[Rap]

Since legalization of pot is a growing national movement I thought I'd check out our esteemed membership to gauge their opinions.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Kim]

I beieve that pot should be legal and subject to the same regulations as we use for alcohol. I find it hard to relate the use of alcohol being legal and the use of pot not being legal. I dont use pot  but that decison is based on a practical issue somewhat unique to me and my household, but otherwise have no more issue with recreational use than I do with the same use of alcohol.

 

Maybe it will help to bring back some decent music as well.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

I have never smoked pot, and never will but I am a very strong proponent of legalizing it as long as it's subject to the same or similar regulations as alcohol is ( just as Kim mentioned ) .


Side note : I am however, a conspicuous consumer of alcohol, so I'd prefer if pot is taxed at a higher rate if there is any chance it could subsidize a lowering taxation on alcohol.


p.s. and while at it, I'm pro gay marriage rights as well . Let them suffer ( err, I mean partake in the same joys and challenges of marriage ) just as the rest of us do.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Rap]

Please stick to the topic or I will foist the Administrators on you!

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

firmly against anything that stays in the system for more than a few hours.  the problem with pot, unlike alcohol, is that it stays in your system, the "dumbing down" effects are widely documented, and last far longer than the buzz.  for this reason alone, it cannot fit into the same category, and should not be treated the same.  it should be and is treated as a narcotic.

 

it's also not a "mind expanding" drug as users would like you to think it is.  it only makes things that are otherwise normal or mundane "seem" better than they really are.  music is a very good indicator of this.  it is more common than not that the music created under its influence is less than stellar.

 

it also tends to make one lazy.  productivity falls way off under the influence.  employers should absolutely be allowed to drug test and fire upon any signs of presence in the system.

 

i've tried it.  i don't like it.

 

i am fine with somebody doing whatever they want, as long as it brings about no negative impact.  in its current state, i just do not see pot being capable of that.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Chris Vais]

Pot definitely dumbs people down. If I were a business owner in a state were pot is legal I would require my employees be tested for it alone with everything else. Pot users rob their employers of productivity. I've terminated more than a few employees poor performance as a result of their persist an usage of pot.

 

AS far as its legalization is concerned, not bid deal.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

But RAP, this IS the same topic ; I was told that your bible states : " any man who lies down with another man, shall be stoned " .

( That might explain the passage of marijuana use and the gay marriage law almost simultaneously in the state of Wa.. )


The residuals / trace of pot stays in your system longer than alcohol, but the actual effects of the drug do not last any longer than alcohol. In fact, the effect wears much out faster than alcohol.

Dumbing down, yes it does .

As for productivity loss may be so , but no more than any other " sober " employee that surfs the internet half of the time they're sitting at their desk. But with manual labor employees, yes , I can see the validity of that argument .

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[lbpesq]

Sorry Flash, but your "science" is misleading, if not just plain inaccurate.  First of all, define your terms:  What does "stays in your system" mean?  If you mean that a test could reveal that you had used the substance in the past, you are correct.  But if you mean that the effects on a person stay longer with cannabis than alcohol, you are incorrect.  The effect of THC on a person will dissipate in 2-3 hours at most, while the effects of alcohol can last longer.  The difference is that alcohol will pass through your system and become undetectable fairy quickly, with the testing for presence and the influence on a person corroborating in a fairly close manner.  Cannabis, however, breaks down into metabolites that bond with fat cells.   Most tests for cannabis use (urine, saliva, and hair) do not test for THC, the active ingredient.  Rather, they test for the trace metabolites.  As a result, a regular cannabis user can stop cold turkey and still test "positive " 3 months later!  Blood testing for cannabis use does test THC levels and more strongly correlates with recent use than the other tests.  Even this, however, is not an accurate test of intoxication, as regular users, such as medical users, will usually have a constant blood level of THC while not feeling any effects whatsoever. 

 

While I support treating cannabis similarly to wine for political reasons, in reality, cannabis is infinitely safer than either alcohol or tobacco.

 

Annual deaths in the United States:

 

Alcohol:            88,000

Tobacco:        480,000

Cannabis:                 0

 

As the DEA's own administrative law judge, Francis Young, found after several years of hearings, "Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man."   There literally is no fatal dosage.  (Though, admittedly, one researcher I spoke with theorized that a joint the size of a telephone pole smoked in 15 minutes might be fatal).

 

And, having experienced cannabis use associated with music both as a listener and as a musician, I have seen may situations where cannabis enhanced both the listening and playing experience and such was confirmed upon later review of recordings.  The list of famous musicians who have used cannabis includes Louis Armstrong, Buddy Rich, James Brown, Hoagy Carmichael, Bing Crosby, Ray Charles, Benny Goodman, Gene Krupa, Don Ho, Thelonius Monk, Smokey Robinson, Bessie Smith, Barbra Streisand, Lester Young, and just about every rock musician over the past 60 years.

