Rich is right (ask Doctor Drew): Pot isn't physically addictive, but people do get hooked on it and screw up their lives. But the same is true of food, liquor, cigarettes, and sex. It's not the thing, it's the person. They'll find a tool for acting out until they get right.

with legalized use however you'll also get a side affect similar to booze. driving while stoned. Yes some people can pull it off just like people can manage to get home after 12 beers. however it'll still be a problem.

also i'm not a doctor and havn't studied up on it, but I assume no matter what you smoke, common inhalation of any kind of smoke will likely cause lung cancer. and at least ciggarete smokers usually have jobs and health ensurance. its well known that extreme pot heads have no intrest in working, or pretty much doing anything. wich in turn will add more people with sickness that need to be cured without health ensurance. hence the more the honest people have to pay to take care of the stupid people who don't take care of themselves.

while it should be definitly allowed for medical use, (wich i thought it was already.) we really don't need to legalize another smoking substance when the country is pretty much on its way of phasing out ciggarettes. heck, we got enough people who don't wanna work already in this country.

also, it won't lower the crime very much at all. alot of the crime surrounding drugs is the money made or required from/for its use. the more weed that circulates, the more money is involved. everyone will begin growing it to make money off it, and it would cause alot of problems for several years until things got under control

thats just my oppinion tho

I agree with it being mentally addictive ... what were we talking about, again?

(too paranoid to vote 'yes')

First of all, they've found that it doesn't lead to lung cancer. There seems to be some property in the marijuana that keeps it from having the same effect as cigarette smoke. You also don't smoke as much of it, so the intake isn't the same.

As for driving while under the influence, every one of those laws would remain the same as they are now.

The only thing we're talking about is not listing possessing pot as a crime. You'd simply get fined for it, like getting a ticket. It wouldn't go on your record. You wouldn't go to court. You wouldn't go to jail.

That idea seems long overdue.

in that case i woudl agree that the penalty should go down, it should on par with getting a speeding ticket. mainly for the purpose of focusing on the dealers. I don't believe weed is a substance that would help the country should it eventually be become a common legal substance like alchohol.

It should still not be legal imo, but perhaps not as much of a punishment should be given for having small amounts of it.

quote:

Originally posted by shepwrite:
Rich is right (ask Doctor Drew): Pot isn't physically addictive, but people do get hooked on it and screw up their lives. But the same is true of food, liquor, cigarettes, and sex. It's not the thing, it's the person. They'll find a tool for acting out until they get right.

Shep you amaze me sir....for the first time in five years here someone said I was right.........oh boy time to buy some weed.........

and yeah it all causes crime a neophyte view later stated that drugs are not a crime cause.......when indeed they are the primary cause of low income peoples crime which do most of the crime anyway

Thanks Shep

quote:

Originally posted by ATENEARS:
I agree with it being mentally addictive ... what were we talking about, again?

(too paranoid to vote 'yes')

hell yes you cannot even remember to return phone calls........why should we expect more

Heck you have not read the latest EU scientific articles on Marijuana links to lung cancer. I dont rememeber all of the journal and it obviously needs more studies but the summary findings were that marijuana was 10 time more likely than cigarttes to cause lung cancer.

Something to do with inhalation and holding time versus cigarettes.

You might be right, but I remember seeing a study not too long ago that said there was no link at all.

And here it is:

Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection
By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 26, 2006; A03

The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.

The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.

"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."

Federal health and drug enforcement officials have widely used Tashkin's previous work on marijuana to make the case that the drug is dangerous. Tashkin said that while he still believes marijuana is potentially harmful, its cancer-causing effects appear to be of less concern than previously thought.

Earlier work established that marijuana does contain cancer-causing chemicals as potentially harmful as those in tobacco, he said. However, marijuana also contains the chemical THC, which he said may kill aging cells and keep them from becoming cancerous.

The rest here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...006052501729_pf.html

here it is heck
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/01/30/2150087.htm

heres the original story from new zealand
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=204&objectid=10431024

"Tashkin's study, funded by the National Institutes of Health's National Institute on Drug Abuse, involved 1,200 people in Los Angeles who had lung, neck or head cancer and an additional 1,040 people without cancer matched by age, sex and neighborhood."

Versus:

"Beasley and team interviewed 79 lung cancer patients and sought to identify the main risk factors for the disease, such as smoking, family history and occupation. They then asked the patients about alcohol and cannabis consumption."


Seems like the UCLA study is more comprehensive study than the New Zealand one, no?

But this isn't really the point anyway. I don't think anyone is suggesting that marijuana is good for your health. They're simply noting that it's less harmful than alcohol and shouldn't be punished more severely, nor does it merit the amount of time and money law enforcement spends policing it.

I dont have any problems at all with marijuana,to me it is the one single thing on this planet that grows on its own and doesnt need to be turned into anything other than what it is or what its intended for.
I used to smoke it but dont anymore but I see no reason for it to be considered a felony or a crime at all.

My discussions on this with my child were very simple,smoking pot isnt any worse than drinking a beer in my eyes and carries the same amount of responsability,but the problem with pot is there is a line there that once crossed allows one to think "what the hell ive tryed pot whats wrong with a little blow"?

Good points by both. Bottom line cigarettes are legal and they cause heart disease and lung disease..........and other disease

so that part of marijuana is a mute point.............

and not confirmed by anyone

my guess you take smoke into the lungs over time it will wreck the lungs and cause lung disease..........nO ROCKET SCIENCE INVOLVED........of course our own govt refuted that for thirty or fourty years on cigs

bottom line it is a harmless drug that should LEGAL AND available for all to be bought at a reasonable price

I've always thought that if 100 people walked into a bar and smoked pot you'd have a lot fewer problems than if they all got drunk.

No fights, fewer sexual assaults, nobody breaks anything, etc. You'd still have the issues about how they all get home, but overall it's probably a more peaceful night.

Not to mention cheaper.

And I say this as a fan of the booze.

I'll have to go back into college mode to find the study, but I remember (ha!) reading that water filtration (bongs, bubblers) that filtered out the cancer causing carcinogens actually filtered out a higher percentage of the THC at the same time. Last time I ever used a bong (unless the pot wasn't mine).

quote:

Originally posted by heckofajobBrownie:
I've always thought that if 100 people walked into a bar and smoked pot you'd have a lot fewer problems than if they all got drunk.

No fights, fewer sexual assaults, nobody breaks anything, etc. You'd still have the issues about how they all get home, but overall it's probably a more peaceful night.

Not to mention cheaper.

And I say this as a fan of the booze.

I concur, wholeheartedly. But there is a lot of military aircraft and budget devoted to making sure pot does not get into the nation..........and a lot of mobsters and dealers who want to make sure it stays illegal..............it is all about money at this time and making sure those paid off politicians keep enforcing the illegality

Kind of hard to disagree with the points made here.

If Cigarettes had the same root of all evil as Pot, I think this discussion takes a different turn.

Why?

Because of the fact that Pot most often leads to harder drugs. But lets face it, plenty of kids would have tried the pills, meth, shrooms, etc.... even if Pot were legal.
\
I think members of this society are justifiable by not allowing Pot legal. We have a Rubicon - and most (unlike us here on the board) do not want to cross it. Thankfully people are collectively much smarter than the Heck's, Shep's, Rich's and DD's of the world.

Face it, people like us need to be reigned it a bit.

It is not a gate way to other drugs. If that is the reason for banning it you should also Ban Cigs and Alcohol. Kids don't start off smoking weed, they start by stealing their parents cigs or getting them from friends. Then usually comes sneaking a drink or two and so on.