It's been awhile since we last tackled this issue.


Well, should we legalize Marijuana?

OK so here's the thing, my parents were potheads. Smoked it, sold it, grew it - dad even had an accurate render pot leaf on his arm. So I "get" it... yet (and probably because of my parent) I never really got into getting high. On one hand, Oh go ahead and get high, just don't drive or whatnot. On the other... why are you getting high?

Over all pot is really no worse than alcohol, in truth it's probably better. So yeah, go ahead legalize pot.

The health effect is practically negligible compared to other drugs, and the danger to others is fairly limited as well. Given those two, I think it would be safe to legalize. It's basically legal in Santa Cruz already, and Armageddon has yet to occur.

Let my people grow

Well, should we legalize Marijuana?

Absolutely. Legalize Marijuana with the same restrictions as alchohol when concerned with driving, minors and serving in occupations that require strict sobriety while on duty. Since there is the chance of contact buzz, the same types of public non-smoking ordinances should apply to Marijuana.

If we as a nation, can't grant ourselves the liberty to smoke pot [but we can drink until we puke], can we at least remove the intellectually bankrupt Hemp restriction?

Given what I found in the first two results when I looked up the health effects of marijuana use, here and here, the health effects are not dissimilar from alcohol and cigarettes combined. Of course if marijuana were to be legalized, I would expect limitations such as age and driving restrictions.

I would also be interested if the smoking bans that are sweeping the nation would apply to smoking pot. If your town has smoking bans of any kind, and marijuana were to be legalized, would your town include smoking marijuana in the bans? If you support banning smoking tobacco in public, would you support similar bans on smoking pot in public if it were legal to smoke?

As Bill Maher likes to point out, nobody ever came home and beat the crap out of his wife after smoking too much pot.

Legalize it. Legalize it, regulate it, tax it like cigarettes, and raise enough new revenue to erase the deficit. Maybe if Cheney and Rumsfeld smoked it we wouldn't be in Iraq.

I would support such laws indeed. My opinion about the legality of marijuana, like my opinion about the legality of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, gambling, prostitution, and pornography, is that it should be legal but strictly regulated to minimize its negative effects. This would include banning its use in most public places, as we see is happening to tobacco.

Not only do I think it should be legalized, I agree with what Willie Nelson once suggested - that our government would do a much better job if they piped marijuana smoke through the heating vents of Congress and the White House.

Absolutely legalize it. Never heard of a pot smoker in a iron lung. Roll up a fatty and celebrate the last days of President Bush's mis-Adminstration.

Its well know that pot was not legalized with alcohol when Prohibition was repealed because the alcohol industry did not want competition.

The same is try today and then some. Since alcohol is far more damaging to humans than grass ever will be there is no logical reason to keep it illegal.

Tell that to the Congressmen who get the donations from the alcohol industry. LOL

It's interesting that the response here is so lop-sided in favor of legalization, when we all know that, in the real world, the chance of this happening in the USA in the near future is nil. If a state decides to allow the use of marijuana for medical purposes, the Feds step in and say "No!" No candidate for a major, national political office is going to advocate full legalization and stand a chance for election. (A few ultra-liberals and a few libertarians have such a position, but they are generally considered to be on the fringe. The most that any viable national candidate can suggest is for the legalization of marijuana for very limited medical use.)

So why the disconnect? Is so far out of touch with the Average American, or is the government out of touch?

Well, should we legalize Marijuana?

In Colorado it already is, sort of. That's the trouble, you get a half-hearted legalization, the feds come down on you, further legalization takes place, and nobody really knows for sure. I for one hate being thrown in the slammer. Spent a weekend there in the 1970s, and no thanks. Got off without a record because it was a sloppy bust and the amount of pot was really small (I was poor).

Even if available at the local Smoker's Friendly, I might not partake these days. Too dang busy and my writing might turn into something not very saleable. But lemme tell yah, nothing makes Hamburger Helper taste like gourmet stuff than good old weed. I think the many months (years actually) of unemployment would have gone better. What difference would it have made? Good question, I don't know. I do know that I kept a 3.4 GPA in college back when whining about grades wasn't looked well upon, and I was smoking every day. However it was fun back then. Now I don't know, seems just stupid.

Plenty of comedy routines have been built around that. You wonder if the comedians were high. Maybe so.

