of the same people who demand the right to smoke mary-jane are the same people who have screaming fits if somebody wants to light up a cigarette or cigar with five miles of them.

If one had to meet a drug dealer to by alcohol, then alcohol would be a gate way drug. Can you imagine if the liquored store owner was offering free samples of other drugs?
We are killing our children with this policy. Once they try pot, they see that their parents don’t know what they are talking about. Once they research it they see the country doesn’t know what they are talking about. They go to purchase pot from a dealer that offers them free samples. They then reason everyone lied about pot, so they assume the other drugs are just as benign. Poof, you have now created a druggie.
The best things we could do for our children are to legalize pot. First off, they would need to be eighteen. (Of course we would need to keep large penalties in place for the illegal sale of Marijuana.) Second, a smoker would buy their dope from the liquor store. Since the liquor store owner would not be pushing coke, etcetera, the pot smoker wouldn’t end up as a druggie.

It couldn't have been said better rusty. I grew up in the DARE era. I was told my entire life that marijuana was just about the worst thing in the world a person could take part in. How many commercials do you see on tv that are anti-cocaine, anti-methamphetamine, anti-heroine? Flip through the channels right now and I guarantee you'll see 100 anti-pot commercials before you see anything about any of these hard drugs that actually ruin peoples lives.

Once a person realizes that the anti-pot campaign is borderline propaganda, based on half truths and overly-exaggerated consequences of smoking, they lose all trust in the entire anti-drug institution, and your modern drug addict is born. In order for the demand for drugs to go down in this country, the drug war has to come to grips with simple facts and reality to gain any sense of it's legitimacy back. Right now it's a joke to anyone who knows anything about drug use in this country.

I think the band Tool said it best:

You dislike druggies, ok. All those books you enjoy? All that music you like? All the movies that excite you? Take them all back. The folks that created them? Rrrrrrreeally f****** high!

The purpose of govt is to ban everything that has even the smallest of bad affects?????

Where to begin?

Worse, where to stop?

Docjim505/Rustyw/Monkei,

You wouldn't be so blaise about "mary jane", or think it benign, if it affected someone you know personally, like your wife, kids, or grandkids. What it does to you is no lie perpetrated by the Government. A lot of this stuff has been known for years -- I took a pharmacognosy class in the late 1970's and there were already studies on the books showing behavioral abnormalities and loss of intelligence due to pot smoking because of THC action on the brain. The Brits have come just a little late to the game. What is interesting about their study is that they point out that the marijuana of today is more than twice as potent THC-wise than the stuff from the 70's (that part of their report is not mentioned by ABC), that the amount of THC in a joint overwhelms amount of CBD, and, since both bind to the same receptors, negates any positive effects of CBD (the CBD had to be extracted and administered separately for its effects to be characterized).

I'm still working to get my son back. He started "mary jane" in the summer between middle school and high school and, as Rose said, turned from a very sweet little kid into a very ugly one. Stealing, rude, uncaring. We didn't know what hit us. Since he's stopped, he's come back a bit, but he will never be what he was before he started using.

By the way, stopping cost over $10,000 in court costs and rehab, not to count a whole lost year of college ($17,000 + expulsion) in which he did nothing but smoke. 32 units attempted. zero completed. We are not rich -- that wasn't chump change to us. The thing that scared him out of using and seeking treatment was being stuck in the drunk tank with a meth user after he was caught.

And the costs continue -- we have to test him ($30/test), monitor him, and we can't ever trust him not to revert.

The advantage: He is coming back. Slowly.

If I could find out who the dealer was, I'd kill him. Also slowly.

Really, I wouldn't wish what "mary jane" does on anyone.

Yes NavySpy... and tool also said this in the same song: (using soundbites of other people)

"Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed into a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness, experiencing itself subjectively, there's no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves.... Here's Tom with the weather."

"It's not a war on drugs, it's a war on personal freedom. Keep that in mind at all times. Thank you."

Sorry, I'm one of those tool worshippers. The best, most creative, and progressive heavy metal band of all time. (never expected anyone on here to ever bring them up) I'm not sure if they're the greatest spokesmans for drug legalization though....

STOP! THE MONEY!!

Years ago, scientists implanted dimes inside rodents. Only to discover that the money caused cancer.

As to any science that "finds" a political point of view" is revelant, is just JUNK SCIENCE. Happens in the weather reporting business all the time. Or bullshit would be causing global warming.

