Notion of legalizing marijuana stirs spirited debate

Thursday, November 10, 2011

By James R. Campbell/Nevada Daily Mail

If a Columbia attorney specializing in the defense of marijuana cases gets his way, Missourians will vote on legalizing the controversial herb on Nov. 6, 2012.

Having gotten two initiative petitions approved for statewide circulation by Secretary of State Robin Carnahan, Dan Viets has until May 6 to submit the required number of voters' signatures and get on the ballot.

Even decades after the issue came into the American public consciousness and became a topic of debate, it still provokes sharp opinions on both sides.

Vernon County Sheriff Ron Peckman said Wednesday that marijuana is less problematic to law enforcement officers than harder drugs like cocaine or methamphetamine, but he nonetheless opposes its legalization for a variety of reasons. "I can maybe see some medical use for it and that's about it," Peckman said.

Asked if cannabis users are more dangerous than non-drug-using offenders, he said, "Not particularly.

"We have worse problems with those who use meth and cocaine, but on the other hand marijuana is a stepping stone to these other drugs. You try it and then you try something else.

"I have also seen longterm marijuana usage that I suspected was the cause of medical or mental disorders."

Tom Pyle of Nevada, former food service director at Nevada State Hospital, opposes making the proposed changes in state law and the Missouri Constitution.

Contending that pot changes the smokers' personalities for the worse and makes them less successful in life, Pyle said, "I don't think we ought to legalize that stuff because the effects of it are terrible on young people.

"Some argue that it's good medication, but I think a doctor can come up with something just as good and not so habit-forming."

Citing federal laws, federal prosecutors are challenging the use of medical marijuana in California, one of 16 states to have legalized it for AIDS and chemotherapy patients to control nausea, according to references.

Viets wants to legalize it for Missourians at least 21 years old and make medical cannabis available with a physician's recommendation and provide it to people under 21 with parental consent.

He would license marijuana stores and release people jailed or on probation or parole for marijuana-only offenses, expunge their criminal records and let state legislators tax the retail sale of dried cannibis up to $100 per pound.

Viets, former board chairman of the Mid-Missouri American Civil Liberties Union, for the constitutional measure must get the signatures of at least eight percent of the votes cast in six congressional districts in the 2008 governor's election and to consider changing state law must obtain five percent of the votes in that election.

A number of commenters, who are identified below by fictitious screen names they use on the Nevada Daily Mail's Web site, www.nevadadailymail.com, had registered their opinions, with one, who uses the screen name "Sam Floor," saying, "I'll sign it and I don't use the stuff.

"I had a friend suffer from chemo because he was afraid to buy pot."

Referring to a 1936 movie warning of the bad effects, "Undeded" wrote, "I'm hoping people look at this with an open mind based on facts, not the old 'Reefer Madness' scare tactics.

"Drugs are bad, m'kay. Drugs can also be helpful if used properly. I'd much rather see our courts and police focus on violent crimes and thefts. We're spending millions every year to imprison people to protect them from a drug which increases the munchies and may make you a little drowsy and silly.

"Take the profit from the MJ trade and we can seriously put a dent in the violent drug cartels if we eliminate the profits related to its illegality."

"I don't use it, either, but I would sign this petition," said "Born&Raised

NevadaMo." "Cancer patients need this during chemo to help them eat and keep food down as they get very sick. I would rather the police enforce the meth and more dangerous drugs that cause a lot of problems and crime."

"Nevadaoldlady2" agreed, saying, "I agree with legalizing it. Please look at both sides, don't just jump up and say no. Not just cancer patients need this drug, there are other problems it does help with."

The commenter may have referred to claims that pot stimulates hunger in chemotherapy and AIDS patients, curbs gastrointestinal illness and lowers intraocular eye pressure in glaucoma sufferers.

"Nerve pain can also be helped by marijuana," posted "IcedGreenTea." "Use tax revenue to fight meth!"

Comments

View 42 comments

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

The stepping-stone idea has been rebuffed by expert after expert. What Peckman doesn't tell you is that they get federal funds for destroying MJ plants.