 

Other cannabis users include Carl Sagan (who smoked just about every day),  Louisa May Alcott, Maya Angelou, Lord Byron, Lilian Hellman, Victor Hugo, Rudyard Kipling, Jack London, Norman Mailer, George Orwell, Pablo Picasso, Cole Porter, Robert Louis Stevenson, Amy Tan, John Updike, William Butler Yeats, Richard Branson, Bill Gates, Steven Jobs, Rick Steves, Stephen Colbert, Rodney Dangerfield, Jackie Gleason, Whoppi Goldberg, Bob Hope, Steve Martin, Groucho Marx, Joan Rivers, Lily Tomlin, Mark Twain, William F. Buckley, Sam Donaldson, Francis Crick, and Margaret Mead, to name a few.

 

A pretty impressive group for people who are "lazy" and "unproductive", don't you agree?

 

As for driving, the actual scientific truth is that cannabis is far, far safer than alcohol.  Studies reveal that a person on alcohol tends to drive faster and take more chances than when they drive straight, regardless of their relative experience or inexperience with the drug (and yes, alcohol is a "drug" as is the caffeine in your coffee).    With cannabis there is a marked difference between experienced and inexperienced users.  Research shows that experienced cannabis smokers tend to drive slower and take fewer chances than when they drive straight.  Furthermore, according to studies,  cannabis users can overcome the influence of the substance when needed, as in emergency situations, while alcohol users cannot, regardless of experience.

 

I'm not suggesting that anyone should drive stoned, but I'd certainly feel more comfortable knowing that the car coming in the other direction on a two lane road is being driven by someone under the influence of cannabis than under the influence of alcohol.

 

Cannabis is illegal strictly for political reasons, not scientific.  It has enormous medical properties, from something as simple as treating insomnia to treating cancer.  Studies have shown that cannabis users have no higher lung cancer risk than non-smokers.  Perhaps even more significant, people who smoke both cannabis and tobacco have a far lower incidence of lung cancer than those who smoke only tobacco.

 

Believe me, I could go on and on on this subject as it is my number one area of expertise.  For purposes of full disclosure, I have been practicing law, and been a political advocate  in this area for over a quarter century.  I am a co-author of California's Prop 215, the first medical cannabis legalization law, have served on the Board of Directors for NORML (National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws), currently sit on the Board of California NORML, and am a former High Times Freedom Fighter of the Month. 

 

By far the most destructive side effect of cannabis use is that you can be arrested, go to jail, and be slapped with a criminal record that will follow you for life.  How many more lives do we need to ruin just so the alcohol and big pharma industries can continue to make money hand over fist while the ghost of Richard Nixon looks on smiling??

 

Bill

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[94SilverCab]

100% in favor of legalization for adults over 21. I can't use it because of my job, but if I could I would prefer it over alcohol.


No, I don't think 4 year olds should toke up and operate heavy equipment (the usual red herring argument). As an adult I think I could handle a Saturday night on the couch with a joint as comfortably as a martini.


Jay

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[williamoss]

I live in Oregon which has legalized the use of cannabis starting this July. It will be interesting to see what companies do in regard of saying workers could be fired if they test positive for the use of the drug. But what about users of Vicodin for pain or Oxycodone prescribed by a Doctor. Are these people ever tested and dismissed. I see a flood gate of lawsuits over this issue in the future. 

 

On another issue the use of a spell checker by everyone would be a good idea on this site as some of the comments need a translator to be understood.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

i see the same b.s. rhetoric all the time.  it's still b.s.  you can list people all day long, but it doesn't change the fact that they would do better not under the influence.  i have worked exclusively in the entertainment business for almost 30 years now, and the impressions of who uses is grossly overstated.  i can list just as many people in the music business who have quit doing any kinds of drugs, and are now doing better in the business than they every did when they were on drugs, a number of whom are now saying so publicly.  by the way, the list above contains an awful lot of tragic stories of early deaths and suicides.

 

as for staying in your system, yes, it can be tested for much longer.  more importantly, it is a cumulative effect.  i have been around countless people who use it, and the effect is ALWAYS the same.  over time they become less productive, more sedentary, and less assertive.  this is a BAD thing.  

 

comparing it to alcohol, and trying to make it acceptable by that comparison is also a poor argument.  they are BOTH bad.  people should be heavily penalized if found to be under the influence of either when breaking a law.  if you get in a accident and kill somebody because you weren't paying attention the next time you make that taco bell munchies run while stoned, it should result in a death sentence.