I think there's another way to look at this problem.

Here's proof that people BREAK THE LAWS ALL THE TIME. Try driving. You ever go above 55-miles-per-hour; when "to save gas, or roads," the congress-critters wouldn't give a state Federal funds for Federal highways; without touting the limits on how fast you could drive your car.

DID NO GOOD AT ALL!

As to allowing the police access to arresting people for lighting up a joint ... you really do have to be careful about "outcomes."

Here. Every time the police go and ask for more funds so they can hire more police, I routinely, always vote NO. More police? Every time my local police station gets money to increase the hiring of police? SUDDENLY, there appears street patrols. Where people park and get ticketed. (Well, I live in a residential town; not much interested in commercial businesses.)

But, I'm not the only one.

A long time ago, listening to "Dr." Laura, on the radio; she was talking about how a little old lady, exiting a freeway, had the police sirens going off. While Mexicans, in a fast-moving truck, were NOT STOPPED AT ALL.

So, Dr. Laura put out the word that cops would rather stop little old ladies. Than foreigners. Nah. Didn't surprise me at all.

And, there's always the negative effects when you add a police duty to the roster. And, it's STUPID.

Now, the alarmists are throwing around the word "psychotic."

Well, if that's what's bothering you, why not just do genetic testing? Including testing both parents. You'd spot the potential psychotics in a hair's breath. And, then you could suggest just aborting the probably damaged fetus?

Of course. Nature does a good job! You're supposed to select your mate. You're not supposed to pick psychotic, or drunkards, to begin with. Something goes wrong when we elevate the crazies to such a status that they become desirable mates, ya know?

As to science, it works best when it's skeptical. And, no great discovery ever happened by committee. Or concensus.

But tax money to stupid studies? Academics have turned this poison into an art. Will it matter? We're credentialling too many people. And, with Fat Albert Gore already earning an Oscar; the fears are on the horizon, that between "teams" ... which include Europeans and UN kleptocrats; there's a movement afoot to tax us for breathing.

Well, when did a politician ever shy away from something that was guaranteed to be bestow power?

Weed? Mushrooms? Tomatoes? They were all once "forbidden fruits." Humans still have a keen and developed taste for them. And, for knowledge. Even though the first smartest woman on earth was a woman. EVE. (And, I know how God did that trick! He gave Adam an erection. So it was a no-brainer. The blood supply goes to one or the other. How do I know this? Robin Williams told me.)

Ah, yes. Given how many people who have smoke marijuana, it's gonna be a hard sell to convince them that science "found the dime."

Let alone how the right suffers a loss of popularity at the polls. And, is stuck in a minority position that cannot be fixed. All due to the fact that a legal procedure, involving 40-million American women a year ... Hey! This is not my statistic! It's driven by the right! And, they're willing to kiss off that many voters! No wonder the Ma and Pa Kettle Show ain't worried.

You need another losing wall to run into?

A friend once told me that the only difference between liberals and conservatives, is what they want to throw other people in jail for.

I see that it's still true.

unclesmrgol,

I had a friend who was killed in a car accident. I had another friend who was shot to death. I had a relative who drank himself to death.

Should we ban cars, guns, and alcohol, just because they can hurt people?

Uncles ... you pick your vices ... I guess it is up to the individual to pick wisely. I don't need others prioritizing my self-selected vices. When you want to talk about vices fine, but let's talk about them all.

unclesmrgol,

I'm very sorry about your son, and I'm glad that he is recovering.

Let me clarify one thing: I don't approve of smoking mary-jane. When I wrote that "many people believe [it] to be essentially innocuous", I wasn't refering to myself. I've never smoked marijuana, and don't have any plans to ever do so. If I found out my niece was toking, I'd kill the son of a bitch who gave / sold it to her (and leave her punishment - which would be swift, prolonged, and draconian - to her parents).

BUT...

I don't agree that it's the government's job to protect people from their own stupidity.

Matt, get a grip. jr565 was doing a great parody of the nonsense about secondhand smoke and global warming.

Well, this discussion is starting to sound like the one we had on the same issue a few months ago, so I might as well repeat myself.

The choice is not between Dope & No Dope. Sorry. If laws could possibly have made a difference, they would have done so by now.

The choices are: Do you want the local source for dope to be some guy on a street-corner who also has crack, or do you want it to be some kind of real store?

