The Mainstream Media's 5 Favorite Marijuana Myths

By National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws , Working to Reform Marijuana Laws - September 27, 2009

Icoemail3
Comments(115) | (2)
Writing in the journal Science nearly four decades ago, New York State University sociologist Erich Goode documented the media's complicity in maintaining cannabis prohibition.

He observed: "[T]ests and experiments purporting to demonstrate the ravages of marijuana consumption receive enormous attention from the media, and their findings become accepted as fact by the public. But when careful refutations of such research are published, or when later findings contradict the original pathological findings, they tend to be ignored or dismissed."

A glimpse of today's mainstream media landscape indicates that little has changed -- with news outlets continuing to, at best, underreport the publication of scientific studies that undermine the federal government's longstanding pot propaganda and, at worst, ignore them all together.

Here are five recent stories the mainstream media doesn't want you to know about pot:

1. Marijuana Use Is Not Associated With a Rise in Incidences of Schizophrenia
Over the past few years, the worldwide media, as well as federal officials in the United Kingdom, Canada and the U.S. have earnestly promoted the notion that smoking pot induces mental illness.

Perhaps most notably, in 2007 the MSM reported that cannabis "could boost the risk of developing a psychotic illness later in life by about 40 percent" -- a talking point that was also actively promoted by U.S. anti-drug officials. So, is there any truth to the claim that pot smoking is sparking a dramatic rise in mental illness? Not at all, according to the findings of a study published in July in the journal Schizophrenia Research.

Investigators at the Keele University Medical School in Britain compared trends in marijuana use and incidences of schizophrenia in the United Kingdom from 1996 to 2005. Researchers reported that the "incidence and prevalence of schizophrenia and psychoses were either stable or declining" during this period, even the use of cannabis among the general population was rising.

"[T]he expected rise in diagnoses of schizophrenia and psychoses did not occur over a 10-year period," the authors concluded. "This study does not therefore support the specific causal link between cannabis use and incidence of psychotic disorders. ... This concurs with other reports indicating that increases in population cannabis use have not been followed by increases in psychotic incidence."

As of this writing, a handful of news wire reports in Australia, Canada, and the U.K. have reported on the Keele University study. Notably, no American media outlets covered the story.

2. Marijuana Smoke Doesn't Damage the Lungs Like Tobacco
Everyone knows that smoking pot is as damaging, if not more damaging, to the lungs than puffing cigarettes, right? Wrong, according to a team of New Zealand investigators writing in the European Respiratory Journal in August. Researchers at the University of Otago in New Zealand compared the effects of cannabis and tobacco smoke on lung function in over 1,000 adults.

They reported: "Cumulative cannabis use was associated with higher forced vital capacity [the volume of air that can forcibly be blown out after full inspiration], total lung capacity, functional residual capacity [the volume of air present in the lungs at the end of passive expiration] and residual volume.

"Cannabis was also associated with higher airways resistance but not with forced expiratory volume in one second [the maximum volume of air that can be forcibly blown out in the first second during the FVC test], forced expiratory ratio, or transfer factor. These findings were similar amongst those who did not smoke tobacco... By contrast, tobacco use was associated with lower forced expiratory volume in one second, lower forced expiratory ratio, lower transfer factor and higher static lung volumes, but not with airways resistance."

They concluded, "Cannabis appears to have different effects on lung function to those of tobacco." Predictably, the scientists' "inconvenient truth" was not reported in a single media outlet.

3. Cannabis Use Potentially Protects, Rather Than Harms, the Brain
Does smoking pot kill brain cells? Drinking alcohol most certainly does, and many opponents of marijuana-law reform claim that marijuana's adverse effects on the brain are even worse. Are they correct? Not according to recent findings published this summer in the journal Neurotoxicology and Teratology.

Investigators at the University of California at San Diego examined white matter integrity in adolescents with histories of binge drinking and marijuana use. They reported that binge drinkers ( defined as boys who consumed five or more drinks in one sitting, or girls who consumed four or more drinks at one time ) showed signs of white matter damage in eight regions of the brain.

By contrast, the binge drinkers who also used marijuana experienced less damage in 7 out of the 8 brain regions. "Binge drinkers who also use marijuana did not show as consistent a divergence from non-users as did the binge drink-only group," authors concluded. "[It is] possible that marijuana may have some neuroprotective properties in mitigating alcohol-related oxidative stress or excitotoxic cell death."

To date, only a handful of U.S. media outlets -- almost exclusively college newspapers -- have reported the story.

4. Marijuana Is a Terminus, Not a 'Gateway,' to Hard Drug Use
Alarmist claims that experimenting with cannabis will inevitably lead to the use of other illicit drugs persist in the media despite statistical data indicating that the overwhelming majority of those who try pot never go on to use cocaine or heroin.

Moreover, recent research is emerging that indicates that pot may also suppress one's desire to use so-called hard drugs. In June, Paris researchers writing in the journal Neuropsychopharmacology concluded that the administration of oral THC in animals suppressed sensitivity to opiate dependence.

Also this summer, investigators at the New York State Psychiatric Institute reported in the American Journal on Addictions that drug-treatment subjects who use cannabis intermittently were more likely to adhere to treatment for opioid dependence.

Although a press release for the former study appeared on the Web site physorg.com on July 7, neither study ever gained any traction in the mainstream media.

5. Government's Anti-Pot Ads Encourage, Rather Than Discourage, Marijuana Use
Sure, many of us already knew that the federal government's $2 billion ad campaign targeting pot was failing to dissuade viewers from toking up, but who knew it was this bad?

According to a new study posted online in the journal Health Communication, survey data published by investigators at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania found that many of the government's public-service announcements actually encouraged pot use.

Researchers assessed the attitudes of over 600 adolescents, age 12 to 18, after viewing 60 government-funded anti-marijuana television spots. Specifically, researchers evaluated whether the presence of marijuana-related imagery in the ads ( e.g., the handling of marijuana cigarettes or the depiction of marijuana-smoking behavior ) were more likely or less likely to discourage viewers' use of cannabis.

Messages that depict teens associating with cannabis are "significantly less effective than others," the researchers found. "This negative impact of marijuana scenes is not reversed in the presence of strong anti-marijuana arguments in the ads and is mainly present for the group of adolescents who are often targets of such anti-marijuana ads ( i.e., high-risk adolescents )," the authors determined. "For this segment of adolescents, including marijuana scenes in anti-marijuana ( public-service announcements ) may not be a good strategy."

Needless to say, no outlets in the mainstream media -- many of which donated air time to several of the beleaguered ads in question -- have yet to report on the story.
This content is inappropriate
Loading

Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content, so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.

Explanation:


Regarding Article
OPINIION: The Mainstream Media's 5 Favorite Marijuana Myths

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • Clay
    History

    What will history have to say about our governments total war they have brought against one of natures most beneficial plants. As more and more medical testing is done,more uses for the plant are being brought too light and more myth's.created by the anti-drug cartels,are being exposed for the scare tactics and propaganda machine fodder they are.
    One day the light from this plant will outshine all their lies and America will be free of the oppression and destruction of our freedoms in the
    futile attempt too stop a plant that will grow anywhere.
    They are attempting and failing to prohibit a pleasure that is hard too explain to a novice or misinformed zealot spouting the lies and myth's
    listed above,but it is their right too have their own opinion,but is it their right to deny and ignore evidence and scientific studies?
    Every medical investigation of marijuana since 1972 has recommended scientific and medical testing of marijuana as a therapeutic medicine ,and our government has ignored the DOCTORS and clinical researchers,and continued the war on marijuana.
    Apparently the war on drugs doesn't assign the same danger marijuana presents for opium. We had control of the valley in Afghanistan where 80% of the worlds opium is produced and they did not purchase the poppy crop,and napalm it right there. Effectively removing 80% of the 2009 supply. They allowed the opium too be sold to the same traffickers that have been moving it and will try too interdict it before it comes to the US. How much will they stop?
    How much money did we make for the DEAL?
    This drug war is so out of proportion that eventually even Sally Mae,the housewife must soon realize that it is a total sham.
    The CIA has dealt cocaine ,inside the United states for years,now we allow opium sales.what is next?
    Hoew about the latest "Pharmaceutical" medicine extracted from the marijuana plant,Salivex. It is in the final testing stages for FDA approval:
    . Drugs that contain chemicals taken directly from the marijuana plant
    Name/Trade Name Manufacturer Approval Status Suggested Medical Use Cannabis-Related Properties
    1. Sativex GW Pharmaceuticals U.S. Phase III clinical trials started in late 2006

    Approved for use in Canada (2005) and Catalonia, Spain (2005); Licensed to Bayer in the UK and to Almirall in Europe

    Ongoing Phase III MS (Multiple Sclerosis) study in the UK due to report results in the first quarter (Q1) of 2009 and regulatory submission scheduled by the end of the second quarter (H1) in 2009.
    Treatment of neuropathic pain and spasticity in patients with Multiple Sclerosis (MS); Analgesic treatment in adult patients with advanced cancer who experience moderate to severe pain. Mouth spray whose chemical compound is derived from natural extracts of the cannabis plant.
    This is nothing more than hemp oil ,mixed with a thinning agent,so it can be sprayed. They are extracting the very same chemicals marijuana users burn the marijuana for,and yet they are going to sell
    their version of a joint through the drug stores and all with federal approval. What happened to the congressional mandate requiring the DEA to fight any attempt to legalize marijuana in any form? It is ok for a corporation to make millions while we continue imprisoning people for growing their own.

    - ClayUS September 27, 2009 8:20PM

    Reply to this Recommend (4) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • phillydrifter
      Federal Reserve

      its' because the Federal Reserve has the US gov in it's pocket. If drugs were legal and regulated they'd cost 1/10th - 1/100th of what they cost on the black market. Those bankers just got insanely wealthy off the US gov ' bailout .' Also because it's a war on (strike)some(/strike> drugs...it's a war on minorities to replace slave labor which was outlawed in 1865.

      Alcohol is by far the most dangerous drug I've ever come across, having gone to college , I used cannabis (pot/'marihuana'), psychedelic mushrooms, cocaine , lsd/acid, no drug but alcohol turns you into a combative, clumsy a-hole but alcohol. Which is why it's legal, because even if you ARE drunk, you're incredibly easy to control since you have no fine motor skills/coordination, you'll fall over/pass out/puke on yourself. The other drugs make you think. The government doesn't want you thinking, the government wants you drinking. Oh yeah there's no calories in pot smoke, there's no calories in a few grams of cocaine, but if you want to drink you'll be drinking hundreds and hundreds of calories just to get buzz-worthy.

      - phillydrifterUS September 27, 2009 9:44PM

      Reply to this Recommend (3) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • pmomnie
        ouch

        What was the point in bringing up how many calories are in alcohol /pot/ cocaine ? No offense but it seems like you cap off a pretty decent comment with a random and arbitrary fact.

        - pmomnieUS October 1, 2009 10:17AM

        Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • Historicus
          things are not always as they seem

          Comparative caloric intake may seem to be random and arbitrary fact, but in fact this has been shown to affect health and morbidity rates:

          "Calorie restriction without essential nutrient deficiency (calorie restriction, CR) abrogates experimental carcinogenesis and extends healthful life span. "

          http://www.ebmonline.org/cgi/content/full/226/11/1061

          ScienceDaily (Oct. 2, 2009) — Scientists have managed to extend the lifespan of mice by up to a fifth and reduce the number of age-related diseases the animals suffer. The research, which involved blocking a key molecular pathway, mimics the health benefits of reducing calorie intake and suggests that drug treatments for ageing and age-related diseases are feasible.

          http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091001163719.htm

          - HistoricusUS October 4, 2009 10:46AM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • Don Earl
    Is Pot a Gateway Drug to Alcholism?

    Over the years, I can't ever remember meeting anyone who smoked pot, but didn't drink. No doubt there must be some users in that category, but they'd have to be the exception rather than the rule.