-- Posted by sam floor on Thu, Nov 10, 2011, at 7:12 AM
MJ IS THE GATEWAY TO OTHER DRUGS...BULL!! THERE ARE SEVERAL PEOPLE THAT I KNOW THAT SMOKE DAILY AND OCCASIONALLY AND THEY PAY THEIR BILLS, TAKE CARE OF THEIR KIDS & FAMILIES AND LEAD VERY PRODUCTIVE LIVES. I HOPE THIS IS ON THE BALLOT TO BE VOTED ON. IT WILL BE REEFER MADNESS...PUN INTENDED.

-- Posted by BORN&RAISEDNEVADAMO on Thu, Nov 10, 2011, at 9:23 AM
In response to Mr Pyles comment about MJ changing personalities and making people less successful. I've never seen any proof of MJ changing personality. Now a long prison stint might change a person for the worse.As far as success well we have had several presidents who have smoked pot. As far as Sheriff Peckman's comment about suspecting long term MJ use causing medical and mental disorders, I would "suspect" that maybe chronically mentally ill try to self medicate their mood and or just more likely to misuse drugs. I prefer to ask my doctor about medical effects rather than base them on suspicions. When I asked my doctor if he could recommend another safer medication to treat my symptoms he just looked at me blankly and didn't answer. He stated he doesn't have a policy on THC. The Calif Medical Association recommended decriminalization recently. Let's debate this based on facts not suspicions.

-- Posted by undeded on Thu, Nov 10, 2011, at 11:02 AM
Isn't alcohol also a "stepping stone" or gateway drug? Don't almost all users of hard drugs also drink, or get their start drinking?

Doesn't alcoholism more seriously alter a person's personality and body than prolonged use of marijuana?

Is it right to make something an arrestable offense because it may have a few negative side effects for some people? Do we arrest coffee drinkers when they get jittery from too much caffeine? Do we arrest smokers when they have a nic fit? What would happen if we did?

The benefits to our court and prison systems as well as the tax revenue that could be raised and used for better purposes are more than enough to balance out the few people who may become couch potatoes from smoking marijuana too frequently.

-- Posted by IcedGreenTea on Thu, Nov 10, 2011, at 12:09 PM
Personally I do not use MJ. But with so much hype on people trying things like K2, Bath Saltz & Garden Fertilizers our government is going to have to find a happy medium. With the latest highs on the streets today, there are more and more people dying from getting high off of these dangerous substances. Marijuana is a natural herb, which for many years grew wild until man began cultivating it for himself. I don't think I have ever heard of someone dying from MJ. At least not to my knowledge. Then we have to take into account the meth problem all around us, and those upper class citizens who enjoy their daily doses of cocaine or prescription drugs. Maybe if pot was made legal, people would cut back on trying to find alternative legal ways to get high. Alcohol is legal, and causes far too many more problems in our country. Problems such as domestic violence, DWI's often resulting in deaths of innocent people, depression, substance abuse, and I could continue on. Actually statistics show that MJ is not the gateway to harsher drugs. It is alcohol. If pot was legal, our government would profit in many ways. The tax dollars they would receive would be out of this world, plus there would be more room in jails and prisons for people with a violent crime, therefore our tax dollars do not have to go to support these people who are locked up for a pot conviction. Just my two-cents.

-- Posted by Jessie on Thu, Nov 10, 2011, at 12:40 PM
Great comments by all! I also think it would be a good idea to look at why it was criminalized to begin with. Some very powerful people didn't want the competition.

William Randolf Hearst didn't want competition from paper made with hemp.

Dupont had patented nylon, and wanted hemp removed as competition.

The pharmaceutical companies could neither identify nor standardize cannabis dosages, and besides, with cannabis, folks could grow their own medicine and not have to purchase it from large companies. Can't put a patent on a natural substance.

-- Posted by Mr. Chibbers on Thu, Nov 10, 2011, at 1:18 PM
I only have one question. Would it be illegal to DWH ( Drive While High)? Just wondering.

-- Posted by ihatewinter on Thu, Nov 10, 2011, at 3:35 PM
i have seen the good, the bad, and the ugly of pot use. Some have quit smoking cigs with it, others have self-medicated with it. I have NEVER seen it as a gateway drug. You go on to harder drugs, you were wired to do so anyway, kinda like an alcoholic. Oh, but alcohol is legal. legalize it, tax it, age limit and yes, dui if need be. just like alcohol. have i tried it? yup, we talking late 60's and the 70's people. i just ate alot when i did. pecon rolls were wicked good.