Do you want the dope that is sold to your friends and relatives to be clean, or do you want to take the chance of it being contaminated with pesticides or addictive drugs?

Do you want to give organized crime a relatively low-risk, high-margin business - that they can use as a gateway drug - or do you want the profits to circulate in the legal economy?

Do you want dope to be grown in a field somewhere, or do you want it to be grown in a grow-op next door to your house?

unclesmrgol - please don't think I'm indifferent to the story of your son. But yours is an exceptional case.

unclesmrgol,
Uh, we all smoke. I have been smoking since I was young. I have a master in Geophysics, plus I own a small oil company.
I also study pharmacology back when I was premed. I worked in Pharmacology studying neurotransmitters.
Please keep in mind when you toss that twice as potent phrase around that pot now costs $500 an ounce instead of $10 like it did thirty years ago. Just where did your son get that money anyway?
not to count a whole lost year of college ($17,000 + expulsion) in which he did nothing but smoke. And you didn’t figure this out until the end? I demand all grades every semester from my kids.
I’ll bet your son’s problem is drug use, not Marijuana use. If he tells you otherwise he is lying. Please read my earlier comment on gateway drugs. What I am advocating here is taking pot away from the youngsters. What you advocate has created your situation. I am sorry for that.
What you have described is not the effects of Marijuana, but thank you for reminding us the true cost of drugs.
Again where did he get that money?

After we find a cure for Iatrogenesis, we should then worry about a harmless weed.

Study after study on marijuana has proved it's almost total lack of harm. smrgol, like others, I'm sorry for your son's troubles, but it isn't pot. Try looking at why he feels the way he does, why he's failing (while pot DOES have some effect there, there's a REASON he's trying to escape from something, or he's being plain irresponsible, and you can't blame THAT on the drug, it would be the same for booze or women or gambling or anything else he couldn't learn to control) or why he feels the need to smoke pot. And what would you blame MY son's failure on? Two semesters, first one, small problems, but they were covered or covered up enough he passed, one C, then second semester, he just quit trying altogether.
His "problem"?
A band. He's still in one, not the same one, but the same crappy screaming music (or what passes for it), which is really pathetic, because he taught himself the guitar, piano, and, on a bet, picked up a viola and started playing songs in it within minutes.
I ain't drugs, smrgol, as much as you'd like to avoid the responsibility of admitting that your son just failed by blaming it on something, you are doing him a disservice by letting him avoid reality. Sort of what you accuse drugs of doing to him, you know?

And, just for comparison, let's look at some figures real quick:

Accidents involving acohol: 9%

Fatal accidents alcohol related: 41%

according to your reasoning, maybe we should all drink before driving, since we have a ninety-percent reduced chance of having an accident, and we cut our risk of dying in a wreck by 20%.

Or, we could use some common sense, and realize a few things, like these people have an agenda to push. And the fact that they only used 15 people. If I tried to tell the CDC, or any other scientific body, that I'd found some discovery based on FIFTEEN TEST SUBJECTS, I'd be laughed out of the room. When they found out that the results weren't quantified, but were simply the test subjects "impressions" (after not being guided a bit, I'm sure, like, "do you feel more paranoia now than you did before, would you say?), they would stop laughing and have me arrested for fraud.
Most studies I've seen on pot were done on thousands of people over decades. When they can back up their claims with that kind of research, I'll listen to them. Otherwise, they're just part of the insane clown posse (all apologies to the group).

And, smrgol, one more thing for you to think about. They wanted to prove that marijuana caused cancer, and that heavier use would be worse (actually, they added that bit later, when they couldn't prove their point in just a few years, as an excuse for extending the study). After twenty years of heavy smoking, there was NO increase incidence of lung cancer whatsoever. Now, this leads us to one of two conclusions.
One, the twenty years of smoking known carcinogens means that we have to reclassify those known carcinogens as not-so-known (something the cigarette lobby would LOVE).
Or two, pot has cancer fighting abilities.

How would you feel if you kept a cure for cancer from the hands of people, smrgol?

Let's not forget that pot was made illegal not through evidence, but through a conspiracy between William Randoph Hearst, the DuPonts, and Harry Anslinger, the nephew of one of the DuPonts. The DuPonts helped get him the job as Drug Czar, or the equivalent of it back then, and a man who'd never said a cross word about marijuana, in fact, didn't even know anything about it, suddenly decides it's the scourge of the earth. Why? Well, let's examine that.