    Personally, I get tired of the lame arguments on pot vs. alcohol , or pot vs. tobacco . For starters, there's no comparison to a glass of wine with dinner among pot users. The sole purpose of using pot is to get wasted. In other words, a pot smoker is not the kind of person who would ever be satisfied with one drink. He will always be inclined to drink to get drunk whenever he drinks. In time, alcohol will take over as the primary addiction.

    So to all the drug apologists out there, I'll offer this challenge. Stop using all drugs and alcohol for a period of one year. My guess is most of those reading this are so hopelessly addicted to one or more substances they won't even try the experiment. For those who do make the attempt, fewer than 1% will make it past the first month. Don't tell me, show me. If you have enough control over the substances you typically use to put them down for period of as little as one year, then you just might have a valid argument as to lack of harmful effects. It's an easy way to answer the question: "Do you control your life, or do drugs and alcohol control your life?".

    - Don EarlUS September 28, 2009 2:08AM

    Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • Dayadog
      Disagree

      Don,
      You can't remember meeting one...does this mean they don't exist. Have you met every demographic there is? Personally, I went through a period of heavy drinking that I have now ceased and now I just exercise and toke up. I hope this will not be hard for you to believe.
      What does "there is no comparison to a glass..." mean? This is your opinion. That is not the sole purpose of using cannabis . In fact, unlike the problems with binge drinking, binge smoking will cause you to fall asleep. Your theory on the progression to alcohol is supported by what scientific evidence?
      Can you change your diet for a year? Can you change one of your habits for a year that you find is beneficial to you such as exercise? What is that supposed to prove. Is lack of willpower a reason to criminalize ? Do you support the same idea with obese people who are driving up our health costs?

      - DayadogUS September 28, 2009 12:41PM

      Reply to this Recommend (6) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • Don Earl
        Too stoned to make sense?

        Maybe that's what makes the great marijuana debate appear so ridiculous to those who are not stoned.

        RE: "Is lack of willpower a reason to criminalize?"

        It's not lack of will power, but the drug's ability to destroy the will. Drugs are for losers. I don't know if that's because losers take drugs or because drugs turn them into losers. I suspect it's some of both.

        The problem is losers eventually need to be bailed out. It doesn't matter if you're talking about an international bank, or someone who smokes pot until they pass out. Sooner or later, everyone else gets stuck picking up the tab for their losses.

        I don't want my healthcare costs to go up because some doper needed thirty grand of rehab. I don't want my taxes to go up because some doper can't get a job because no one wants to hire dopers. I don't want to have to pay to raise some doper's wife and kids because she got fed up with watching the grocery money go up in smoke and dumped his doper self. I don't want my car wrecked because some doper was too stoned to pay attention to his driving . The list goes on...

        The bottom line is when the individual refuses to accept responsibility for the consequences of his actions, society has a right to hold him responsible. No one wants to hear how you think you ought to be able to act irresponsibly because you perceive that others are engaged in similar conduct. If you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

        - Don EarlUS September 28, 2009 6:42PM

        Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • lightning
          Don't agree Don

          While many people (adults) abuse alcohol by drinking to a stupor and undertaking behaviour that endangers others. Many, many people drink responsibly and behave in a socially responsible manner at all times. The first group are valid targets for condemnation of their actions and should be held responsible, The second group have done NOTHING wrong.
          There are also many people(adults) who use cannabis to the point of intoxication and if they can get off the couch have been known to undertake behaviour that endangers others. Many many others consume cannabis responsibly and behave in a socially responsible manner at all times. Many of these people are Medical Cannabis users with debilitating and often life threatening diseases and injuries. The first group are valid targets for condemnation of their actions and should be held responsible, The second group have done NOTHING wrong and should not be condemned either.

          I am a disabled, medical and sacramental (Christian) user of cannabis (for 31 years) who acts responsibly within society . I have been a productive member of society for many years (despite my disabilities)until my career (IT infrastructure design) was ended by random workplace drug testing that does not test for intoxication only presence of residual metabolites from previous use that could have well been up to 2-3 weeks previously. My work was never questioned and often praised. The IT manager tried to get a medical exemption for me but the HR manager refused.
          Why am I now treated as a leper for choosing to control what happens to my own body and what foods and medicines I consume to manage my health . All pharmaceutical medicines appropriate to my medical condition have failed to give relief of symptoms and the medical profession have thrown their hands in the air. Do you think I too am a "doper"
          The rule of law is about do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Would like me to condemn you for your choices of food drink and medicine and deride you as a criminal or would you like to apologise to all for you last rant.

          - lightningAU September 30, 2009 1:41AM

          Reply to this Recommend (7) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

          • Don Earl
            Do you really need to ask?

            You say you've been smoking dope for 31 years and ask ME if I think you're a doper? If you put on your thinking cap, and work real hard at the question, I think you ought to be able to puzzle that one out for yourself.

            HINT: People who are not dopers don't smoke pot for 31 years.

            While you're at it, you may also want to consider how the drug affects your ability to make good choices.

            HINT: Picking pot over keeping what was apparently the best job you've ever had is not a good call.

            - Don EarlUS September 30, 2009 10:18AM

            Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

            Thank You for your Comment

            We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

            • slacker
              You missed his point Don

              He was an active and contributing member of society , and not a harm to anybody else. He didn't choose marijuana over his job. There was no choice involved. His company randomly tested him and let him go for an arbitrary reason, contrary to his performance.

              Label recreational pot users as "dopers" if you must, but know that they're always going to be there whether the plant is legal or not. And know that alcoholics, who consume legal intoxicating substances, cause more death and property damage than "dopers" ever will.

              - slackerUS September 30, 2009 11:17AM

              Reply to this Recommend (6) Icon flag

              Thank You for your Comment

              We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

            • littlbit
              There are none so deaf, blind and dumb

              Don, you apparently know nothing at all about Cannabis, except the media Reefer madness, you have no idea of the research coming out of your country that has proved the cancer curative properties of cannabis , pain relief, nor the fact that your own department of health recognised the Neuro-protectant and antioxidant properties and paid for the patent that says so.

              Now given as a tax payer of the USA, that means you own the very patents the above mentioned and many others taken out by the USA government for cannabis as medicine .

              In the past 12 months alone, science has proved it heals brain cells, kills cancer cells, aids those suffering mental illness amongst many others.

              You make the assumption that all cannabis users smoke, again showing your bigotry and ignorance, many of us use it in cooking , or even as a tea.

              Then again as you apparently come out of the Church, as with all things of God with the church , ignorance is bliss, when you don't agree with his opinions, then again that is the way of the church, and the reason Christ took the time to make the whip himself.

              You know if you guys spent more time reading all the bible , and not only the parts that make you feel good, you might just learn a few things about the God of creation.

              I have used cannabis for many years, after the medical profession could only guarantee addiction, with my pain relief as they have to use morphine, OxyContin at the very least. My doctor was very happy that cannabis worked for me, he did not want to turn me into an addict, just to get relief from my pain.

              It appears you would prefer that most of us were addicted to drugs , rather than just being able to use a herb for pain, now what exactly does that make you?

              You are a sad, pathetic, little man, with limited intelligence, who has allowed yourself to be been brainwashed for years, by lies, rather than find out the truth for yourself.

              Personally growing up in Belfast in a strict church going, bible believing Christian home, I was told both by my pastor and my father never to take anyone's word for what the bible says, I was always told to check and challenge, what was said as that was the only way to find the path to truth.

              Blind acceptance is stupidity, lazy and un Godly, after all it was God who does remind us, that his children perish from lack of knowledge.

              How sad that the USA has forgotten the freedoms you fought so hard for, you might just as well rip up your Bill of Rights and Constitution, now that you have the church running the country, and everyone else's freedoms have been taken away. You have Judges, lawyers and politicians who are simply ignoring both documents and the people are allowing them to do so.

              I guess the USA is no longer about the people, and the founding fathers got it wrong, as apparently so did God.

              - littlbitAU September 30, 2009 8:08PM

              Reply to this Recommend (3) Icon flag

              Thank You for your Comment

              We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

            • rstraver
              Bla bla?

              Ok Don. Here's somebody from the Netherlands where it is simply allowed and not illegal to smoke pot.

              I love smoking pot and have been doing it for several years now. I've got a happy family, a thriving company and wonderful friends; of which most smoke pot too - and they too are successful all their jobs .

              So if a pot, and or drug, user is defined as a loser in your terms. Then take a quick glance at the great musicians, painters, businessmen/woman and politicians of the last centuries. Is there one that didn't use drugs at some point or regularly? Sure one; but most did.

              It's good to have your opinion but saying good hard working people that like to relax are losers. That's just wrong.

              Love you too. Seriously.

              - rstraverNL October 1, 2009 3:12AM

              Reply to this Recommend (3) Icon flag

              Thank You for your Comment

              We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • emikoala
          To quote the late great Bill Hicks

          "I know this is not a very popular idea. You don't hear it too often any more … but it's the truth. I have taken drugs before and … I had a real good time. Sorry. Didn't murder anybody, didn't rape anybody, didn't rob anybody, didn't beat anybody, didn't lose – hm – ONE fucking job, laughed my ass off, and went about my day. Sorry. Now, where's my commercial?"

          I'll add to that "never needed rehab, never crashed my car, never blew my grocery money on drugs, never alienated my significant other..." the list goes on.

          Unfortunately, your tax dollars HAVE been spent on me already. Millions in failed prohibition programs, while serious crimes go unsolved, many state governments are in budget crises, and Mexican drug cartels rake in gobs of profit because we've left the entire marijuana market in their hands. (Wonder why they aren't selling alcohol ? Oh wait, it's because people would rather buy from a state-licensed retail outlet than a shifty guy on the street.) If you ask me, that kind of government waste and needless government interference in individual liberty is the real problem.

          - emikoalaUS September 30, 2009 11:38AM

          Reply to this Recommend (6) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • James E
          RE: Too stoned to make sense

          Don Earl says, "I don't want my healthcare costs to go up because some doper needed thirty grand of rehab ... because some doper can't get a job... I don't want to have to pay to raise some doper's wife and kids because she got fed up with watching the grocery money go up in smoke... I don't want my car wrecked because some doper was too stoned to pay attention to his driving ... The list goes on..."

          Don, look out, because some doper is already driving high on unregulated prohibition weed... And you don't want to pay for pot smokers' problems, their unemployment and unproductivity?

          First, Newt Gingrich, Clinton and Obama all smoked pot and all were quite productive (except Newt, I suppose). (I'm opposed to drug use , so my comment is not an endorsement of use; I'm just more opposed to prohibition.)But the foolish drug war is arresting 900,000 Americans a year... and you're pay -- $70 billion a year you and us are paying.

          As a former drug prosecutor in Chicago, I find it sad that you somehow think that prohibition inhibits the things you don't want to pay for. The most effective way to increase drug use is to prohibit drugs -- then the laws of supply and demand kick in, booted by the law of addiction, and wham -- drugs are now the most valuable commodity on the face of the Earth. Good an moral people are tempted and succumb.

          Two weeks ago, the wonderful drug-war forces put 6,000 marijuana plants a mile from my home and son in the Cook County Forest Preserve District, and this past week two kids in Orland Park (well-to-do suburb of Cook County) were shot and one killed when three other Orland youths tried to steal the other kids' large quantity of marijuana and cash. Love that drug war.

          You say, "The bottom line is when the individual refuses to accept responsibility for the consequences of his actions, society has a right to hold him responsible...."

          In fact, the bottom line is that prohibition doesn't work. And, worse, it is the heart of nearly any crisis you can name in America: guns , gangs, crime , prisons , taxes , deficits, dirty needles, AIDS , health care , trade imbalance, corruption, the funding of terrorism ....

          You have not thought the drug policy issue through -- so, you're part of the problem.

          James E. Gierach

          - James EUS September 30, 2009 1:24PM

          Reply to this Recommend (6) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • Clay
          Hopefully

          I hope you keep your opinion when they allow marijuana to be legalized,as I believe that marijuana blocks cancer in human beings,and my greatest wish is that if it is true,they make it illegal for
          any employees under the ONDCP or anyone that has made money ,spreading propaganda about marijuana.

