Marijuana debate...... - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

pan6467 · 04-22-2007, 07:26 AM

For one of my classes I had to write my beliefs on Marijuana and it's legalization for medicinal purposes.

I figured that it may be interesting to see what the members here thought.

Quote:

Originally Posted by professor's question to class

Should the states be allowed to determine for themselves the legality of the use of marijuana, or should the federal government prevent access to a medication such as marijuana, even if it may hold promise for some medical use?

Quote:

Originally Posted by my response

In the case of Marijuana and naturally grown medicinal plants the government has no right to regulate them. Marijuana has been proven effective medically in many ways, and to penalize innocent people for trying to seek that relief is barbaric. Why make the people who use the plant solely for medicinal purposes into criminals or treat them as such.

Granted there will be people who take advantage of the situation, but no moreso than those who med seek from shady doctors, or those that abuse their prescriptions to legally prescribed meds, such as xanax, oxycontin, percocet, valium, etc. already.

I have always been of the belief that people who seek to abuse a drug for the "joy" will find it no matter what. Why punish the people, who use as a medicine, a naturally grown, non-formulated, non-processed plant they could grow, harvest and use self sufficiently. Marijuana falls into that specific.

The only difference I see is that Marijuana is a naturally grown plant that anyone could grow and harvest on their own, thus taking away money from pharmaceutical companies. Sadly, the reality of this world is money drives the vast majority of everything.

Opiates from poppies, Cocaine from the cocoa plant and so on do not fall into that category as they have to be processed, formulated, etc. Not many can grow cocoa or poppies and make a pain reliever. So the argument, "if you make Marijuana legal, may as well make everything legal" falls by the wayside.

We also have to look at the production of hemp and its uses. It can be made into paper, clothing and of course rope. Who knows what all hemp oil has the possibility of doing.

When one looks at how and why Marijuana and hemp even became illegal, it shows abuse of public trust, racism and thriving on people's fears.

A good link that is very informative is: http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stori...naIllegal.html

Finally, I would argue that when a state's populace votes and passes a decriminalization of a plant, for medicinal purposes, the federal government has no right to fight it and strike it down.

I firmly believe the past repeats itself. Anslinger led a war against Marijuana so that the Treasury Department could put teeth into the Harrison Act and fight opiates and Cocaine. Hearst had huge investments in timber and didn't want to see hemp used as paper, thuse he used his newspapers and news services to wage a war against the plant.

Much as today, some would argue if the government allows Marijuana to be legal after all they have done to demonize it, it may hurt the war on other drugs.

("Well if Marijuana is safe, after all these years of you saying it was evil... maybe Cocaine and Heroin are.") But that argument goes by the wayside because again, Marijuana doesn't need processed, the others do, anyone can grow Marijuana and use it, not so much with the others.

There are also the pharmaceuticals and the government not making money on it. If Pfizer produces an anti-nausea drug to help chemo patients and they can charge big money for it, of course they will lobby heavily against Marijuana, where they will never make anything off.

This works for the government also, how can the government tax it, regulate it, and make money off of it, when anyone can grow it?

If legal will people abuse it? Yes, but people abuse it now, I truly don't believe abuse will increase dramatically. If legal does it have the ability to help millions? Yes.

The needs and positives far outweigh the negatives.... it is time for the government to end this unjust villification.

BTW, I am not a user of Marijuana, never really liked it, and I would not presently benefit in any way from it's legalization. However, my beliefs on the plant are just those, mine and I cannot allow my beliefs to punish others who could truly use the plant in needed ways, that would eventually be far worse and more damaging to society then the plant and all of it's users and abuser would ever have the potential of being.

highthief · 04-22-2007, 07:47 AM

I think your first line hurts your paper. "... the government has no right to regulate ...".

The government has every "right". They, in fact, define "right" in the legal sense, and they definitely regulate virtually everything else that citizens consume, one way or another. I'd choose another phrase to make your point.

Did you really use the phrase "BTW" in a paper?

Val_1 · 04-22-2007, 07:58 AM

Minor point but, marijuana is not a proper name and therefore does not require capitalization.

I second the "the government has no right" comment. The government has the right because they are the government. And at the time of the creation of the legislation making marijuana illegal they were voicing the opinions of the greater majority of the American populace. Of course, they also created the negative perception of marijuana with a large propaganda campaign.

The analogy that other legally prescribed drugs can be abused as well is the best point in the paper.

pan6467 · 04-22-2007, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highthief

I think your first line hurts your paper. "... the government has no right to regulate ...".

The government has every "right". They, in fact, define "right" in the legal sense, and they definitely regulate virtually everything else that citizens consume, one way or another. I'd choose another phrase to make your point.

Did you really use the phrase "BTW" in a paper?

It's not a "paper" it's an online class where we have "discussions" and the above was done as part of those. The prof asks us the question then we post our replies.

Had this been a true "paper" like the one due next week, it would have been written much more formally and such, this particular reply was written in 10 minutes.

As for the first sentence.... it all depends on your belief in what government is for. I stand by that statement and I demonstrate why I hold that belief throughout the reply.

Fly · 04-22-2007, 08:24 AM

free world?

my ass.........................

government or not........noone should be able to tell us what to do,or how to do it,or what we choose to use to relieve pain.

ah hell............i'm not even gonna go into it.

free world?

my ass.................

noodle · 04-22-2007, 08:38 AM

Ah... fly's ass. I've missed it.