-- Posted by bewise on Thu, Nov 10, 2011, at 4:40 PM
I am pleasantly surprised by the amount of positive comments on this issue. As far as the whole "gateway-drug" thing, I believe it is, but not for the reasons commonly cited. It's a gateway drug, not because people are searching for some greater high or euphoric state, but rather because those who wish to use it are forced to make their purchases on an increasingly volatile and dangerous black market. If someone were able to go to the store and purchase a joint or whatever quantity they pleased, they wouldn't have a buffet of other drugs forced upon them by someone who only cares about making money rather than the safety and welfare of the consumers.

As for jailing people for non-violent Cannabis use, the whole thought is completely insane. It's not uncommon for such users to be thrust into an extremely dangerous environment of a jail cell with rapists, murderers, and other violent offenders, by the very people that are supposed to protect and serve the citizens.

In regards to some of the claims made in the article, not by the paper, but by those interviewed for this story, they're just so completely unfounded. Well, I guess they're founded, but not in reality. Most of the arguments that are still used today are from "Reefer Madness", a propaganda film from back in the day made to defend the business interests and moral views of the few. I don't dislike the sheriff and I don't know the other guy interviewed for the story, but they're not Dr.'s. I'm sure they're fine people, but they're not qualified to make the claims they're making especially since collectively, they've been disproven by a number of studies in recent history. If you made it this far, thanks for reading. That's just my 2 or 3 cents.

-- Posted by crazydem2 on Thu, Nov 10, 2011, at 10:13 PM
Guess a little truth is a terrible thing, eh, NDM?

-- Posted by Custom 1911 on Fri, Nov 11, 2011, at 12:50 PM

Response by Lynn Wade:
Not sure what you're referring to, but some comments on this thread contained information asserted about a particular individual that cannot be verified as true.
Wow this is the most spirited debate I have seen on here in a long while.

As for legalizing this drug, I would vote yes and here is why. I was once like many that will vote No on this petition totally against this drug because it was illegal although I had no real idea of what its uses were, just that it was drug so it was bad bad bad. Then while in college I had to pick a topic to write my final paper on so I chose to use the debate of MJ verses Alcohol and boy was I surprised at the results and information I found while doing research.

I went from totally against MJ to for it, especially compared to alcohol. One of the more interesting facts that I found...

It only takes 1 shot glass of liquor to give someone alcohol poisoning that could potentially kill them. It takes 600 thousands times the amount of MJ that it takes to get you stoned (not High) to kill you. That means if one hit of MJ gets you stoned then you would have to smoke 600,000 hits in one sitting before it would kill which I think in humanly impossible, you would probably pass out first.

I am just saying alcohol kills more people and in my opinion in so much more addicting then MJ. Why don't they make that illegal as well? I say tax it, regulate it, and legalize it.

-- Posted by smiley76 on Fri, Nov 11, 2011, at 4:50 PM
I was mainly saying that many of the claims they are making have been disproven by people that are qualified, or more qualified I guess I should say. Since it is a matter of democracy, I would hesitate to say someone does or doesn't have a right to comment on anything that may come up for a vote. Having said that, it is sometimes detrimental to such discussions to fill them with opinions derived from propaganda and fears over something that is much more taboo than it should be.

-- Posted by crazydem2 on Fri, Nov 11, 2011, at 5:20 PM
It is really not too suprising to see the sad way our morals and values have eroded in this country with this kind of reasoning! You say it has NEVER killed anyone but it has sure caused a lot of suicides, especially among young people. I am not going to try and post all the internet sites I researched but there are many that post both pros and cons about mj. Take a look if you are really sincerly concerned. About anything can be deadly if abused. I don't see enought responsable behavior nowdays to allow this to be legalized! My 2 cents worth.

-- Posted by befair on Fri, Nov 11, 2011, at 9:26 PM
Since this topic came up. I have talked to someone who has MS. They tell me that MJ allows them to lead an almost normal life because it relieves many of the symptoms. They have tried the THC pills and say that they don't work anywhere as well. Why should anyone be a criminal just to feel normal as long as possible with a debilitating disease?