 

the argument about cannabis and its health benefits is also a weak argument.  pot could easily be genetically altered to have the same medical benefits, but not have the altering effects, but it would not be popular then.  in fact, they already have it in pill form, but do you hear about anybody wanting it?

 

to be fair, yes, i would also drink non-alcoholic wine if it tasted as good.  i do not like not being in full control of my faculties.  it makes me less than that of which i am capable.  i have severely curtailed my intake as a result, and i am much better for it.

 

all of these arguments are just from people who want to get stoned.  period.  they are weak, and indicative of a society that has given up and doesn't want to work.  there is a place for those underachievers though, as somebody has to be the blue collar worker, and i defend their right to do it, in the privacy of their own home.  however, i am sick and tired of suffering the consequences of their actions.  we all laugh at the guy who is stoned, right up until we have to pay for him.  it will never happen, but i am a proponent of one punishment for all crimes.  that would certainly make people think twice before doing anything that lessens their ability to perform at their best.

 

the problem is not people enjoying themselves, or taking a break.  the problem is the effect after that, and there is absolutely no denying those effects, though the pot proponents always try.  i think they are just too stoned to tell the difference anymore.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Rap]

Bill I won't refute you're opinion or stats. I respect your opinion and the work you've done for an organization that you have a passion for. I agree with Bob and Chris. However from my position I see the damage it does to adolescents. I've treated them for almost 20 years. Of course more jump quickly to heroin these days but that's another discussion. High school for most is the only free education kids receive. Mess that up by using any drug and the results last a lifetime for many. Legalization and the relaxation by law enforcement has encouraged adolescent use and created confusion amount them. So I think legalization will only encourage drug usage amount adolescents regardless of whatever restrictions are placed on its usage and ability to obtain.

Didn't work that well when we were kids looking to score beer or booze did it now?

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[WJH]

Well, it is YOUR body. Shouldn't one be able to eat, drink, smoke what they want? Should the state be able to tell YOU what you can or can't do with YOUR body? 

 

10,076 people died in alcohol-impaired-driving crashes in 2013. To me, it seems hypocritical to say alcohol is okay and other drugs are not. 

 

I don't drink, smoke, or do drugs; however, I would prefer not to pay the cost to put those in jail that do.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[lbpesq]

Rap:

 

If you see use by adolescents as a problem, (and I agree with you), then I fail to understand how you would be against legalization.  With legalization comes regulation.  Currently, a high school or middle school student doesn't have to show I.D. to buy weed.  In fact, it is easier for a 12 year old to get a bag of weed than to obtain a bottle of Jack Daniels.  Furthermore, when the current adolescent goes to "the pot store", they are often dealing with the same guy that's selling molly, crack, crank, etc.  With legalization/regulation, cannabis would be sold at licensed stores with an appropriate age requirement for purchase, just like the Jack Daniels.   It would make it more difficult for teens to obtain it.  In California, we have had cannabis stores for more than a decade, yet statistics have shown no increase in teen use.

 

Flash:  why should it be o.k. for you to responsibly drink your wine, but a criminal offense for another individual to responsibly consume cannabis?  Are there lazy people who smoke pot?  Of course there are.  And there are lazy people who drink, eat pizza, play bingo, watch basketball, etc. Just as there are motivated people who drink, eat pizza, play bingo, watch basketball, etc.  There are plenty of motivated people who enjoy cannabis.  It's all about responsible use, as are most things in life.

 

Your contention that cannabis "could easily be genetically altered to have the same medical benefits, but not have the altering effects, but it would not be popular then.  in fact, they already have it in pill form, but do you hear about anybody wanting it?"  is scientifically wrong.  The most current research is that THC interacts with other cannabinoids, especially CBD to produce the most optimal medicinal effect.  G.W. Pharmaceuticals, a company based in London, produces an oral spray called "Sativex" that has already been approved in many European counties in is currently in trial in the U.S.  They tried THC by itself, and CBD by itself, but found that the combination of the two was the most effective for M.S. and other conditions with spasticity for which it was developed.  Dravets Syndrome, a horrible type of Epilepsy that afflicts young children with dozens of daily seizures, seems to respond well to high CBD cannabis.  As a result, growers in Colorado have developed a strain called "Charlotte's Web" that has no psychoactive effect.  And many patients I know prefer cannabis with less psychoactive effect.