          - ClayUS September 30, 2009 1:46PM

          Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • howard
          Marijuans

          It's obvious that whoever wrote this had never suffered from tormenting pain 24/7. Trying all doctor perscriptions for pain, except morphine, none work. I pray you never suffer from 24/7 pain, but if you do I would like to know what you do.

          - howardUS September 30, 2009 5:14PM

          Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • nightwriter
          I don't know who to go after first..

          First, I decided, Lynn9.. seriously? Marijuana Withdrawls? I don't think I'm going to say much more about that... I think the time taken to read my arguement on it should be used for educating oneself on the subject.

          To quote Don Earl, "...The sole purpose of using pot is to get wasted. In other words, a pot smoker is not the kind of person who would ever be satisfied with one drink. He will
          always be inclined to drink to get drunk whenever he drinks..." I don't know your health condition, who you hang with, or who you know who smokes pot, but the "sole purpose" to do anything is to enjoy oneself. I'm 27 years old, I have chronic pain that keeps me from being able to work, go outside, or barely take care of myself. The "sole purpose" for me to smoke it to eleviate pain that the harmful perscription drugs can't do, and also to alleviate many of the side effects that these drugs cause. I'd get rid of the money hungry perscription drugs if I could, but I'm in SD, and this state is full of closed minded, propaganda brainwashed, constituants.
          I just wanted to say my piece. Been coming here for awhile now, and never once did I decide to sign up.. I thank you two for giving me the "will power" to do so.

          ps. Reefer Madness was propaganda to scare people into the idea that marijuana was bad. Just like they used marijuana "effects" as the reason "African Americans " around the 30's did bad things. Actually, that was a 2fer for the government. Racial propaganda...
          but, hey... this is just my "opinion"...
          *please note that I'm writing this really fast I apologize for any spelling errors. as for grammar, I don't really focus on it.. maybe cuz I'm a "doper"*

          - nightwriterUS September 30, 2009 7:10PM

          Reply to this Recommend (3) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • Coyoteold1
          Marijuana does not destroy your will

          Would you imply that Willie Nelson is lazy and unsuccessful? Francis Ford Coppola? Normal Mailer? Michael Phelps? Phelps won 14 gold medals! Richard Feynman?! He's like one of the most brilliant minds of our age! Newt Gingrich? I don't personally care for Newt, but I think it's safe to say that his pot smoking didn't cause him to lay around and never be successful.

          George Soros? He's a _billionnaire_!

          Pot makes you feel good (most people). Some people may use it to feel good about doing nothing. But it doesn't _make_ you do nothing.

          If someone sits around smoking pot all day, it's not the pot that causes the problem, and if they didn't have pot, it would be video games , or alcohol or something else.

          The people I personally know who happen to use cannabis or have used it are hard-working, intelligent, responsible people. Many of them are highly skilled in extremely technical or professional fields. Pot didn't keep them from achieving. It doesn't "sap your will." Many people actually use pot to relax after a hard week or hard day, and are thereby able to recuperate well enough that they can accomplish even more without burning out from stress.

          Some people maybe can't handle pot - just as some people can't handle their liquor, and those people should stay away from it. But we don't make it illegal for someone who is an idiot after a couple of drinks to buy alcohol.

          - Coyoteold1US September 30, 2009 10:17PM

          Reply to this Recommend (3) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • ebsarver
          taxes, welfare, etc

          For Don and those like him, who "don't want my taxes to go up because some doper can't get a job because no one wants to hire dopers. I don't want to have to pay to raise some doper's wife and kids because she got fed up with watching the grocery money go up in smoke and dumped his doper self. I don't want my car wrecked because some doper was too stoned to pay attention to his driving ."

          Okay, I have to unload the whole clip on this one.

          1) How much do you think your taxes would go DOWN if they stopped spending $40 billion per year fighting the War On Some Drugs, and instead started taxing them, raising an estimated $33 billion in drug tax revenues?

          2) How much do you think your healthcare costs would go DOWN if the government used, say 1/3 ($11 BILLION) of those tax dollars to fund treatment programs so your insurer does not have to pay?

          3) How much do you think your healthcare costs have risen due to abuse of ALCOHOL by your fellow citizens? I guarantee it is thousands of times higher than anything caused by marijuana . So, if you really mean this one, and you are NOT in favor of alcohol prohibition too, you're a total hypocrite.

          4) Welfare pays for all stripes of people, and yeah, some of them have histories of drug problems. That is true now, and will be true as long as welfare exists. Don't like it? Don't blame druggies, blame the welfare program. Either be against welfare entirely, or be for it, but if you ARE for it, then shut the hell up because that's the way the system works...regardless of the legality of the drugs .

          5) The driving accidents will happen whether legal or not, and statistically ALCOHOL is WAY more likely to cause accidents than marijuana. So, if you really mean this one, and you are NOT in favor of alcohol prohibition too, you're a total hypocrite.

          BOTTOM LINE: It costs FAR less to manage a legalized and regulated substance than it EVER will to manage an illegal and unregulated one. Period. End of story. If economics are your bottom line, you need to change your tune.

          I suspect that prejudice and false beliefs underlie your desire to keep it illegal, however, so I doubt the economic argument will have much impact.

          - ebsarverUS October 1, 2009 5:04AM

          Reply to this Recommend (3) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • Historicus
          Maybe Don did not read the article.

          Don't want your healthcare costs to go up? You could start by actually reading the article, which accurately points out that "Marijuana Is a Terminus, Not a 'Gateway,' to Hard Drug Use". Thirty grand of rehab? Objection, asked and answered.

          For example:

          " . . . researchers writing in the journal Neuropsychopharmacology concluded that the administration of oral THC in animals suppressed sensitivity to opiate dependence."

          Don't want your taxes to go up because some doper can't get a job because no one wants to hire dopers?

          Really? I think you are making this up. Read this:

          "According to the U.S. government, some 70 percent of current marijuana users are gainfully employed. Statistically, most marijuana users are successful academically and financially. A National Bureau of Economic Research study even reported that marijuana use is associated with earning higher wages."

          source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-armentano/why-are-we-condemning-mic_b_163346.html


          Don't want to have to pay to raise some doper's wife and kids because she got fed up with watching the grocery money go up in smoke and dumped his doper self?

          Then LEGALIZE. Even at $40 per 1/4 oz., Cannabis seeds cost less than a penny each, and the plants grow easily almost everywhere on the planet. Without laws against marijuana, the plants are worth pennies per dose, compare that to Marinol:

          http://tinyurl.com/marinolcosts

          Don't want your car wrecked because some doper was too stoned to pay attention to his driving ?

          Objection again, this has been asked and answered, sir.

          Read on:

          Marijuana And Actual Driving Performance, NHTSA 1993

          http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_driving4.shtml

          Marijuana And Actual Driving Performance, NHTSA - 1999

          http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_driving5.shtml

          . . . or don't read the studies. Stick your head in front of Faux news and watch propaganda courtesy of Big Oil and Big Pharma in the form of commercials from the Partnership for a Drug Free America.

          Think people should be denied access to cannabinoids? It's been tried with the cannabinoid receptor blocker rimonabant. See what happens to people that are denied safe access:

          http://tinyurl.com/antipotdanger

          The bottom line is that when society refuses to accept responsibility for the consequences of prohibitions, individuals have a collective right to hold them responsible.

          We might even start suing en masse.

          The False Claims Act (U.S.C. § Title 31,3729) states that anyone who conspires to defraud the Government by getting a false or fraudulent claim allowed or paid or knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used said false statement is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not less than $5,000 and not more than $10,000, plus 3 times the amount of damages which the Government sustains because of the act of that person.

          Yet even as they claim medicinal marijuana is a "hoax", the DEA allows a monopoly to one Dr. Mahmoud ElSohly of ElSohly Laboratories, Inc. for clinical cannabis "manufacturing" and distribution from a 15 acre farm in Oxford, Missisippi.

          Originally funded by cigarette companies, the Partnership for a Drug Free America lists pharmaceutical companies as their top donors. Repeatedly, ONDCP or PDFA have suggested and implied that Prozac, Ritalin, crack and cigarettes are safer than a joint.

          Tellingly, while it has long been known that 80 to 90 percent of schizophrenics smoke cigarettes, no one reasonably suggests jail is an effective or appropriate treatment for tobacco abuse.

          It's high time that those who enjoy the revolving door of employment between federal agencies and companies that stand to benefit from marijuana prohibition were held accountable.

          Jail them. Fine them. FREE US!

          - HistoricusUS October 1, 2009 8:08AM

          Reply to this Recommend (2) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • countryboy
          Way off Don

          So tell me bottom line.Who is your keeper?Why would you wont to take way some ones choice?
          Bottom line is to much of a good thing is bad for your health .Like sex, drugs , alcohol and TV.
          All of them will make healthcare cost go up.
          Everyone has a freewell.And they must live with there own choices.

          - countryboyUS October 1, 2009 8:46PM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • Parrotisla
          stop speaking don

          So you rather spend 30 grand a year to have them locked up in jail don? You rather have them released from jail with more knowledge about drugs and still addicted only to go back to jail for anothr $30,000 per year? rather then send them to get clean you rather lock them up and throw away the key and pay for their medical, room and board, and food ?

          Studies also show that driving hile on weed is not that dangerous. It slightly increases reaction time. Your not going to have problems like with alcohol . NOT TO MENTION JUST BECAUSE IT IS NOT LEGAL DOSN"T MEAN PEOPLE AREN"T DOING IT RIGHT NOW! So whre are your statistics that support this?

          BTW I guess Micheal Phelps is a big loser too. Oh man he is so dangerous to society . Making all those Millions and earning all those Gold medals. Man he sure issss a Loser.

          - ParrotislaUS October 2, 2009 1:46PM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • tbcass
        The fact is

        Alcohol can lead to drug use since it reduces a persons self control and inhibitions. Almost everybody I knew that used drugs started with alcohol .

        - tbcassUS September 30, 2009 11:30AM

        Reply to this Recommend (2) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • denise0513
          Disagree

          Most of the pot smokers I know choose NOT to drink as alcohol inhibits them and the pot just makes them more creative and relaxed.

          - denise0513US October 1, 2009 3:50AM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

          • tbcass
            Did they drink before they smoked pot?

            If that's the case, and it must be or they wouldn't know that alcohol inhibits them, then you don't disagree with me. Almost every pot smoker I knew started with alcohol and quit or greatly reduced their drinking after they started smoking pot (I was one of them). Personally I think Pot is the lesser of two evils. I say evil because I believe anything that alters your mind in any way has potential for abuse.

            - tbcassUS October 1, 2009 5:29AM

            Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

            Thank You for your Comment

            We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

            • denise0513
              Potential

              They were occassional drinkers until they realized that they could relax with a joint and still function, unlike alcohol .
              Anything has the "potential" for abuse. The biggest drug problem in the country right now for kids is prescription medicine . Shall we criminalize that and remove it from the market. (I think I hear the boots of the big pharmacueticals and the congress coming after me for having such a thought as to cut back their PROFITS and pocket lining.)

              - denise0513US October 1, 2009 5:51AM

              Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

              Thank You for your Comment

              We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • tbcass
      Disagree

      I smoked pot regularly, almost daily, from 1972 to 1982. In 1982 I decided to quit because as a musician I felt it had negative effects on my playing. It's been 27 years now. It was easy. No cravings or temptations to try it again even when it was used right in front of me so Don, from my perspective your wrong. Also, yes, pot smokers want to get high but so do alcohol drinkers. I don't believe for one minute that, with the possible exception of a few wine connoisseurs, alcohol is consumed for any other reason than the buzz they get. I do have an occasional beer or two or a glass of wine at a party but that's my limit (probably 2 six pacts in a year). I would compare the buzz I get from 2 beers or a glass of wine with the buzz I got from pot except it doesn't last as long. For that reason the beer/alcohol drinker must continue to drink more if they want to remain high and are much more likely to get addicted. Other than my college days I've never been much of a drinker because it makes me lose self control and coordination. Pot never did that. All in all you are simply regurgitating the propaganda spewed out by the media and the Government. It's too bad your so miss informed.