-- Posted by sam floor on Sat, Nov 12, 2011, at 9:20 AM
The questions used to determine that MJ is a gateway drug were misleading. Drug abusers were asked if they used MJ first. Most said yes. Ask a smoker if they used chewing gum first. Most would say yes. So the statistics would say that chewing gum led to smoking. Statistics can be twisted to prove anyone's point of view. If you read later studies, you will find that there is no evidence that MJ leads to other drug use.

-- Posted by sam floor on Sat, Nov 12, 2011, at 12:51 PM
Take away everything and let everybody be high...

-- Posted by vcbill on Sun, Nov 13, 2011, at 10:44 AM
It really makes no difference how the state law is changes. Unless the law is changed at the Federal level, growers and users will still continue to be prosecuted by DEA. See what is happening to growers in CA and elsewhere. The sherrif is agin' it becasue of the Federal funds they receive for destroying (mostly) wild cannibis in the county, which has about as much psychoactive element as a glass of water.

-- Posted by Custom 1911 on Mon, Nov 14, 2011, at 8:04 AM
howiizer, befair, etc...

you do realize that if MJ does become legal, most people won't just be running around, smoking joints like people smoke cigarettes, right? That most won't light up as soon as they arise, and not stop until they go to bed, anymore than any responsible person does with alchohol? That their use will consist of only after hours or weekends? That the portrayal of the MJ smokers in "Reefer Madness" was total BS? Sure, there will be those irresponsible people that do, just as there are irresponsible people who drink from sun up to sunset (and beyond), but most of those people are not likely tho hold any position of any real importance anyway. AS far as suicides attriburable to MJ use, I have never seen any statistics related to MJ use only. If one commits suicide, there were other factors beyond cannibis use that led or contibuted to this end.

-- Posted by Custom 1911 on Mon, Nov 14, 2011, at 12:01 PM
I am sure that everyone will buy it legally too. The price of legal weed, sold at registered locations, will be more than the weed off of the street. So people will buy the street stuff. Where does it come from? All different locations. The majority from out of town, out of state, and out of country. So in turn, the drug trade will actually increase. Please do not believe, in any way, that legalizing MJ will reduce the violent drug trade.

As for other areas of debate. It is medically proven to help those in certain areas. It is also proven to have adverse effects on the brain with prolonged use, and in youth. Good and bad, and tough to regulate or debate. But facts are facts people, opinions are not fact.

-- Posted by ThomasPaine on Mon, Nov 14, 2011, at 1:19 PM
^Some times when people don't cite sources they seem like a Paine. My opinion if MJ is legal and regulated at stores then the price will drop compared to street prices. And no one wants to buy MJ in an underground, dark alleyway where they may get stabbed...People want it convenient,always available, and chemically safe and produced through labs that way they know what they are getting every time. People do not want to fund drug cartels and other countries. The only people who don't want weed legal is drug dealers and people of have jobs fighting the "drug war". Oh and people who know nothing about Mary.

-- Posted by rayray789789 on Mon, Nov 14, 2011, at 7:16 PM
Oh and I would suspect that if legal MJ prices were to high then their would be many people growing for personal use.

-- Posted by rayray789789 on Mon, Nov 14, 2011, at 7:17 PM
Thomas Paine - There are black markets for a lot of products. This includes, bootlegged movies and games, organs, prescription drugs, stolen cars, alcohol, and many others. In these areas though, people constantly pay above what they would on the black market to stay within the confines of the law and obtain their chosen product in a legal fashion. I truly believe that there would be no difference in this case. Those who have good jobs, kids, grandkids, licenses such as in nursing, and just people in general with something to lose, will not risk it if they are not forced to as they are currently. Also, your first paragraph sounds like an opinion yet you seem to imply that opinions shouldn't be included in the discussion with your last sentence. Could you clarify that or post links to cases in which states did this same thing in recent history and that took place? I'm not trying to make a "gotcha" point; I truly want to know if studies exist to prove the point that people will continue to go to the black market rather than to a store for their cannabis if it's legalized.