 

As to the "pill form", you are referring to Marinol, or the generic name Dranabinol.  Marinol is synthetic THC suspended in sesame oil.  It is very expensive, around $15 per pill the last time I checked.  Most patients do not like it precisely because it is just THC.  They often get too loaded and it doesn't seem to have the same quality of medicinal effect as natural cannabis with CBD, CBN and other cannabinoids present.  Additionally, it is very hard to titrate Marinol.  It takes 45 minutes to 1.5 hours to take effect.  And people with nausea from chemotherapy and other causes have trouble holding down a pill.  With natural cannabis, a patient can take one or two inhalations, wait a few minutes, and know if they need more of not.  When you are violently nauseous, there is a huge difference between obtaining relief in a matter of minutes versus waiting an hour or more.

 

Bill

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

regulation only makes the revenue legal.  it does not help stop the problem, which is irresponsible drug use.  the things cited ARE ALSO WRONG and should be punished!!!

 

i am not suggesting that the consumption in the privacy of your own home itself be illegal, but rather what comes after that.  unless and until we can control that, it should be illegal, just as drinking and driving is illegal.  frankly, alcohol should be illegal, and as i said, i do not drink wine for the alcohol.  that is the part about it that i don't like.  i've tried to find non-alcoholic wines, but they are few and far between, and none have been any good.

 

cocaine is a great painkiller, but it has other negative issues that make it less than optimal.  pot is no different.

 

the problem with pot is that it is social.  if it were in epi-pen form, and by prescription only, which would address the issue of expedience, it would be just as effective, and be regulated, and controllable in dosage.  there could therefore be multiple combinations, and only the most potent issued to the most extreme cases.  the stoners would hate it though.

 

any drug, including alcohol, should be developed to be without the altering effects.  allowing yourself to be altered is a sign of weakness, and should be avoided.  why be less than you can be?  i have never understood that.  i have certainly tried enough things, but i always come back to the same place.  use of any drug which results in an altered state of being reduces me as a person.  i always regret it whenever i allow it to happen.  it is a failure.  i have no respect for anyone who actively seeks that, and would shun them.

 

i find it sad that we even have this conversation.  it really says a lot about the downfall of the human race.  seeking mediocrity is never a good thing for evolution.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[lbpesq]

As I understand you Flash, you are just against consciousness altering, period.  And people who choose to alter their own consciousness in a responsible manner should be jailed.  And you and I should pay for this. 

 

Mankind has a long history of consciousness altering that is not only accepted, but valued in many cultures that have existed for thousands of years before our own little puritanical experiment.  Many people in this country do not agree with our puritanical roots and see value in inner exploration, even if you don't. 

 

You seem to say that alcohol should be illegal, but you should still be allowed to drink it because you only drink wine for the taste.   My wife uses cannabis for her epilepsy.  I don't think she should be jailed for it.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

first, altering your consciousness is not being responsible.  doing something to reduce your abilities is vandalism to your body.  so, yes, it should be illegal.

 

actually, i would go one step farther, and say that i think traits like this should be removed from the genetic pool, but i'm a fan of genetic engineering.

 

i am fine with medical use, for the medical benefits.  i am not fine with the recreational use.  i find treating your body like that shameful and pathetic.  i'm embarrassed that i did as much as i did in the 80s.

 

as for me drinking, i try to stop before i feel any effects, and usually succeed.  it is not the effect i am after, and find that dulling of the senses offensive.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

by the way, we are paying for it when we allow people to use it.  the long range effects will cost us a lot more than we think.  the long term side effects are huge.  we already know that it permanently adversely affects the brain and immune system.  we know that it permanently affects the chromosomes.  we already know that exposure, even second hand, permanently adversely affects unborn children.  it also adversely affects children.  how do we deal with that?  we end up paying for it in our health care system, which is far more costly than anything else.

 

we are only now beginning to understand just how bad this drug is.  the sample has been way too small to really know everything.  now that it is becoming more widely used, we will see a lot more of the problems popping up.  we are caving in to the desire to artificially trigger the pleasure centers of the brain.  it's a common problem, and has been one for as long as man has been around.  does that make it a good idea?  aren't we smart enough to stay away from things that are bad for us?  are we really so weak that we just can't help ourselves?  the good news is that it lowers your testosterone levels and sperm count, so mother nature may ultimately filter out that gene anyway.

 

also, i'm not suggesting traditional jail.  i'm suggesting that we have other alternative methods of punishing criminals.  but, that is another conversation for another thread.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Ryan]

Legalize it please. Too many people put away for its use.

 

Don Hoe used...say it aint so. Now.. Smokey Robinson,  well the name says it all.

 

Ryan

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

as i said, there are better alternatives than jail.  public work programs for these kinds of offenses seems a logical choice, assuming we actually replace jobs we are currently paying for with these workers.  we'd never see trash on a highway, graffiti on a wall, or have to pay for a crossing guard ever again.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.