      P.S. I personally know dozens of people who quit smoking pot cold turkey when they started drug testing at their work places.

      - tbcassUS September 30, 2009 11:28AM

      Reply to this Recommend (3) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • emikoala
      Your challenge

      I'd like to take you up on your challenge to stop using all drugs for a year (I already don't drink). But let's be clear on the specifics:

      Shall I also give up caffeine -based beverages like coffee, energy drinks, and pop? As you probably know, caffeine is highly addictive and repeatedly found more addictive than marijuana in lab studies.

      What about Tylenol? Am I permitted to take Tylenol when the caffeine withdrawal gives me migraines?

      Should I give up cheese, too? I'm not sure if it's addictive, but I get cravings for it every day and probably never go a day without consuming some form of cheese. I've also read that dairy products contain a chemical analogue of morphine whose evolutionary purpose is to lull 300-lb baby cows to sleep, and I have to say that a bit of milk or cheese or ice cream always soothes me when I'm upset.

      Also, what is the ruling on fatty, salty, and sugary foods? Their addictive properties are well-known, and no one disputes the health risks of consuming these products.

      Oh dear. I'm beginning to fear that my life is ruled by cafe mochas, nachos, and pot. It's a miracle I managed to earn a graduate degree and hold down a steady job given the crippling addictions I am fighting.

      - emikoalaUS September 30, 2009 11:32AM

      Reply to this Recommend (4) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • Lynn9
        Coffee is an antioxidant

        Coffee has recently been found to contain more antioxidants than any other food and is protective against several diseases. Coffee also improves brain function and does not make people high, harm their lungs, decrease sperm count, or impair driving . Therefore, it has no comparison to pot except that it is mildly addictive. I've seen pot addiction withdrawal up close and it can be pretty frightening.

        - Lynn9US September 30, 2009 2:05PM

        Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • jerryd
          idiots


          Lynn9,

          To say you saw pot addiction withdrawal up close and it's frightening, all I can say is as Joe Wilson said, You lie!!

          It's sad to see people so desperate to prove their point that they out and out lie like you do. The best thing about pot is after a nights sleep, you are refreshed, not hung over. It's idiots like you who have put this country in the mess it is in.

          - jerrydUS September 30, 2009 3:08PM

          Reply to this Recommend (5) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • Historicus
          Comparison. Right.

          Lynn9,

          Numerous posters have requested you cite statistics for your claims. Since these have not been forthcoming for whatever reason, here is some information that clearly refutes your firmly held beliefs:

          The US National Safety Commission (NSC) has issued an alert for those driving under caffeine intoxication, similar to warnings associated with drinking alcohol and driving.



          Research has shown that just an hour after drinking a highly caffeinated and sugared drink, tired drivers can experience serious lapses in concentration and slower reaction times as the drink wears off.



          Excessive caffeine consumption can cause similar symptoms to alcohol intoxication according to the American Food and Drink Administration (FDA) which has attributed symptoms such as irritability, nervousness, irregular or rapid heartbeat, muscle twitching and rambling speech to what it terms “caffeine intoxication”.

          http://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/story/Caffeine-warning-to-drivers-following-US-study/51199



          But wait, there's more:



          Caffeine Addiction Is a Mental Disorder, Doctors Say



          Question: What do heroin addicts who receive a daily dose of methadone have in common with people who feel they cannot function without that morning cup of caffeine?



          Answer: They are tending to their addiction—keeping the physical devils of drug withdrawal at bay.



          http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0119_050119_ngm_caffeine.html

          see also:

          Don't drink, smoke, or do drugs ? Think you've got no vices? Think again. If you drink coffee, tea, cola or indulge in the occasional piece of chocolate , then you're using a drug. Believe it or not, caffeine has the same pharmacological effects on the body as many of the substances we associate with doing harm. Of course, coffee is so well integrated into our culinary culture that we barely give its health effects a second thought.

          Apart from being highly addictive and causing unpleasant withdrawal symptoms if we stop drinking it suddenly, research shows that even a little bit of coffee may reduce fertility by damaging sperm. It's also bad news if you're pregnant. Caffeine seems to affect the amount of time the baby spends resting, which could lead to abnormal behaviour later on.

          http://www.abc.net.au/quantum/poison/caffeine/caffeine.htm

          Caffeine Behind 4,600 Calls To Poison Control

          Team 5 Investigates has learned poison control centers and emergency rooms in the Boston area and nationwide have noted a spike in calls about caffeine poisoning.

          http://www.thebostonchannel.com/health/16844829/detail.html

          Now no one reasonably suggests you ought to be arrested for possession of Starbucks paraphernalia, but imagine if coffee and tea were illegal. Street prices would rise, caffeine powder would be worth it's weight in gold, corruption along with violence would ensue and emergency rooms would see a rise in abuse related incidences.

          None of this matters to you of course, because an arbitrary law outlawing a particular plant or plant extract would not affect you.

          RIGHT?

          - HistoricusUS October 2, 2009 8:36AM

          Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • Historicus
          But wait, there's more!

          The United States of America, as represented by the Department of Health and Human Services, has obtained patents on various compounds that come from marijuana .

          One substance in marijuana that does not have any mind-altering effects may be useful for protecting the brain from the damaging effects of stroke and disease.

          Scientists at the National Institute of Mental Health found that cannabidiol appears to protect the brain cells of rats in experiments in the laboratory, according to a report in the July 7 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

          US Patent 6630507 - Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants can be found by researching the US Patent records.

          The Owner/Assignee of the patent is the Department of Health and Human Services. Specifically named is Dr. Aidan J Hampson from the National Institutes of Health.

          Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases.

          The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and HIV

          dementia . http://myst0nia.blogspot.com/2009/09/us-patent-6630507-cannabinoids-as.html

          - HistoricusUS October 2, 2009 9:03AM

          Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • franklanguage
        Cheese is absolutely addictive

        Most people don't seem to realize dairy contains the powerful drug of casomorphin, nature's own opiate. Cheese, which is concentrated milk—it takes about 10 pounds of milk to make one pound of cheese—is a very addictive substance. I know many cheeseheads, including my own sister, who is in the beginning stages of multiple sclerosis.

        I gave up dairy 8 years ago, and had to switch from caffeinated coffee about a year ago to decaf—which has made me eat far more chocolate than I had been. (Dark chocolate, and always dairy-free, for those wondering.) I quit drugs and alcohol over 20 years ago.

        My conclusion? I think some—even most—of us are prone to addictions, or at least more likely to consume habit-forming substances than others. Lord help us.

        - franklanguageUS September 30, 2009 7:54PM

        Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • mike
      Consider your flawed argument

      "Over the years, I can't ever remember meeting anyone who smoked pot, but didn't drink."

      First, your flaw is that your memory and anecdotes do nothing to prove a point. Second, you are committing a cum hoc fallacy. You are suggesting that because people who smoke also drink that these two actions must be causally related. You provided no evidence of this relationship, however. I might just as logically say that because all the pot smokers I've met also listen to Led Zeppelin that marijuana creates an interest in classic hard rock.

      As tired as you may be regarding comparisons to alcohol and tobacco , it is important to realize that the argument is over controlled substance, and these comparisons are only logical. Your suggestion that someone who smokes pot to become intoxicated will only ever drink to do so is an unfounded and baseless claim. Please provide more of an argument so I have something to counter.

      Finally, you conclude with a bizarre and presumptuous challenge. You presume that those who would counter your ridiculous arguments must be an abuser of drugs . Then you suggest that the only way to disprove your argument is to accept and complete this challenge. Not only is this absurd on its face (and invalidated by the fact that I do not use any controlled substances), but the challenge itself has nothing to do with your original statement.

      Here is a summary of your argument:
      1)Pot smoking leads to alcoholism because everyone I know who smokes pot also drinks alcohol.

      2)Pot smoking is not like drinking because people smoke pot to get wasted AND those same people will do the same with alcohol.

      3)If you are arguing against my points or in favor of the decriminalization of marijuana, then stop using controlled substances for one whole year.

      Don, your argument is illogical and so emotionally driven that you have presented nothing worth actual discussion or refutation. Please rethink your premise and attempt to support it rationally and without ad hominem attacks.

      Thanks

      - mikeUS September 30, 2009 11:43AM

      Reply to this Recommend (4) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • Lynn9
        Pot smokers alcohol statistics

        Actually about 98% of pot smokers also drink and 70% smoke cigarettes . One of the reasons that I object to legalization is it will just add to harm of these two substances and induce more adolscents to smoke pot. Pot is very bad for the developing brain. Adolescents should not binge drink or smoke pot so the whole logic of its being protective of binge drinkers is a joke. I don't want my college student child to do either and neither do other parents, but chances are good that if they smoke pot they also drink, but not all those that drink smoke pot. Smoking is not good for the lungs and pot contains carcinogens.

        - Lynn9US September 30, 2009 2:10PM

        Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • mike
          Two major problems

          1) you have shown no causal relationship

          I could say that the majority of women in New York City have babies , but that does not provide evidence to support my premise that New York City atmosphere causes fertility.

          2) You've made a lot of definite statements but provided no sources:
          a) your percentages
          b) legalization induces adolescent behavior
          c) Pot is very bad for the developing brain

          - mikeUS September 30, 2009 3:13PM

          Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • State of Reason
          To add to Mike's argument

          You also seem to have ignored the studies referenced in the original post. Seems pot may actually protect the brain or at least shows no harm. I would tend to agree with you though that adolescents shouldn't binge drink or smoke pot.

          Possibly more importantly, do you think that it's easier for an adolescent to get pot from his local drug dealer or from a state regulated distributor? I don't have time to dig up studies so I'll speak anecdotally. In my experience, and that of people I know, it's quite easy to get pot. There are typically a few dealers in every high school and of course those on the street corner if you go to the right neighborhood. These dealers typically don't care about your age when you buy from them. On the other hand, as an underage person the only ways to get your hands on alcohol is to try to get an adult to buy it for you or to steal it from your parents. It's very difficult to get it from state regulated stores.

          If you're really in favor of keeping adolescents from smoking pot then you should absolutely be in favor of legalizing it. It will be far harder for a kid to get pot from a state distributor than the local dealer.

          - State of ReasonUS September 30, 2009 5:38PM

          Reply to this Recommend (4) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • atliberty
      Stop arresting non-violents for one year

      Don seems to be for addiction to putting people in jail, taking their property and money . The prohibitionist is the kind of person that would never be satisfied arresting just a few people. To the prohibitionist apologists out there I'll offer this challenge: stop arresting non violent users of natural herbs that God made legal with Genesis 1:29 for just one year. If sadistic pigs with handcuffs guns and tazers had to work in mines, foundries, construction or logging like I have they would not last a fricken day. Over the years I have not met one prohibitionist that was not a self centered egotistical hypocritical money grabbing fascist.

      - atlibertyUS September 30, 2009 12:32PM

      Reply to this Recommend (2) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • Lynn9
        Arrests don't mean jail time

        There have been numerous studies that few if any of those arrested for possession of small amounts do jail time and pot is decriminalized in several states. Most in jail are traffickers or have plea bargained from more serious charges or have been arrested concurrently for other crimes.

        - Lynn9US September 30, 2009 2:12PM

        Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • denise0513
          Sources Please!

          Lynn please list your sourcs! I would love to read this literature. I am willing to bet that it came from the government. The same government that probably is best friends with the pharmacuetical manufacturers and getnice donations for their campaigns.

          - denise0513US October 1, 2009 4:00AM

          Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

          • ebsarver
            Post your sources, or put a sock in it!

            Denise wrote: "Lynn please list your sources! I would love to read this literature. I am willing to bet that it came from the government."

            INDEED!

            I am willing to bet that the numbers are 100% made up off the top of her head, and Lynn9 has never even read an article or study that contained such numbers. I'm guessing they are 100% lies untied to any research or study of any kind, government or otherwise.