Befair - What kind of reasoning are you referencing when you say our morals have been eroded. The idea that personal freedoms should include being able to light up or what? And when you say it sure has caused a lot of suicides, where did this information come from? I would like to look at some of the studies that supposedly prove this. If somebody said it has never killed anybody, it's probably related to overdosing. Drugs such as cocaine, meth aka 417, aspirin, ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, nicotine, and alcohol all have a point at which they will kill you. This point exists for cannabis as well, however it requires it to be consumed at such a rate that has been deemed physically impossible by most. Also, make sure you're seeking out impartial views rather than getting all of your information from MADD or the federal government. That would be like me, being for it, getting all of my information and arguments from NORML's website or some other site that has a clear and extremely biased agenda. I have spoken with doctors, nurses, drug researches, professors, and from what I have gathered, the consensus seems to be that their may be some cons, but they are outweighed by the pro's.

Howitzer - Just wanted to let you know about an organization known as LEAP or Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. I remember you questioning my qualifications over someone that had dealt with the effects of this use, a point I thought was fairly valid. That's why I wanted to show you this. The website for them is www.leap.cc. The group consists of judges, prosecutors, federal agents responsible for manning the front line in the war on drugs, and others that have dealt with it.

Rockd - Amen!

Thanks for your time, I look forward to reading some of these studies!

-- Posted by crazydem2 on Mon, Nov 14, 2011, at 7:26 PM

Response by Lynn Wade:
Actually, we discourage posting links on this forum; also, we can't post someone else's copyrighted article here. You can cite them, of course; but no posting substantial portions.
The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it!" -- Albert Einstein

-- Posted by befair on Mon, Nov 14, 2011, at 10:31 PM
Having taken some classes in Media Law, I can understand that. Is it okay to post study names and authors or where they were published? I just want to see sources for some of the claims being made. It's not that I disbelieve that these studies exist, but I do question whether the research began or ended with the answer. It's such a taboo topic that it's very difficult for the idea to get a fair shake. That's unfortunate, too, because it does help a lot of people. People say it kills people. Alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, nsaids(most common being ibuprofen), sugar, fat, and so many other things are much more deadly than the plant that garners such harsh criticism. Some say it's a gateway drug. If I believed the premise it's presented under, I would urge people to think about society in general. Food has gotten saltier, greasier, sweeter. Cars have gotten faster. Politicians have gotten more corrupt. It seems to be that people are always searching for a greater high whether it be from power, flavor, speed (think mph, not meth, no not NPH, mph), or anything else. Having said that, the "gateway effect" is caused by those enacting and enforcing prohibition, not by the marijuana itself. It would also bring a lot of jobs and money to the economy at a most convenient time. Not just from Marijuana, but Hemp as well. That's a completely different topic about which I will only say, it's way more difficult to see why that's illegal since it's not psychoactive in any way and has so many uses.

-- Posted by crazydem2 on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 5:53 AM

Response by Lynn Wade:
Yes, certainly it's OK to name sources, studies and where they're published; Commenters can even quote 'em, and the rule is vague but it's best to keep the quote short. And you have as good point in that the methodology, even the question or questions studies seek to answer can be important.
Hmm....

by the reasoning of some on this forum, RE: MJ being a "gateway" drug, the following must be true as well:

Going to church is a gateway to religious fanaticism.

Internet forums are a gateway to professing to be someone/something you are not.

Running for public office is a gateway to becoming corrupt.

-- Posted by Custom 1911 on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 6:57 AM
rayray, thank you for your "opinion", and proving my point.

Perhaps you have not read anything on this subject. As was noted by Lynn Wade, they discourage posting of links, which is understandable due to the content or virus links available. So, I apologize for not giving you the information to read. I had hoped it may inspire you to read and research for yourself.

As for black market products being more expensive, where is this? You can get black market movies for free on the internet, same with music. Black Market firearms are cheaper too, and do not require a person to have them registered. How is weed going to be different? Talking about back ally MJ purchases, that is what people do now! Why would more people not do that when it is legal?

Can someone please name me a successful pothead? Not an entertainer please :)

I am not saying I am against MJ use on a small, personal level at all. However, the issue trying to be pressed is not only for this usage. It does a lot more. I myself am not interested in doing it MJ, but I personally have no issue if someone uses on a small level that does not impact those around them. I have a cigarette every now and then, maybe two a month. Feel free to research the effects of two cigs a month on your own as well.