My folks have passed on, members of the Greatest Generation. Maybe that's why you don't hear much blather about the dangers of pot. Nobody has the fire in the belly against DRUGS any longer, or maybe they are all on something legal and in pill form. Richard Nixon is dead. And maybe people have come to realize that even in the military drug use is common. Read Dispatches by Michael Herr. That's the Vietnam era, but uppers and downers were given out freely.

One might point to the moralistic reign of the Religious Right holding back legalization. Or maybe it really is the tobacco and alcohol lobbies holding it back. Don't know, don't care, and there you go. I doubt anyone cares, so legalize it. It'll help some small family farms stay in business. Might mellow out the terrorists. The publishing industry might print something worth reading. We'll all have a better experience in tough times. Hamburger Helper will taste great. The traffic fatalities will go down. Music might improve.

Or we all might turn into Wild Zombies Gone Wilder. For some reason, I'm thinking that would be an improvement.

This is interesting, a map from Wikipedia. Apparently several states have already decriminalized the use of marijuana. I lived in Nevada for almost three years and didn't know this. Of course, Mr P could still lose his job if he smoked it or if it were found at our home, so I'd never risk it, but I've always been curious to try (except it stinks, which is what kept me away before).

I don't think the alcohol or tobacco industry have anything to do with marijuana criminalization. It was legal during prohibition, for starters. Marijuana became illegal (federally) four years after prohibition was repealed. Prohibition made America a nation of criminals (with millions making the stuff in their bathtubs, buy/selling/drinking illegal booze) and introduced gangster culture. The prohibition of marijuana didn't result in quite such dire, widespread and immediate consequences, and that's probably why the repeal stayed in place. I've heard the conspiracy theory that Dupont was responsible for the initial government policy shift against marijuana. It was in their interest to eliminate competitors to their new plastic and wood pulp products. Wouldn't surprise me.

A very good point. I will draw an analogy with prostitution/pornography. Their use is very widespread (pornography constitutes the majority of Internet business, for example), yet there is clearly no group out there advocating either one of them. Conversely, any politician campaigning against them tends to get fairly good support. I think it is the moral majority in action (small m's). Society in general is not ready to accept that these are common practices, so even though a majority or close to it participates in these activities, no group is willing to take a stance supporting them, and groups seeking to restrict them get support. So, to answer your question--I think America is out of touch with itself, especially when it comes to the politics of these issues. These are all prime examples of 'fringe' politics (even though those against are large numbers) in that those on one side of the issue (against their use) are MUCH more passionate about it than those supporting it, and therefore the politics of the issue swing their way. Those really advocating legalization of marijuana are indeed very passionate, but the Average American, I think, doesn't really care that much one way or the other, or is extremely against it. Those that don't care don't count, when it comes to politics, so given that the number of people extremely against legalization, we continue to see laws against their use, even though the majority of Americans probably wouldn't mind seeing it legalized.

An interesting point, VS. I think the answer lies not only in the fact that candidates wouldn't be able to advocate legalization but also that the feds have spent SO much money in stupid crap like "fly-overs" where they look for thermal emissions at night that could be coming from someone growing pot in their basement or something, as well as all the money spent in other forms of law enforcement. It would probably put too many people out of a job or something if all that was eliminated.

Marijuana should be legal. I am appalled by the thought of my tax dollars going toward putting and keeping people in jail for this "crime". We have enough over-crowding in jails for serious crimes; we don't need to be prosecuting for a little recreational use of a drug less harmful than alcohol.

They should really take a nation-wide vote, or more people should call their congressman about this.

You know... I completely agree (except that marijuana really isn't LESS harmful than alcohol, depending upon usage). What's funny is that my wife and I were just talking about this the other day. Seriously, is a joint in the evening any worse than a beer? The issue is that of course, no joints are filtered, etc to make the impact on your lungs less detrimental.

In reference to jobs, I think that there will be a HUGE influx of Marijuana related jobs if it were to be legalized. Think of the implications to companies like Phillip Morris who already have the infrastructure to package, filter, and move products of this nature? It would create a whole new division. Of course, street dealers would lose out, but maybe they could use their knowledge to work legitimately. I don't know. In either case, the government would still be involved in the regulation (you know our gov't... it has to be in the middle), so all of those people who chased it illegally can just switch gears and become the equivalent of Alcohol control board people. What if they made "pot" bars (like in Amsterdam, sort of). They have cigar bars? I can only imagine the economic impact. I think it would be great.