            Post your sources, Lynn9.

            - ebsarverUS October 1, 2009 5:19AM

            Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

            Thank You for your Comment

            We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • Historicus
          Sources, please!

          Add me to those who would like to see you cite sources for those claims. It looks like you are quoting John Walters, but he's not very forthcoming (perhaps honest would be a more precise term) about his data, either.

          Also, if there are supposedly so few behind bars for possession, why would you advocate their arrest in the first place.

          Got truth?

          - HistoricusUS October 1, 2009 2:03PM

          Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • James E
      Pot Sense

      Re: "Is Pot a Gateway to Alcoholism"

      Don Earl says, "The sole purpose of using pot is to get wasted. In other words, a pot smoker is not the kind of person who would never be satisfied with one drink...."

      Don meet Julie, a young girl now in her 30s, who in her 20s learned she had MS. She went through many physicians, many RXs, much money but still suffered so badly that at one point she actually considered taking her own life.

      I met Julie at Roosevelt University where she was an MS patient who used marijuana and panelist, along with the head of nursing from Rush Pres. St. Luke's Hospital, a physican, a psychologist, Jed Redde, a film maker (Award-Winning film: "Waiting To Inhale" that was the focal point of the panel), and myself as a former drug and homicide prosecutor in Chicago.

      All members of the panel enthusiastically supported medical marijuana use for the sick and dying.

      Julie, you should know contrary to your understanding, does not like to get high, only uses marijuana to control her pain, spasticity and other neurologic health issues associated with MS. Because she does not wish to be "high," she bakes her marijuana into brownies and carefully moderates her daily use. An 6" x 6" tin of brownies lasts her a long time and she eats about one square inch of bronnie per day, taking a nibble here and there during the day, as required by her symptoms as the day progresses. She again has a life, a sober and better life, thanks to another of God's plant creation. Pot you could say.

      Please add this case history to your collection of life perceptions and rethink your stereotypical view of the "sole purpose" of using pot and and your narrow view of what "kind of person" uses pot. It takes all kinds. (P.S. And she doesn't drink.)

      - James EUS September 30, 2009 1:58PM

      Reply to this Recommend (2) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • denise0513
      Not A Gateway

      Excuse me Don Earl! I am not a drinker (haven't so much as sniffed a drink in over 20 years)and I have gone over 20 years without smoking pot. So there goes that theory. Recently, after seeing the wonderful effect marijuana has on my 17 yr old son with ADHD and Oppositonal Defiant Disorder, I have decided to partake "miracle" drug with my son. I do say miracle drug as it has done more for my son than ANY of the big pharma MAN MADE garbage that has been prescribed over the years. I feel guilty that I didn't realize how great marijuana wuld be for him as I would have had him lighting up sooner. By he way, this son doesn't drink and doesn't smoke cigs either. He, when stoned, is someone you can live with instead of dislike and want to run away from. He mellows right out which is the complete opposite of his normal behavior. This poor kid suffered through school as year after year, he was refused ANY asistance for his disabilities as he "tested out". Well, tired of fighting, I allowed him to leave traditional school. He started school online and in one year, completed high school and is now a freshman in college . I, for one, will always go to bat for marijuana! After seeing what it has done for my 17 yr old, I believe the motto for marijuana should be "DOES A BODY GOOD!" Oh yes. That is taken already. Oops! My bad.

      - denise0513US October 1, 2009 3:32AM

      Reply to this Recommend (3) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • irish coonass
      "show me"

      I didn't smoke reefer until I was thirty. I'm now 65 yrs. of age.
      Having moved around some, I'm not sure if I could still locate my personal copy of "The Report of the President's Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse", - commissioned by Richard Nixon - which I ordered from the govt. printing office, years ago, and carefully read prior to smoking my first joint. The President's Commission was a blue-ribbion panel consisting of medical researchers, former Attorneys General, constitutional scholars, sociologists, former politicians, etc. The commission's conclusion: the U.S.A. should decriminalize marijuana .
      Now that was around 1972.
      Although I was a recreational smoker for the next 15 years or so (post-President's Comission Report), I just decided to stop (no particular reason); and haven't toked-up since 1987.
      I've been a successful businessman (now retired), have reared 6 children (all successful adults), and am enjoying my 9 grandchildren. At this very moment, I'd rather see those I love "get wasted", than have them toilet-hugging drunk on ethyl alcohol . One's survival quotient increases exponentially simply by choosing Mary Jane over Booze. Simple physics: an auto accident at 70 mph on booze vs. auto accident at 35 mph on weed (Booze sponsors aggressive behavior, while weed mellows you out).
      "If you're not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you're not free at all." - Jacob Hornsberger (1995)

      "It's not the business of government to make men virtuous or religious, or to preserve a fool from the consequences of his own folly." - Henry George (1880)

      "One who breaks an unjust law that conscience tells him is unjust is in reality expressing the highest regard for the law . We will not obey your evil laws." - M. L. King, Jr.

      "The sole purpose of using pot is to get wasted"? Are you kidding me, Don Earl? Wow, the totality of what you don't know is truly impressive.
      "There are more things in heaven and earth than..."

      - irish coonassUS October 1, 2009 6:44AM

      Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • Parrotisla
      I also disagree

      I'm sorry but i strongly disagree. I smoke. I rarely drink. In fact the only times i do drink are when I'm tailgating for a Music Concert or NFL football game. I don't smoke in order to get completely wasted. You can smoke a little or you can smoke a lot. You get 2 different feelings, just like with drinking one glass or 10 glasses of alcohol .

      Your statements above assume that as soon as I get home from work I'm smoking weed till i go to sleep. That's simply not true. AND if you have never tried marijuana , YOU HAVE NO ROOM TO TALK! As you have never experienced its effects. I know many casual smokers, smoke to unwind smokers and smokers who smoke constantly for whatever reason.

      I've never seen anyone fighting high on marijuana. I have seen many many fights when people were intoxicated on alcohol. You can;t over dose on marijuana, but you can over drink and kill yourself.

      Your assuming that if someone cant quit for a year they are addicted. That's dumb too. You could say the same things for FAST FOOD.

      HECK, let's just outlaw anything that is dangerous or unhealthy. There goes the rite aid, they have no more products to sell, there goes McDonald's all their food is unhealthy, there goes skydiving your pchute might not open, there goes driving cars too many people die from accidents.

      GET MY POINT?!

      - ParrotislaUS October 2, 2009 1:40PM

      Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • AB390
    Do something about it

    If you want to end marijuana prohibition, DO something about it. Visit http://yes390.org

    - AB390US September 28, 2009 7:08AM

    Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • Tooker
    What "mainstream media"?

    As a "mainstream media " newspaper reporter, and a man who's enjoyed resin-laden buds since Vietnam 1968, I'm astounded at the claim we media types publish myths about cannabis . I notice marijuana ads , both pro and con, and haven't seen these myths anywhere. The article is fine, but don't blame us newshounds for promoting that stuff. I've worked at 10 newspapers over 30 years and each one there had its own cadre of potheads. We even had a name for a house we'd visit during work hours to toke. It was "The Bureau." TV reporters are mostly uptight in my opinion and maybe it was them. I just want to burn one and play my guitar or listen to Beethoven.
    Tooker

    - TookerUS September 28, 2009 3:19PM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • Clay
      Why

      If you are a mainstream reporter,why does your industry not find out why our government won't reschedule marijuana so clinical trials can be performed for FDA approval? You have the investigative resources
      and knowledge to bring to light exactly why our government refuses to acknowledge marijuana's medical applications. Every study since 1972 by congress has recommended it be removed from shedule I and studied as a therapeutic medicine ,and our government has ignored the scientists and doctors recommendations,repeatedly.
      Now there have been 4 studies showing cannibus has cancer blocking attributes and still they will not even check to see if we are prohibiting a possible cancer blocking plant that could save us billions
      in health care ,and save millions of peoples lives.
      The US citizen has a 1 in 3 chance of contracting some form of cancer.
      The citizens of India,where cannibus is used as medicine, food and
      recreational,has a 1 in 10 chance of contracting cancer.
      Please get your prople checking this,before our government kills all the non pot smokers in the US with their propaganda and lies.
      Fortunately,us pot smoking hippies(from the 60's)are already blocking cancer,as much as we can.

      - ClayUS September 28, 2009 4:00PM

      Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • Tooker
        Some streams are different from others

        Clay, I appreciate your reply. I agree with you, however, I'm a government reporter for a small county newspaper. I do a local story a day, that's it. I've just reached retirement age and the fire isn't as bright any more. Those battles are for younger folk. I'm mainstream in the sense that I'm traditional not alternative. The industry has changed since I began reporting just out of university. It's never been organized and now it's dying. Nobody reads any more. I've done some editorials about legalization here, as well as some defending atheists , who were getting heat from the terminally religous.
        Other than a few pats on the back from friends, all it did was piss off the sheriff and get my name mentioned in church as being against God. So I stopped worrying about what happened to the "general public." I was done with idealism.

        - TookerUS September 28, 2009 6:56PM

        Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • Clay
          thnx 4 answer

          I realize that being shunned is a terrible thing,and I'm so tired of it,I got fired back up.
          Never have understood church people's stand against marijuana .
          It is in direct contradiction to Gen 29,in their own bible they are holding up as the source for their beliefs. Of course,they hold up the "new testament",I guess the old is either too heavy or they consider it to be
          up graded and obsolete.
          I thought "every" meant all seed bearing herbs,and God didn't list any exceptions. Apparently the church's must know something God didn't know when he said that.
          Research the statistics of cancer cases in India if you get the chance,recvd info from a pretty good source in India,but when I try to search it out,get lost.
          It will be real interesting to see the church peoples faces if it turns out that the reason we are plagued with cancer is because we did a stupid thing in 1937,and have continued digging graves for the non-tokers since.

          - ClayUS September 29, 2009 9:31AM

          Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

          • lightning
            I have never understood it either

            Clay, I agree with what you say. As a Christian I am horrified by the religious dogma that pervades most churches when the subject of the Fragrant Cane is raised. I have long argued with the church leaders on this issue and have been pushed out of may churches for my views. You rightly mentioned Gen 1:29 and yes the "Church people" do hold up the new testament in defence of their dogma. however they seem to have missed a few statements on the subject in that volume of the Bible.
            1.MT 15:1-10 Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!" Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? ... You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: " `These people honor me with their lips,but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain;their teachings are but rules taught by men.' " Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen and understand. What goes into a man's mouth does not make him `unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him `unclean.' "
            AC 10:9-16 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals , as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat." "Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean." The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.
            1TI 4:1-4 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods(plants), which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer .
            RO 14:1-4 Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
            1CO 10:23-30 "Everything is permissible"--but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible"--but not everything is constructive.( this last is also translated as “but I will not be mastered by anything”) Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for, "The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it." If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. But if anyone says to you, "This has been offered in sacrifice," then do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you and for conscience' sake the other man's conscience, I mean, not yours. For why should my freedom be judged by another's conscience? If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?

            So I guess the answer to your question is that it is just hypocrites with lies...

            - lightningAU September 30, 2009 1:57AM

            Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

            Thank You for your Comment

            We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

          • sologos
            every herb?

            Poison mudhrooms included? How about poison ivy? Are you sure that that is the correct interpretation?

            - sologosUS September 30, 2009 12:16PM

            Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

            Thank You for your Comment

            We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

            • Clay
              Yes,every

              If you follow the bible ,it say's every. Belladonna is a poisonous plant,but it is used in eye medication . And poison Ivy could be a medication if it is used properly,who knows how that is?
              Some of the psychedelic mushrooms are poisonous,but when taken in small quantities,very strong psychedelic experience. I don't know if a psychedelic experience is good,or bad,but some very famous and creative people have sworn by them.
              The interpretation from the book of genesis is pretty much a straight forward decree,from God,if you believe in the bible,how could you ignore it?