About being a "Gateway", I can see the point of thought in regards to opening up to the drug environment, but if someone goes down that path, they would probably head down a simliar one at somepoint. I do not feel it is fair to put that label on everyone, because people have different levels of tolerance to addiction.

Why must people in this forum be so combative? If anyone wonders why the amount of people posting in here is not higher, it is because of the attacks bloggers make. I would love to have more people to talk with in here, it lets us learn more by having varying viewpoints, and access to more facts. Perhaps treating the forum as a face to face conversation may help people to not be as rude. Or maybe, I will get chewed out for thinking in such an obserd manner. *Fingers crossed*

-- Posted by ThomasPaine on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 11:39 AM
Custom, I like your last point about running for office! That one almost a given theses days

-- Posted by ThomasPaine on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 11:40 AM
howitzer, I agree with your last.

-- Posted by ThomasPaine on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 11:42 AM
My point was actually that anything can be considered a "gateway" to something else, but is not necessarily so. It just happens that some, and only some, people who use cannabis go on to use other, more harmful substances. Just as some who embrace one religion or another may go on to be fanatics, some people who are elected to public office may become corrupt, etc.

Not sure about the lack of psychoactive properties...of course cultivated MJ has this, what would be the point of using it otherwise? However, the wild variety that law enforcement takes such pride (and profit!) in destroying lacks much of this psychoactive ingredient. And as far as sucessful users...most have the common sense not to let it be known that they occasionally imbibe. You would be quite suprised at some of the folks who use, and are quite sucessful entrepreneurs, doctors, lawyers, etc.

-- Posted by Custom 1911 on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 1:13 PM
We live in a "Free" country, right??? Then what is this debate even about?

Its ok to use this drug and that drug , but not this one or that one. (real free country we live in...NOT)

Alcohol kills in many different ways, PERIOD. I'm sure no one will debate that one. Cigerattes, Caffeine, eating a diet high in sugars, cholesterol, and or fat is also unhealthy and potentially deadly, PERIOD. These things are facts and have been proven over and over again, however we are allowed to consume these things in this country. Then whats the problen with being allowed to smoke MJ if someone wants to, for whatever reason?!?!?!

-- Posted by Quand on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 1:28 PM
I don't have a lot of time to put into this right now as with my previous two comments. I just wanted to say that Hemp is not the same thing as Marijuana. If you smoked Hemp, you'd probably cough your lungs up, get headaches, and just not feel very good, but there would be no buzz. That's because Hemp IS NOT psychoactive. There is absolutely no justifiable reason for it to be illegal. In fact, one of the first laws from the colonies was an order to grow hemp. Several of our founding fathers grew it including George Washington. So it seems that people don't always want to go back to the founding fathers intentions, just when it conveniently fits into a rather narrow-minded set of views and "morals". So my argument is not invalidated, because it's true. And it's hard to name successful potheads because a lot of them don't go out and hang a billboard by their home that tells the world of what they like to do in the confines of their own home, but it's not because they don't exist. Trying to write off those in the entertainment industry isn't fair either. Just because someone makes money from their creative genius, doesn't discount how important a contribution it is. Think about how many lives were changed by The Beatles, Jimi Hendrix, The Rolling Stones, and others. That's all I got for now, maybe some day this discussion will be more rational and people won't feel free to quote random "facts" that they aren't forced to back up.

-- Posted by crazydem2 on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 1:54 PM
Alcohol and the problems that come with it are socially acceptable to the point that a drunk who kills someone while driveing gets a few years in prison while a thief who stole something worth a thousand dollars gets 10 years. The point being is ALCOHOL IS A DRUG AND A DANGEROUS ONE AT THAT but WE LAUGH AT IT.The punishments involving it reflect that so here some of us are whinning that weed is A DRUG and should not be legal?! LETS SEE STATISICS ON THE WEED ALONE SOCIAL ILLS VERSUS ALCOHOL ALONE SOCIAL ILLS!! I'll make it easy and won't include the medicinal value of each!LEGALIZE IT!!

-- Posted by B_WILD on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 3:12 PM
I see my post was removed guess I got a little to close to home with some people especailly with the little ronnie peckman comment. Right now there are people in Nevada who are considered in the top 5% who smoke MJ do we want to bust them and send them to jail? Technically they are crimminals. If that was the case there would be alot of Nevadians in jail.