Sure, just like alcohol, it will have it's seedy side. But truly, people who are looking for it can get it and those who have a propensity to drink or be an addict can supply their habit from the local gas station (beer, wine, etc).

The thing is that people like me might smoke pot if it were legal, but we really don't know anyone that sells it and there are implications to drug testing at work, etc. (particularly my wife being a nurse).
However, I believe that once our generation (early 30's) is making the law, this might change.

Let's pray that if it happens, the USSC doesn't find a way to circumvent popular opinion (ie Roe v Wade). I imagine, that even if the law changes, our USSC justices will still be gray haired older people who are most likely the reason the marijuana laws exist.

Medical marijuana users have atomizers for thier uses- no smoke, tar or any of the things that is associated with Tobbaco- the most important, no nicotene, - and of course, there has been no documented case of cancer caused by Marijuana, unlike cigarettes, and of course, there is no real claim that marijuana is any more harmful than alcohol, and far more beneficial effects than Alcohol has- have to ask our resident pharmicist if this still holds true- but the only medicinal use of alcohol that is positive overall I think is a cough suppresent- though it can be used as the base of making another med here and there.

Of course, it would stop the thriving small business capitalist that are making tons of tax free money on the lucrative growing business- as a capitalist, I am upset that the biz would shift over to the corporate world, driving the smaller, small business grower out of business completely.

This just popped up on digg.com

A study finds that the development of bullous lung disease occurs in marijuana smokers approximately 20 years earlier than tobacco smokers.

Fair enough. Can you name 5 people with a cigarette related illness? Okay- name five marijuana smokers that died of lung cancer.

450 thousand people a year die from tobbaco related illnesses. I personally had two family members die of lung cancer that is directly related to thier smoking. I have had 3 friends die of lung cancer from smoking. Of my mom and dad's friends- I know of at least 12, friends of my parents I knew my whole life- that died of diseases related to tobbaco. I bought my last house from a guy dying from complications due to smoking related illnesses.

Okay- I know A LOT of pot smokers growing up in Alaska- in fact, it is probably currency for labor up here - beer and a bowl gets a lot done - and yet, I have yet to see the epidemic of pot smoking related illnesses- unless, you count joblessness and still living with your mom an illness.

http://www.oralhealth.ro/Fisiere/rez_c.pdf

When you have the numbers we are talking from tobbaco related deaths, and consider probably 30-50 million people in the US smoke weed - where is the epidemic of wards full of dying pot smokers BA?

The abstract is unavailable right now, though blackwell-synergy has a lot of journals, pretty good ones- I am just curious as to if this is another "mouse" test- where you feed a mouse tons of weed and see if he dies from oxygen deprivation.

So BA- where is the epidemic? Where are the wards full of weed smoking 40 year olds? I have been hiring construction workers for a very long time, and they get high morning, noon and night. - they work good, but are always freakin' high- yet, not one of them has developed weed-related disease, except late rent as a disease.

Just some questions out of pure ignorance, of those that you know, or that anyone knows that smoke pot on a regular basis, how many of them smoke tobacco as well? Of the people that I know that smoke pot, the majority of them also smoke tobacco products. Is there case studies that only study people that smoke pot, and have not ever smoked tobacco? Is there a way to differentiate the affects of the two? Is it possible that there is an unknown medical side affect or illness that comes from pot, but the tobacco gets the blame because of all the known illnesses that tobacco causes?

I haven't been able to find stats on how many cannabis consumers also smoke tobacco, though I suspect it's higher in Europe where most spliffs are a combination of tobacco and hashish: marijuana itself is much less common and hash is widely available. Anecdotally, about half of the cannabis users that I know are also tobacco smokers. Of the half that aren't, many are ardent opponents of tobacco smoking.

There are a couple of studies (one from WebMD here and a few others cited, without links, here) that indicate that, while the nicotine in tobacco inhibits the destruction of cancerous cells, the THC in cannabis seems to have anti-tumor properties. In other words, weed might actually be a cancer preventative. If one uses both cannabis and tobacco, they may cancel each other out. In any event, every study that I've been able to find on the subject indicates that cannabis is not linked to lung cancer.