              - ClayUS September 30, 2009 1:04PM

              Reply to this Recommend (2) Icon flag

              Thank You for your Comment

              We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

              • sologos
                I believe

                Hello Clay,

                I do take the Bible quite literally, but even literal interpretations have rules. Take for example Acts 2:5

                And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.

                Every nation? Even the Aztecs?

                Or how about this one:

                The LORD said also unto me in the days of Josiah the king, Hast thou seen [that] which backsliding Israel hath done? she is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot.

                Surely He means every mountain in Israel, not,for example, the Himalayas. There are rules for interpretation that help. Perhaps a reasonable interpretation of the Genesis passage refers to every herb that is good for food , the emphasis being not on "every" but on "given"

                - sologosUS September 30, 2009 9:02PM

                Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

                Thank You for your Comment

                We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

              • Clay
                PS

                Mudhrooms,or mushrooms I assume are a fungus,not a seed bearing herb.

                - ClayUS October 2, 2009 2:59PM

                Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

                Thank You for your Comment

                We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • Historicus
          Idealism, right.

          Why bother editorializing, then? If peer pressure is getting to you, just report the truth:



          "In 2006, a study called "Anti-tumor activity of plant cannabinoids with emphasis on the effect of cannabidiol on human breast carcinoma," (see: Breast cancer : Antitumor Activity of Plant Cannabinoids with Emphasis on the Effect of Cannabidiol on Human Breast Carcinoma) compared the effect of five different compounds found in cannabis on an aggressive breast cancer . CBD was the clear winner.



          In a short article about the study, it was stated "Cannabidiol (CBD) was the most potent cannabinoid in inhibiting the growth of human breast cancer cells injected under the skin of mice. (see: Science: Cannabidiol inhibits tumour growth in leukaemia and breast cancer in animal studies)



          (snip)



          Aside from feeling relaxed, there are no noticeable effects from CBD, even with very large doses.



          On the other hand, modern medicine 's chemotherapy is the practice of using poisons that are slightly more toxic to cancer cells than healthy cells. The idea is to poison you just enough so all the cancer cells die, while you, as an organism, live. A lot of healthy cells die in the process. Some patients die in the process. Even at its best, chemotherapy makes you feel very sick.



          CBD or chemo? Which treatment sounds better to you?"



          http://salem-news.com/articles/july132009/cbd_2_sc_7-13-09.php



          Pot Slows Cancer in Test Tube

          Marijuana Ingredients Slow Invasion by Cervical and Lung Cancer Cells



          Dec. 26, 2007 -- THC and another marijuana -derived compound slow the spread of cervical and lung cancers, test-tube studies suggest.



          The new findings add to the fast-growing number of animal and cell-culture studies showing different anticancer effects for cannabinoids, chemical compounds derived from marijuana.



          Cannabinoids, and sometimes marijuana itself, are currently used to lessen the nausea and pain experienced by many cancer patients. The new findings -- yet to be proven in human studies -- suggest that cannabinoids may have a direct anticancer effect.



          "Cannabinoids' ... potential therapeutic benefit in the treatment of highly invasive cancers should be addressed in clinical trials," conclude Robert Ramer, PhD, and Burkhard Hinz, PhD, of the University of Rostock, Germany.



          Might cannabinoids keep dangerous tumors from spreading throughout the body? Ramer and Hinz set up an experiment in which invasive cervical and lung cancer cells had make their way through a tissue-like gel. Even at very low concentrations, the marijuana compounds THC and methanandamide (MA) significantly slowed the invading cancer cells.



          Doses of THC that reduce pain in cancer patients yield blood concentrations much higher than the concentrations needed to inhibit cancer invasion.



          "Thus the effects of THC on cell invasion occurred at therapeutically relevant concentrations," Ramer and Hinz note.



          The researchers are quick to point out that much more study is needed to find out whether these test-tube results apply to tumor growth in animals and in humans.



          Ramer and Hinz report the findings in the Jan. 2, 2008 issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.



          http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20071226/pot-slows-cancer-in-test-tube



          - HistoricusUS October 4, 2009 11:59AM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • DEW
      Hey Tooker

      I host an online talk show, The Opium Den. I've tried to get a mainstream media reporter to appear as a guest, to no avail. If you'd like to be my guest, please respond. We'll have fun...

      - DEWUS September 30, 2009 11:18AM

      Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • Tooker
        Got to talk

        Online radio fellow DEW invited me to talk on his show, The Opium Den. I'd really like that, because secretly I'm a ham, but look awful on TV. But my computer skills are lame and I am clueless about contacting another poster. Is it done? If so, lynnlouise54.bellsouth.net is my home online address. About the Christian screed above, WTF? I just can't buy any drug argument that discusses what some ancient mythology dictates. What's the point?

        - TookerUS September 30, 2009 2:52PM

        Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • Clay
          prohibitionist christians

          One of our largest groups of prohibitionists are these people,only when you show them anything in their doctrine,they talk about interpretation problems,and give examples of passages where the subjects are metaphoric or morality based anecdotes.
          The beauty of Gen 1:29 is that it is a factual decree,that appears to have been stated by their God,with virtually no interpretation problem,
          if they believe in their own doctrine. As far as Soligos retort about food ,hemp,is a food crop,and many who use marijuana do eat it,because only by eating marijuana do you absorb and use 100% if this beautiful plants gifts.

          - ClayUS October 2, 2009 3:11PM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • marsmath
    Cannabis 101

    Everything you've always wanted to know about Cannabis. A 'must see' for everyone.

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9077214414651731007 #


    - marsmathUS September 30, 2009 11:51AM

    Reply to this Recommend (3) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • dotkhan
    Consumers Reports

    Using drugs does not mean that you have ruined your life. Smoking pot or being an alcoholic can lead to other things. The last 3 Presidents tried either pot or alcohol and possibly other substances.
    I have a copy of a 1975 Consumers Reports that came to the same conclusion that the fear tactics don't match the research as to the danger. The History Channel's series Hooked: Illegal Drugs and How They Got That Way makes some observations such as the danger given to a particular drug was not based on medical issues. Nixon felt that classifying marijuana as similar to drugs like heroin could be a way to manage the anti-Vietnam protesters.

    - dotkhanUS September 30, 2009 11:52AM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • KentMcManigal
    No shocker

    The mainstream media lies about almost everything else, so why would this surprise anyone?

    - KentMcManigal September 30, 2009 12:16PM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • sologos
    research is out there

    Just five minutes on google produced these references, mostly from peer reviewed journals. This on only one area, Cognition, tells us that there are problems even after cessation. \EVEN OF THERE ARE COUNTER ARTICLES, DO YOU REALLY THINK IT IS A GOOD IDEA TO PROMOTE ITS USE AS A SAFE DRUG? Who wants to lose cognition for 28 days, and possibly a lifetime?


    http://www.medindia.net/news/Marijuana-Impairs-Cognitive-Function-in-Multiple-Sclerosis-Patients-32998-1.htm

    http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma .ultranet/BiologyPages/D/Drugs.html

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T63-47HC4M7-5&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1030030905&_rerunOrigin=scholar .google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=d6ad001d6807820d16cd3dfa9d06ada6

    http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/58/10/909

    http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/pot/a/blnida030508.htm

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T63-4S0PX22-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1030035050&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f112c7488907ae4aebff952b49ad4519

    - sologosUS September 30, 2009 12:37PM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • Clay
      Yes

      I have smoked for 42 years,and have no memory problems or psychotic episodes in my history. When you are searching for the dangers of marijuana ,remember that some of the danger articles are bought and paid for to refute studies showing medical applications or the safety of marijuana. The ONDCP is required to lie,buy false studies and report skewed statistics to keep marijuana from being removed from Schedule I. If it were removed,they lose control of scientific and clinical studies,and the FDA would be able too verify the medical applications of marijuana. The DEA has never,and will never allow any study proving medical applications of marijuana.
      The people that are trying to get marijuana legalized are not doing it to get rich or to make anyone try marijuana.
      The people trying to keep marijuana illegal are fighting for their income . Except for a few confused brainwashed idiots that have read too many DEA phamplets.

      - ClayUS September 30, 2009 1:16PM

      Reply to this Recommend (2) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • Lynn9
        Conspiracy theories abound

        The studies that show harm of marijuana is just as legitimate as any that show so called benefits. I've personally seen individuals who have suffered severely from marijuana addiction and I've done extensive research on studies and the studies for the most part show that marijuana affects memory, concentration, lungs, and on and on. I'm neither confused nor brainwashed and I don't rely on the DEA. I'm a parent and a teacher and marijuana is consumed mainly by young people who shouldn't be using it.

        People who want to legalize it are misguided zealots who should be putting their energies to benefiting society instead of promoting substance use which doesn't help society in any way.

        Marijuana is comparable to tobacco except that is caused brain impairment as well as lung impairment.

        Why don't you try living without marijuana? Most people do and they don't need it to be happy.

        - Lynn9US September 30, 2009 2:24PM

        Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • Mythos
          RE: Conspiracy theories abound

          Lynn,

          There's a great deal of people will always want a cold beer at the end of the day, and others will want a few puffs of a plant. There's a lot more people in this world who have suffered severely from alcohol abuse. But even so, if alcohol where illegal I would find it a great fallacy if someone where to say that people trying to legalize it are "misguided zealots who should be putting their energies to benefiting society instead of promoting substance use which doesn't help society in any way." Why? Because prohibition has great consequences on society and those who fight to end it will in fact help society in many ways.

          - MythosUS September 30, 2009 9:40PM

          Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • ebsarver
          Post your sources

          Post em, Lynn9. Go ahead. Show us your evidence. I dare you.

          - ebsarverUS October 1, 2009 5:25AM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • Clay
          Lung function

          The largest and longest study of marijuana and lung function was done by NIDA in L.A. and involved over 1200 people and took 4 years too complete.
          The study was never published because it did not show the connection too lung cancer that NIDA outlined and expected too find
          when they did the same tests on marijuana that were performed on tobacco ,and showed tobacco caused cancer.
          Donald Tashkin,a researcher for NIDA for 28 years was one of the head researchers on the study and has reported it's findings too the public. He also quit NIDA because they refused too publish the study,after 28 years of testing marijuana for harm.never for medical
          applications.
          He is now the chief researcher on lung function at UCLA.
          His report stated that marijuana did not cause cancer and was less harmful than tobacco in lung damage.
          The study also showed that marijuana had possible cancer blocking attributes and some curative effects on cancer and instead of decreasing lung function,marijuana smoke increased lung capacity and function. Even you can see why NIDA and the ONDCP refuse too publish the study. The study recommended that further studies needed too be done to verify the cancer blocking attributes of marijuana and possible curative effects. They were never done.
          Search out and you will find the information your self.
          There have been 4 studies now that have shown marijauan blocks cancer,and one that shows that come of the cannibanoids in marijuana cures prostate cancer. Still,our government will not check too see if marijuana blocks cancer.
          American's have a 1 in 3 chance of contracting cancer and it has become the # 1 health care cost in the US. Our cancer rates have continued too rise ever since we prohibited marijuana.
          The citizens of India,where marijuana has never been prohibited and has been used continuously since before written history,has a 1 in 10 chance of contracting cancer.
          This is just a statistical comparison and does not prove marijuana
          blocks cancer,but it should at least call for researching.

          - ClayUS October 1, 2009 9:51AM

          Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • countryboy
          Need facts

          Lynn9 please show me some facts for your claims

          - countryboyUS October 3, 2009 4:20PM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • Historicus
          Logical fallacies abound

          Most people live without supplemental insulin and they don't need it to be happy. If insulin were arbitrarily illegal, should diabetes sufferers just buck up and stop using?

          see: http://tinyurl.com/antipotdanger

          also:

          "Because (CB1 receptor blocker Rimonabant ) has the opposite effects of cannabinoid receptor agonists such as tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), one of the substances found in marijuana , which is neuroprotective against excitotoxicity,[9] it can be theorized that rimonabant promotes the development of neurodegenerative diseases of the central nervous system such as multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), Parkinson's disease, and Huntington's disease in persons that are susceptible."