Hearst sold newspapers to be sure, but he also sold paper. Hemp is stronger, lasts longer, and is more versatile than standard paper made from trees. Hempseed oil is STILL uncontested as the best lubricant around. And the rayon (and others that were on the drawing board) were very inferior to hemp fibers for clothing and other things.

And none of this is new. All of it has been admitted to, just read Anslingers own books, they were proud of what they did.

And for fifty years, our government has lied to us repeatedly and often. Most of what they've said about pot has been removed from the website of the ONDCP, since it was demonstrably false. General Barry McAffrey took the job as drug Czar under Clinton hating pot, and left the job declaring it should be legalized, without restriction, due to the fact that it had been proven again and again that it was less addictive than caffeine or sugar, and less harmful than hundreds of household products sold right off the shelves to children of any age.

Sorry, the DuPonts were in the business of rayon/other fibers, and in making lubricants that would be less effective than hempseed oil, forgot to link that. That's why DuPont wanted it illegal.

I think we need to all write for help to the former Senator from Tennessee who ran for his Boss's job in 2000 ,but LOST the Presidential election not because of Florida, but because he didn't win his own home state. He also lost his boss's home state, and also lost Byrd-Land AKA one of the competitors for The PORK capitol of the free world)

BTW, Dave's not here.

For 25 years, marijuana controlled the debilitating, sometimes deadly, side-effects of my anti-convulsant medications. Without it, I would have had to apply for disability immediately upon graduating from high school.

Because of the benefits that it provided, I was able to work successfully. I managed to earn a lot of promotions and cash awards for improving job procedures and saving my employers a lot of money.

Twenty-five years later, I needed surgery on my lower spine. This would involve a three-month healing period. I didn't want to become too relaxed during my healing for fear that I may accidentally over-strain my back. So I quit the marijuana on the day of my surgery. I experienced no withdrawal symptoms.

Two months into my healing, I nearly died from a pulmonary embolism. The surgery had created a blood clot. Because my pulmonary system was affected, I never returned to smoking pot.

Two years later, I had to retire on disability. Without the marijuana, I couldn't function. The side-effects of my anti-convulsants were too overwhelming.

But, you do have to be careful what you buy. Because I began smoking pot in the seventies, what I was buying was natural and safe. During later years, I had some people try to sell me pot that was treated with other substances. I knew how to tell the difference and stayed from anything that tasted or even smelled unusual. I made it a habit to deal only with old friends who were aware of my health condition and wouldn't try to sell me anything impure. If it was legalized, there probably would be some kind of quality and safety standards. The more dangerous stuff would be eliminated. And, I might still be working and earning a fabulous income.

I see a swarm of apologists for an addictive weed, who refuse to acknowledge the detrimental side-effects of the drug to the local community.

Of course, they are more interested in the rights of individuals (themselves) to commit ANARCHY than they are of the obligations of the members of a community to support it and keep it healthy and strong, and viable - so that it can be the life-support system for the families that live in it.

The REASON it is OTHER PEOPLE'S BUSINESS to get to vote on what YOU "get to do in the privacy of your own home" (sic), is because if it is a DETRIMENTAL activity TO THE COMMUNITY, then the COMMUNITY gets to pick up the heavy lifting of the burden of it, WHETHER THEY LIKE IT OR NOT.

The last 50 years, the Liberals and others, Libertarians, etc, like to think the community can bear ANY burden and keep on trucking - just because America has proven to be so very strong, they can no longer imagine the individual cities being totally destroyed.

But, what happens when LESS THAN 50% of a Community IS ACTUALLY THRIVING?

Some of you guys REPRESENT precisely WHY a community has a strong obligation to NOT L ISTEN to the individual outcry over the SO-CALLED "VIOLATION" of their personal and individual rights, and do what is right for the WHOLE.

NOT as in "COMMUNE-ISM" NOT AS IN SOCIALISM, or STALINISM or NAZISM or HITLERISM, or MARXISM or HUMANISM.

But like 150 years ago, frontier towns and Indian tribal villages.
Many of those Indian Villages, if a man brought something into the village they already knew was banned, because it was destructive, the man who brought it to the village would forfeit his life - the trial was thus: Did so-and-so bring this into the village? Yes or NO. PERIOD.