-- Posted by endersgame on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 3:14 PM
I'm guessing the comments were removed because they put the paper at risk for being sued for libel, defamation of character, or something along those lines.

-- Posted by crazydem2 on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 6:00 PM
So now that we have some guidelines as far as what can and can't be posted in regards to the studies some of you are quoting, would anyone be willing to post the names or authors of some of these studies and where I might find them? I would mainly like to check out the studies linking cannabis use and suicide as well as the studies predicting the continuance of the black market trade in the face of legalization.

-- Posted by crazydem2 on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 11:59 PM
crazydem2, Yes it's true that hemp and MJ are "cousins" and not exactly the same. Isn't it strange then, that hemp was lumped in with MJ in the Marijuana Act of '37? By what logic do you suppose hemp would be criminalized?

Too much competition perhaps?

-- Posted by Mr. Chibbers on Wed, Nov 16, 2011, at 6:00 AM
Mr. Chibbers,

I believe DuPont Chemical was the driving force behind this, remember, when this law was passed, NYLON had just recenty been invented, and hemp was the preferred material for making rope...indeed, too much competition for DuPont and their nylon. There was also a racial element to the law, it gave authorities reason to arrest and lock up Negroes and Mexicans, the primary users of cannabis at the time. Little has changed, large corporations are still calling the shots in our government, not the citizenry.

-- Posted by Custom 1911 on Wed, Nov 16, 2011, at 7:57 AM
I totally agree Custom. I believe hemp was the real target for criminalization and MJ was attached to get it banned under the guise of "public health and safety". Typical Good ol' Boy move. Brilliant really.

Here we have a truly "green" cash crop that could net our economy billions, replace a plethora of products laden with chemicals and petrolium, and yet it remains illegal.

It makes perfect sense then doesn't it, that MJ (the plant that supposedly causes all the damage) is being CONSIDERED for legalization but hemp is not. ???

Americans are screaming for their MJ back when we should be screaming about hemp!

-- Posted by Mr. Chibbers on Wed, Nov 16, 2011, at 8:57 AM
I never argued that successful people do not smoke MJ now and then, and personally, I do not care. It is potheads, addicts, that I was referring too. I just wanted to clear that up.

-- Posted by ThomasPaine on Wed, Nov 16, 2011, at 9:26 AM
To the person who asked if driving high would be legal -- of course not, just like driving drunk is illegal. Most MJ smokers will want to smoke at home anyway, where they have couches & refrigerators. MJ makes you lazy, not wanting to go out and drive around.

For the person who said no one posting is a doctor -- you don't know that. There may be posters with academic or professional credentials who just aren't mentioning them because of the stigma. MJ is still illegal.

For the person who asked if anyone knew a successful pothead -- I can't name the person b/c MJ is illegal but when in college I had a friend who smoked daily. He got his masters degree with a 4.0 and is now making a 6 figure salary working in computers. I think it helped him with stress.

The data is conflicting regarding MJ and suicide. I don't think a causal connection can possibly be made. People who feel suicidal may try MJ because they are trying to feel better.

I enjoyed the post about why MJ was made illegal in the first place. There's also an historical racist element. Alcohol is more familiar to people from European backgrounds because it is consumed in those countries. MJ comes from places like Mexico and white Americans were not as familiar with it or attached to it by habit and custom. It was much easier to make it illegal than alcohol.

.

-- Posted by IcedGreenTea on Thu, Nov 17, 2011, at 6:43 PM
To me the issue is if this is legal could it possibly reduce some of my tax burden? If yes then go for it. One can say any vice is a stepping stone. I don't have a care for myself if MJ is made legal but if its taxed, go for it and if it reduces space in jail for real criminals, go for it. For someone to take up space in a jail cell for MJ is really stupid when it kicks out a meth head or child rapist. I don't use it never have but also know of people while growing up in a small town who did and still do some 30 years later and are great parents and productive citizens, seen equal amount of people go the other way, no one can say either direction is the fault of MJ.

-- Posted by jormancat on Thu, Nov 17, 2011, at 9:11 PM
Studies anyone?

-- Posted by crazydem2 on Fri, Nov 18, 2011, at 5:42 PM

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration:

If you already have an account, follow this link to login
Otherwise, follow this link to register