          (Kim AH, Kerchner GA, and Choi DW. Blocking Excitotoxicity. Chapter 1 in CNS Neuroproteciton. Marcoux FW and Choi DW, editors. Springer, New York. 2002. Pages 3-36)

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rimonabant

          - HistoricusUS October 4, 2009 11:19AM

          Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • Historicus
          Logical fallacies abound . . .

          If it was arbitrarily outlawed, should diabetes sufferers just try living without supplemental insulin? After all, most people live without it, right?

          see http://tinyurl.com/antipotdanger

          "Because the drug (CB1 receptor blocker Rimonabant ) has the opposite effects of cannabinoid receptor agonists such as tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), one of the substances found in marijuana , which is neuroprotective against excitotoxicity,[9] it can be theorized that rimonabant promotes the development of neurodegenerative diseases of the central nervous system such as multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), Parkinson's disease, and Huntington's disease in persons that are susceptible."

          Kim AH, Kerchner GA, and Choi DW. Blocking Excitotoxicity. Chapter 1 in CNS Neuroproteciton. Marcoux FW and Choi DW, editors. Springer, New York. 2002. Pages 3-36

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rimonabant

          - HistoricusUS October 4, 2009 11:25AM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

          • Historicus
            oops

            Apologies for the double post, not sure what happened . . .

            - HistoricusUS October 4, 2009 11:30AM

            Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

            Thank You for your Comment

            We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • sologos
        Peer review is neutral

        Clay,

        I think you are giving a bit too much power to the DEA. It's true that original articles may be skewed by their funding, but none of these were funded by ONDCP or DEA. The FDA, is naive to DEA or ONDCP policy. In fact it relies on rigorous clinical studies and oversees them to prevent fraudulent claims by the pharmaceutical companies. This is true whatever the schedule is. Fially the pharmaceutical company is chiefly concened on its bottom line. If THC or Hallucinogens were of medical value, they would come running. In fact, they already have (unphased by DEA jurisdiction) with THC as an anti-emetic.

        - sologosUS September 30, 2009 9:22PM

        Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • denise0513
          Some misconceptions

          sologos says-Fially the pharmaceutical company is chiefly concened on its bottom line. If THC or Hallucinogens were of medical value, they would come running. In fact, they already have (unphased by DEA jurisdiction) with THC as an anti-emetic.
          The pharmacueticals are against marijuana as they would lose money if it is legalized because we could grow it ourselves. Once aga, it comes down to the almighty dollar!

          - denise0513US October 1, 2009 4:15AM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

          • sologos
            therapeutic ranges

            Hello Denise,

            Medications generally fall into narrow therapeutic ranges, below which they are ineffective, and above which, they begin to have undesirable side effects or adverse reactions. People who are looking for relief from medications are not generally looking to get high. Getting high for many would be considered an adverse reaction.
            I am not saying that Pharms are not trying to make loads of money , but I don't think they would really worry about competing for the market share of some folks wanting to smoke the stuff.

            - sologosUS October 1, 2009 9:17PM

            Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

            Thank You for your Comment

            We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

            • Katatawnic
              Getting high IS an adverse reaction.

              sologos: "Medications generally fall into narrow therapeutic ranges, below which they are ineffective, and above which, they begin to have undesirable side effects or adverse reactions. People who are looking for relief from medications are not generally looking to get high. Getting high for many would be considered an adverse reaction."

              Correct, and that is why (aside from the insanely high risks of addiction and long term side effects) I no longer take pharmaceuticals for my severe chronic illness/pain. They aren't nearly as effective as marijuana is, yet make get me nonfunctionallly high. "Nonfunctional" is the key word. I have control over how much marijuana is introduced into my body, therefore how high I do or don't get... the only time anyone sees me "high" beyond such a slight "buzz" that those same people would likely not notice I've ingested anything at all is when my pain is so intolerably strong that the person next to me would be popping Oxycontin like it's Pez candy . Try to have a fraction of that control over dosage of pills, for pain maintenance and intoxication tolerance both.

              sologos: "I am not saying that Pharms are not trying to make loads of money , but I don't think they would really worry about competing for the market share of some folks wanting to smoke the stuff."

              I can't begin to imagine the money that Big Pharma has raked in solely from my own treatment of pain over the last two decades, but "a lot" would be a tremendous overstatement. No pharmacy, gov't agency, doctor , etc., has once profited from my medical use of marijuana, aside from my once-a-year visit to a MMJ prescribing physician (which wouldn't be a "specialty" if there weren't such a stigma put on prescribing/recommending MMJ) for $100 each visit (less than what my GP makes from each monthly visit from me). Black market street dealers are the ones that made a profit from my pain maintenance... until I began growing my own, that is. I know a myriad of people doing the same as me, both online and face-to-face; (slightly) sanctioned by our state MMJ laws. At $400+ an ounce for anything medically useful, imagine the amount of money it would take per person to control constant 24/7
              pain, even using only one gram per day (how much I generally use; which is a very small amount, BTW) which amounts to just over an ounce a month. (This is assuming that all MMJ users smoke, which isn't the case. I cook with it, as it's much more effective for my pain *and* much less likely to get me high in the process... but takes many times more in quantity to use in food than it does to smoke.)

              There's a *huge* profit to be made by Big Pharma from those who won't or can't grow their own. (I won't be physically able to do this much longer, and since health insurances don't yet pay for this medication , I am terrified of what will happen to my quality of life when that day arrives!) Yet they see how easy it is for most people to garden and harvest their own medication.

              Why would they want to compete with something over which they can't have total control?

              - KatatawnicUS October 6, 2009 5:09PM

              Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

              Thank You for your Comment

              We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

              • sologos
                Sorry

                Hello Katatawnic,

                You write:

                >>>my pain is so intolerably strong that the person next to me would be popping Oxycontin like it's Pez candy .

                I'm really sorry that you are in so much pain. It must be a difficult to take. Hang in. I hope they find a cure.

                - sologosUS October 6, 2009 10:32PM

                Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

                Thank You for your Comment

                We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • Clay
          Read the policy

          The ONDCP has the DEA,NIDA and Drug Free America under it's authority. The ONDCP is required by congressional mandate too refute and refuse any medical testing of any schedule I drug. Of course,no other schedule I drug is even trying too call itself medicine ,so this mandate is aimed at marijuana .
          The DEA is the agency charged with approval of and furnishing the government grown marijuana for any clinical testing of marijuana.
          The DEA also is the agency that approves any testing for any schedule I drug.

          (12) shall ensure that no Federal funds appropriated to the Office of National Drug Control Policy shall be expended for any study or contract relating to the legalization (for a medical use or any other use) of a substance listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812) and take such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use of a substance (in any form) that–

          1. is listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812); and
          2. has not been approved for use for medical purposes by the Food and Drug Administration;

          Now, let’s take as a simple example, the issue of medical marijuana . If the government finds that marijuana Has “currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States” or “accepted safety for use of the drug under medical supervision,” then by law , marijuana cannot remain in Schedule 1 of the Controlled Substances Act, which would immediately legalize it for medical purposes.

          But by law, the drug czar must oppose any attempt to legalize the use (in any form).

          The above is an excerpt from the policy guidelines for the ONDCP
          and any organization connected with them.
          The DEA has not,and will not ever approve any medical testing of marijuana,because it is illegal for them to do so.
          The above mandate from congress was written by pharmaceutical companies lawyers,and put in by some bought and paid for senator.
          Although it says it is too oppose any schedule I drug from becoming medicine,the only one that is even trying to become legal is marijuana.
          It also says in any form,yet there is Marinol,synthetic THC,but a pharmaceutical company can make it and sell it too you.
          And here is the big pharmacies next medicine ,derived from marijuana,that is going through FDA testing.

          I. Drugs that contain chemicals taken directly from the marijuana plant
          Name/Trade Name Manufacturer Approval Status Suggested Medical Use Cannabis-Related Properties
          1. Sativex GW Pharmaceuticals U.S. Phase III clinical trials started in late 2006

          Approved for use in Canada (2005) and Catalonia, Spain (2005); Licensed to Bayer in the UK and to Almirall in Europe

          Ongoing Phase III MS (Multiple Sclerosis) study in the UK due to report results in the first quarter (Q1) of 2009 and regulatory submission scheduled by the end of the second quarter (H1) in 2009.
          Treatment of neuropathic pain and spasticity in patients with Multiple Sclerosis (MS); Analgesic treatment in adult patients with advanced cancer who experience moderate to severe pain. Mouth spray whose chemical compound is derived from natural extracts of the cannabis plant.

          This is nothing but hemp oil ,or better known as hash oil. It is made directly from the marijuana plant,and the ONDCP is not fighting it,because a pharmaceutical company is going too make money off
          it's production and sell it in drug stores.

          - ClayUS October 1, 2009 9:21AM

          Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

          • sologos
            What is the point?

            Clay,
            I am having a hard time following what precisely are the contentions here. First you list all these governing agencies who are presumably battling medical marijuana because that would remove it from schedule !, but then you follow that with the very point I was making:

            >>>t also says in any form,yet there is Marinol,synthetic THC,but a pharmaceutical company can make it and sell it too you.


            Is your concern about these agencies suppressing data, preventing pharmaceutical companies from experimenting with THC, or being in cahoots with these same companies?

            Obviously, Pharms are free to use or synthesize the components of marij and test for mpossible medical uses, so what is your point?


            - sologosUS October 1, 2009 9:05PM

            Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

            Thank You for your Comment

            We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

            • Clay
              Point

              The reason marijuana was listed as a dangerous drug for the first 30 years of the drug war was because it had THC in it,that was all the government ever said about marijuana,was the danger of thc,now a Big pharmaceutical company makes snythetic THC,and its a medicine ,and pot is still dangerous,because of the other compounds in the marijuana. Yes,they are in "cahoots"
              Here is the next medicine being tested by the FDA,for approval some time this year.
              I. Drugs that contain chemicals taken directly from the marijuana plant
              Name/Trade Name Manufacturer Approval Status Suggested Medical Use Cannabis-Related Properties
              1. Sativex GW Pharmaceuticals U.S. Phase III clinical trials started in late 2006

              Approved for use in Canada (2005) and Catalonia, Spain (2005); Licensed to Bayer in the UK and to Almirall in Europe

              Ongoing Phase III MS (Multiple Sclerosis) study in the UK due to report results in the first quarter (Q1) of 2009 and regulatory submission scheduled by the end of the second quarter (H1) in 2009.
              Treatment of neuropathic pain and spasticity in patients with Multiple Sclerosis (MS); Analgesic treatment in adult patients with advanced cancer who experience moderate to severe pain. Mouth spray whose chemical compound is derived from natural extracts of the cannabis plant.

              They are extracting the chemicals from marijuana,adding a liquid
              so it can be sprayed,and it's medicine,by a big pharmacy company.
              This is nothing more than hemp oil ,which you can make with marijuana you grow,and isopropyl alcohol ,to leach out the chemicals from the marijuana. I don't know what they are using as the additive,but it is a form of marijuana,and the DEA and the ONDCP are not fighting it,nor are they removing marijuana from
              schedule 1.
              The pharmaceutical companies are the biggest money losers if marijuana is legalized. They are also the strongest lobby in Washington. They contribute the most dollars into election funds.
              They are in the top 10% of the Forbes list,just like the Mexican drug cartels.
              Our drug warriors have been so busy protecting us from the foriegn drug cartels,that our own drug cartels,the pharmaceutical companies,have filled our medicine cabinets with legal drugs ,that are killing more people every year.
              Regardless of your fears and concerns,marijuana has never been listed as the cause of death on any death certificate,anywhere in the world. Marinol,the synthetic THC,has been listed as the cause of death for four people. So,apparently,the pharmaceutical companies are not as good as mother nature,at making THC
              safely. Marinol has very few people that have used it,marijuana
              has been used by millions.