There were things that the western movies and penny dreadfuls don't show you guys - that there was conduct of frontiersmen that was NOT accepted by the community they lived in, and they had a few choices: take it somewhere else; stop it altogether; continue to do it and face the penalty.

But every community has the RIGHT to decide WHAT BURDENS they will accept.

Individuals TELLING US they see no difference IN THEMSELVES just doesn't wash - when the community has to pick up the load and deal with it - pay a real penalty for it.

And like it or not, anything that makes someone NOT a productive person, or impairs their ability to be productive, or cause them to be DESTRUCTIVE TO THE COMMUNITY, this has an impact on the community that GIVE THE COMMUNITY the RIGHT to have a final say on the SANCTION of that activity.

Name a destructive behavior that anyone can engage in WHICH THEY CAN THEMSELVES INSULATE THEIR COMMUNITY from paying a price for. THAT is a behavior others should keep their nose out of.

I am NOT making a case for Big Brother.

Frontier villages were hardly "BIG BROTHER":-ly.

But there were things that folks could do which nobody was going to stand for - because it hurts them all, and they did have the where-withall to carry that load for others.

It is enough if a village pays for their own roads and bridges, if they provide eachother with vital goods and services, if they provide fellowship and a helping hand, for sickness, for school, to have a pool of trusted fellow community members from which to pick mates for their children...

No healthy community has ever survived ANARCHY.

No healthy community would ever sit by and watch their children's lives being destroyed before they ever have a chance to stand on their own two feet.

But that is what you do when you vote for legalizing MJ - that you have the stomach to sit and watch children be destroyed before they ever have a chance at life.

Funny, you guys who love MJ so much, you don't ever move to "greener pastures" where enough like-minded folks want to relax the laws to suit you.

Maybe that is because you know that you don't want to live somewhere where there are not enough straight and sober people to carry the burden, and keep the community looking civilized enough to suit you.

All those hippie communes of the 60's closed down fast as anyone could gather one up. It wasn't for lack of like-minded folks who agreed about MJ, that much is clear.

And I can easily prove Jim Crow was a Golden Age of individual liberty in race relations--- all the bloodshed and violence and poverty were due to character flaws that would have shown through some other way--and of course government shouldn't get involved--it's not a question of whether your kids hate people of color, but how--

Rose...I totally blew away your lame objections to MJ over at John Hawkins (worthless) blog, and now you're here spouting the same hate. Again, no facts, just conjecture. How come you didn't regale us with the story about how the asthma sufferer died from smoking pot? Your comment then was classic..."and I suppose you'll tell me the ASTHMA killed him".

Once again, if you wish to believe lies, believe them. But if you constantly retell them as facts, YOU are harming society, not pot. There are many indications that pot helps millions of people every day, but you want to outlaw it because of a made-up bogey-man. If you're going to do something, at least do it with the truth in hand. It's people like you who are responsible for these lame, one-sided agenda-driven studies. Let's just review this with one small fact.

Fifteen people, yet it said "they exhibited psychoses". Not fifteen exhibited it, but "people" did. Notice there's no number? Wonder why? Because A) there evidence of "exhibiting psychotic behavior" was, I'm sure, extremely liberal so as to include more, and B) probably had to be that liberal to include one. How do we know this? Because MILLIONS of people smoke pot every day, most of them constantly (you know, like people CONSTANTLY take their medications every four hours?), yet we have how many psychotic episodes? NONE. And the ones we DO have (Virginia Tech, anyone, as just the latest example?) of REAL PSYCHOTICS rarely drug enduced, if ever, but you won't say, hey, we need to outlaw Virginia Tech, or clothes, or drinking water (even though colleges have been shown to be involved in school shootings, and the teachers and students have been shown as to be reasons for their psychotic outbursts, and even though clothing has many times been used to kill and was being worn by almost EVERY SINGLE PSYCHOTIC, and even though people have overdosed on water).

Hypocritical, Rose, and how will you feel when you find out that you've kept a cure for cancer off the market? How will you feel when we find out that the ingredient in pot called CBD actually KEEPS psychotic episodes DOWN? It seems there is already more evidence of those two than there ever was for second-hand smoke being dangerous (something that still hasn't been proven in thirty years of trying, funded by the most rabid anti-smoking groups around).

And Yell....my response to you is like the caveman in the commercial....

duh....what?