Once again- Alaska has a long time love-hate relationship with that leaf- and, there are a great many pot activists that make a big point of NOT smoking tobacco- it is a regular movement within the culture kind of thing.

Scubatim- the sample can easily be big enough and be found if there were indications that pot caused lung cancer 20 years earlier than tobacco- we would have seen the epidemic by now. There are very few lung cancers that don't have an indicator of what is causing it- asbestos, tobaco, etc. Oh, possibly agent orange and things like that (I had a friend, one that I listed, that could also be an agent orange deal too- he picked up smoking in the military, smoked for 20 years, quite 20 years ago- and then died from lung cancer. He was pretty heavily exposed to agent orange though.

That being said- there is way too many non-tobacco smoking pot smokers out there for us not to notice a trend- way too many.

So, just to see if I understand you, cancers contain signatures that can point at what caused the cancer?

You know what? The issue of health should not even come up. Seriously. Cigarettes are bad for your lungs, heart and face (mouth wrinkles...yuck). Alcohol is bad for your liver and your face (Santa-nose...yuck). I'm sure anything you inhale is going to negatively impact your lungs, so that includes marijuana, but it shouldn't really matter in considering the legality of smoking it. The issue should be how harmful it is to other people (like drunk driving is).

Cheese, sugar, junk food....all of these are detrimental to your health, but are they really going to make those illegal?

72 people a day die from drunk drivers, and we have the nerve to keep alcohol legal while pot is not. Tsk, tsk.

Okay- let me put it this way- right now, we have around 450k people dying of smoking related illness every year. We also have some big names, like Bob Marley- that died of cancer-

so what you have is an epidemic when talking about smoking related illness. In a sample that large, it is very easy to seperate out non-smokers from smokers, and to find a control and study group of non-tobacco smoking pot smokers and tobacco users.

What the study says is that weed causes cancers earlier and is more cancer causing than cigarettes. Nicotene seems to be the major cause- something not found in marijuana smoke.

when you have over a million people every two years, and millions per year globally, yes, it would be quite easy to seperate the two types of smokers out- very easy.

There would be emphysema, COPD, all the indicators that tobacco have right now.

And there would be a plethora of evidence and studies showing the linkage of the COPD related to marijuana smoking.

For instance- I type in "marijuna causes cancer" in Pub-med- the main clearing house for all studies, around the world, that are in accepted, peer-reviewed journals of science- I get 21 hits:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez

The most that any suggest is that smoking crack and marijuna or other illicit non-tobacco drugs can cause the same pre-cancerous conditions to the esophogial epithelial cells- ususally there is an thickining of the epithelial cells from constant smoke inhalation- you get the same thing from Fire fighters and those that are exposed to constant cooking smoke etc- any smoke will cause that, if you are exposed enough.

Here is a study dealing with lung injury due to illicit substance abuse:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2190420..._RVAbstractPlus

Okay- now on to tobacco 2626 entries on the same search guidelines:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez

Now- if you read some of those studies- you will note that marijuana is the second most smoked substance on earth.

Ya, there would be a "orgy of evidence" if it had the same negative health indicators that tobacco does. Also- Weed smoking and hashish smoking has been available to western civilization longer than tobacco, tobacco being a "new world" product, and weed being all over the world for a long time.

So we would have not seen the huge jump in ill health effects from tobacco, because they would have been there all along due to weed and hashish smoking.

Ya, it is very logical to say that marijuana doesn't cause the epidemic of bad health things caused by tobacco.

Not any real hard evidence of cancer related to marijuana like there is with tobacco.

Settle down... take a toke... you're all worked up over nothing. I just thought is was interesting that that article showed up on digg.com moments after you posted what you did.

LOL- if it came across as strident- I apologize- it was more of a rhetorical question- as in, okay, breathing in any kind of smoke is bad. Anyone that has been around a camp fire for too long can tell you that.

But, I did post the 21 studies dealing with this issue- and that seems super small if digg.com's posted study is correct- don't you agree? Since there are hundreds of millions of pot smokers only world wide- there would be this epidemic thingy that we have going on world wide with tobacco.

So- my comment is more like "hey, where the beef" version of "hey, where is the epidemic".