              - ClayUS October 1, 2009 11:17PM

              Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

              Thank You for your Comment

              We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

              • sologos
                your profile

                Clay,

                I find your profile interesting, especially the things you support and oppose. I don't know why you feel so strongly about Marijuana. It seems like a waste of good energy . Any way, it's been nice chatting. See you on some other forum.

                Bob

                - sologosUS October 2, 2009 10:26PM

                Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

                Thank You for your Comment

                We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • Cherokee Fred hussein
    HELP

    Join us at the Drug War Coalition a site provided by Kevin Booth you know he made the American Drug War last white hope film and is releasing a new one How Weed Won the West together we can win this war.....

    Cherokee Fred Jesus

    - Cherokee Fred hussein September 30, 2009 1:08PM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • Lynn9
    NORML--Cherry picking science--What a Joke!

    First of all, the author of this article is a marijuana advocacy organization, hardly objective. Second, the media has no anti-marijuana conspiracy agenda. I've seen plenty of neutral and even positive spin on marijuana in the media lately. Actually, when you consider that 77% of rap music has pro-pot messages and that teens going to rock concerts hear pro pot messages, not to mention movies and TV shows like the recent Family Guy episode about legalization of marijuana that Venezuela wanted to ban, it is hardly surprising that teens aren't affected by a few anti-pot ads . My teen doesn't even watch TV--he listens to music and surfs the net where the pro-pot sites abound. And Family guy is one of the shows he would watch.

    So if anti-pot ads don't help, what would help? Does NORML think pot is okay for teens? From the other sections, it would seem so. If the media and organizations like NORML stopped producing misleading articles like this, and came out with a straight story on marijuana, they might be part of the solution.

    Next, this article using single studies which are cherry picked to support its agenda, when I'm sure the authors know there are tons of conflicting studies that report to the contrary on damage of marijuana to lungs, brain, etc. This organization should present all studies if it wants to model objective reporting.

    The binge drinking study is so ridiculous--the article I read from the Marijuana Policy Project reporting on this study even says: of course it is better not to drink or smoke marijuana--the point is no one would suggest that teenagers engage in binge drinking in the first place, and adding pot smoking to the mix is not an option--whatever the study says. It didn't keep Diane Schuler from crashing into an SUV and killing 8 people while drunk and stoned.

    The point about tobacco is also misleading. Marijuana smoke contains more carcinogens than cigarettes and causes lung damage and that is a fact. Smoking anything is not good for the lungs.

    NORML--You might fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time--but you can't fool all of the people with your lame arguments--

    - Lynn9US September 30, 2009 2:51PM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • phillgrimes
      There is a new book out you should read

      The new book is called "Marijuana Is Safer, so why are we driving people to drink?" this book will teach you a lot about marijuana . It will also show you that it is safer than alcohol .

      The number of people killed by drunk drivers is going up every year. While the number of people killed by marijuana remains at ZERO!

      Drunk and stoned are NOT interchangeable nor do they go hand in hand. If teens are going out and getting drunk that is on the parents for not raising them properly. Every parent should teach their children their limits at home. To prevent such a travesties from happening when the child goes out.

      It is uneducated people that think they are educated about drugs and alcohol that I had to knock on their door in the middle of the night as a police officer and bear the bad news. It never failed that it was always a christian family that got their information from church .

      Now before you attach Norml who is an outstanding organization. you may want to check out www.leap.cc Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. There you will find Federal Judges, Law Enforcement of every type against the prohibition of ALL drugs not just marijuana.

      As for Diane Schuler, Sorry to hear about her. But binge drinking and smoking marijuana is always an option. NO body held a gun to her head and forced her to PARTAKE or DRIVE!

      Rev. Phillip Grimes
      100% Disabled Veteran
      US Army Black OPS
      DRUG WAR

      - phillgrimesUS September 30, 2009 5:34PM

      Reply to this Recommend (3) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • denise0513
      Objective?

      And alcohol destroys the liver. Criminalize it? I am an adult and I am tired of these self righteous groups telling me what is good for me and what is bad. You mention objective repoerting , yet I have never seen a government report that has been objective. Again, the government gets money from pharmacueticls and since marijuana could be home grown and we would not need the pharmacueticals, the government, while wanting their pockets filled, can not be objective as their source of money will dry up!

      - denise0513US October 1, 2009 4:22AM

      Reply to this Recommend (2) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • Clay
      prohibition allowa teens access

      By prohibiting drugs ,you put drugs on the green market,and then dealers are the contacts that any teen can go to and purchase drugs,of all kinds. I know dealers that would refuse sells to any minor,
      but there are not many.
      When you legalize drugs,and regulate drugs,as with alcohol and tobacco ,you take the dealer out of the game by pricing so low that it no longer remains profitable enough to take the risk. When it is regulated,it is sold by stores,where clerks must verify age,therefore
      reducing marijuana 's availability that is now happening,and will continue too happen as long as we continue the prohibition. Your ideals and policy support actually increases the number of teens using drugs,and the people being killed in Mexico,and the innocent
      being killed in drug raids at the wrong house,by gestapo drug cops,
      over 800,000 people arrested yearly for drugs,our courts backed up
      with drug cases,imprisoning millions of non-violent people for victimless crimes,,,,,and the list is endless,for all the harm that this War on Drugs has brought to the American people,paid for by us,against us,,,,,for us?

      - ClayUS October 1, 2009 8:02PM

      Reply to this Recommend (3) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • Elfking
    human nature

    Thing is about human nature is that we like to change our reality.
    You cannot stop this; we buy new cars ; we change hair styles; we buy new clothes; we change homes and jobs and relationships.

    Perhaps it is our struggle to except existence on this planet. Whatever the reason; it is in our nature to change our reality.

    And as long as that is true; then people will use drugs ; from alcohol to marijuana to opiates to tobacco and on and on.

    Thing is about marijuana is that it has so many appropriate uses. I have glaucoma. Either I use it; or I go blind. No in-between. My mother used all kinds of prescription drugs for her glaucoma and had almost completely lost her sight before her death.

    I think it is my right to use marijuana - although legally I can't.

    This war on drugs - which singles out the least likely drug as a the demonic one (marijuana) - is failing.

    Its just plain time to legalize marijuana.

    And the media telling the truth about it: would certainly seem appropriate.

    - ElfkingUS September 30, 2009 3:35PM

    Reply to this Recommend (4) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • cookiemonster
    Giving "potheads" a bad name!!

    I was very offended by the allegations these other comments have made about the pot smokers of America! I would like to start off saying I have been smoking Marijuana for a couple years due to my anxiety and depression. This is the only "drug" that can help me with my certain issues with out causing other problems in my life. Yes it is very expensive with no health care providing it so I use it illegally. I do not use any other drugs nor will I. I do not drink. I am currently maintaining a waitressing job and in college . So for those giving us “POT HEADS” a bad name you should research before you go accusing people of being careless individuals. Even though there are ones who do abuse the drug!! But I assure you they are abusing more than just Pot and Pot should be the least of their worries. I also know a woman that takes Xanax for her anxiety and is completely depended on this drug has really bad memory loss and barely functions on this drug. I introduced her to my method of self medicating she no longer needs to use her Xanax as much and have been very happy with the way her life has changed.

    - cookiemonsterUS September 30, 2009 3:53PM

    Reply to this Recommend (4) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • Concerned Parent
    A sensible approach

    Marijuana in various forms, not necessarily smoked, has been used as medicine , relaxation, and introspection for centuries in many parts of the world. Marijuana appears to provide relief from pain, nausea, and other symptoms, with fewer ill effects and a greater margin of safety than many other classes of drugs . In particular, marijuana is safer than the narcotic drugs commonly administered for pain, and safer even than the non-narcotic drugs such as aspirin, ibuprofen and related compounds that are responsible for a few hundred fatal poisonings each year ( http://www.acponline.org/journals/annals/15sep97/nsaid.htm ).

    From the American College of Physicians, 2008: “Evidence not only supports the use of medical marijuana in certain conditions but also suggests numerous indications for cannabinoids. Additional research is needed to further clarify the therapeutic value of cannabinoids and determine optimal routes of administration. The science on medical marijuana should not be obscured or hindered by the debate surrounding the legalization of marijuana for general use.”

    Link to the American College of Physicians paper on medical marijuana at http://www.acponline.org/advocacy/where_we_stand/other_issues/medmarijuana.pdf

    As Americans , we would be wise to adopt an approach allowing individuals to grow a little marijuana for personal use. It would put the illegal drug dealers out of business if users could legally grow a small amount for themselves and/or share it with others. Limit the size of the growing area or the number of plants, and put a small user-fee on it to cover administrative costs, something like a fishing license.

    One possibility:$100 per year for a permit to cultivate a dozen plants.
    It's a win-win.

    - Concerned ParentUS October 1, 2009 1:47PM

    Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • John556
    When will we learn??

    It took 13 years of prohibition, to find out it was never going to work. They didn't repeal prohibition because booze was determined to now be healthy for people. They repealed it to get rid of all the crime & corruption associated with it.

    And all the cost in policing, prosecuting, and imprisoning people.

    Would you send a buddy that offered you a beer from his six pack to prison for as many years as some get for drugs ?
    Basically that’s what you are doing with drug laws . And might have done during prohibition when it was illegal. The morality of the situation never changed, ONLY THE LAWS.
    And since when is having the punishment worse than the offense done any good?

    You can NOT regulate something that is illegal. The only way to regulate something is to legalize it.

    Somehow, we haven't learned that lesson on the "War on Drugs" yet.

    Around 80% of people in prisons are there for drug related crimes. States are going broke trying to imprison them all.
    We have the highest rate of people imprisoned in the world. One out of every 100 people are in prison.

    Police trying to battle drugs have abused citizens rights to the point of battering ram front doors down to enforce unenforceable laws. And this leads to mistakes & corruption in our police forces. And no knock warrants leads to deaths of sometimes innocent people.

    And do I even need to mention strip searching thousands of people, including women & children , sometimes in public? (Whether they needed it or not.)

    Police even had to go to multiple agency busts, to keep from having cops rip off dealers for their money , when they had just a couple cops investigating drug cases.

    Addicts will commit whatever crimes they have to, in order to get money for drugs.

    Disease is spread with dirty needles.

    The negatives just go on and on.

    All drugs should be legalized.

    The knee jerk reaction from people is that everyone would then become an addict. And they think you mean legalized, with no controls.

    Everyone didn't become drunks after the repeal of prohibition. And I'm sure that the same is probably true about drugs.
    Even as employers don't like you coming to work drunk, they wouldn't be tolerating drug use at work either.

    The government has ALL drugs lumped together, like they are all the same, but we all know there is a big difference between some of them. This lie is one reason kids do try other drugs after marijuana .

    If they were legalized we could at least get the freaks off the worst of them, when they are out killing people under the influence of some of the worst drugs. Medicate them with something else.

    LEGALIZING DRUGS WON’T GET RID OF THE DRUG USERS.
    That’s not the point of legalizing them.

    But it would get the drug money out of the hands of gangs, foreign mobsters, and the rest.

    And with taxes it would bring in revenue to pay for programs to control it. And with a new industry we would get much needed jobs created.

    And this would get rid of all the other problems associated with them, and it would give us a chance to try to 'control' the problem more, like we have done with alcohol and cigarettes .

    We have fought this “War on Drugs” for decades, to continue to do the same thing and expect a different result would be insanity.

    - John556US October 2, 2009 8:39AM

    Reply to this Recommend (4) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • The 3 Monkeys Guide to Health
    Drug Prohibition is a Failure

    The current drug policy of prohibition is ineffective because it does not work. More importantly, it flies in the face of years of evidence - some of which comes directly from government research. http://3healthymonkeys.wordpress.com/2009/09/14/drug-prohibition-is-a-failure /

    - The 3 Monkeys Guide to Health October 3, 2009 8:51AM

    Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • Higlander8888
    Love it!

    I'm writing a letter to my Missouri senator and I'm using this article to my persausive benefit. I beleive that pot should be lagalized and many people are already in the loop.

    - Higlander8888US October 12, 2009 12:06PM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

See Related...