This has always been a hard one for me. The kids I work with use Marinol frequently to control their nausea and chemo side effects. I know that the unaltered chemicals in marijuana could also assist with coping and the emotional trauma that goes along with cancer, glaucoma, etc. The problem is that there's always going to be some idiot that slips something into the general supply that is going to cause the government to say, "SEE?! We told you we needed to regulate it!" And the fact is, they're probably right in that respect. There's rat poison in dog food... who's to say that some asshole isn't going to decide to expedite the deaths of chronically ill people by slipping in some other nastiness? Yes, I think it should be available to sick people. Yes, I think it should be generally available. But, that's me. And to make it generally available, someone is going to have to monitor the f*cktards that may try to pass off their inferior/unclean product.

pan6467 · 04-22-2007, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredweena

Ah... fly's ass. I've missed it.

This has always been a hard one for me. The kids I work with use Marinol frequently to control their nausea and chemo side effects. I know that the unaltered chemicals in marijuana could also assist with coping and the emotional trauma that goes along with cancer, glaucoma, etc. The problem is that there's always going to be some idiot that slips something into the general supply that is going to cause the government to say, "SEE?! We told you we needed to regulate it!" And the fact is, they're probably right in that respect. There's rat poison in dog food... who's to say that some asshole isn't going to decide to expedite the deaths of chronically ill people by slipping in some other nastiness? Yes, I think it should be available to sick people. Yes, I think it should be generally available. But, that's me. And to make it generally available, someone is going to have to monitor the f*cktards that may try to pass off their inferior/unclean product.

But see people can grow their own. That's the difference. And those that cannot grow their own; can find someone who can grow it and sell it. It would not be hard for a patient or the patient to have someone observe how it is grown.

Plus, if you look at the situation now, people who go to buy it have to get it off the street illegally by people who make their money selling harder drugs. Thus those people are more likely to lace the marijuana or at the very least make it far stronger than it naturally is through crossbreeding and finding ways to condense the THC.

Whereas, you let the patient grow it themselves or have localized farms grow it, the patient knows what he's getting and how it was grown, what additives there maybe (plant foods, fertilizers, insecticides, etc.). Today, they do not have that option.

Plus, there are "fucktards" everywhere and they can and will contaminate anything they want.

debaser · 04-22-2007, 10:05 AM

The real problem with legalizing marijuana is that the vast majority of people who are fighting for medical legalization look like they walked out of High Times magazine on their way to the local head shop.

Point being that a large percentage of the vocal advocates of medical legalization have obvious ulterior motives.

Fly · 04-22-2007, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

But see people can grow their own. That's the difference.

nailed it.............that way we know what's in it.

mary jane just needs to be decriminalized..........it's that easy.

legalization brings on a whole shitload of more problems.

n0nsensical · 04-22-2007, 10:36 AM

Actually, I'm going to save this post for later

World's King · 04-22-2007, 10:47 AM

It's legal in the city/county of Denver.

You can carry no more then an ounce as long as you don't have any smoking paraphernalia like a pipe, papers, bong... what have you. Which is all well and good but you can still be charged by the state. There was a bill up last year to change that and it did pretty well... didn't pass but it was close.

dksuddeth · 04-22-2007, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by World's King

It's legal in the city/county of Denver.

No, it's not. Not according to the controlled substances act and the supreme court decision in ashcroft(gonzalez) v. raich. The commerce clause has been abused to the point that congress can regulate anything you wish to grow or posess.

Fly · 04-22-2007, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by n0nsensical

Actually, I'm going to save this post for later

dude..........it was a decent post.............

pan6467 · 04-22-2007, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by debaser

The real problem with legalizing marijuana is that the vast majority of people who are fighting for medical legalization look like they walked out of High Times magazine on their way to the local head shop.

Point being that a large percentage of the vocal advocates of medical legalization have obvious ulterior motives.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fly

nailed it.............that way we know what's in it.

mary jane just needs to be decriminalized..........it's that easy.

legalization brings on a whole shitload of more problems.

You both have it nailed.

Debaser, you are very right, most of the advocates are people who do look like they came straight from a High Times photo shoot and the majority probably are people who want it legalized for ulterior purposes.

Decriminalizing, would be a great step toward legalization. It may even be the compromise to both sides. My problem with that is the government at any time can say, "it's a privelege and we are taking it away again."

The government is too strong and we have allowed them to take rights and call them "priveleges" (CCW into places that allow them to be carried) or tell us "you do not have that right even though it's legal, so we're taking it away (smoking in restaurants)". (THIS IS NOT A DEBATE ON EITHER OF THOSE TOPICS, I WAS USING THEM AS EXAMPLES.... THIS THREAD IS SOLELY ABOUT MARIJUANA, PLEASE DO NOT TURN IT INTO A DEBATE FOR EITHER.)

Using those precedents, I can see in decriminalizing marijuana, the government saying... "ok, you can have it BUT you have to buy it from pharmacies and they have to buy it from USDA approved farms owned and operated by the drug companies."

That would thus end any "right" people would have to grow their own and know what truly is in it. Plus, it would make it unaffordable to many who need it, but could grow it because of their cancer or glaucoma they don't have the money and insurance won't cover it.

Legalizing it and giving people their right to grow it personally, is the only true way, I believe, to keep the drug companies or government from controlling it and keeping a NATURAL medicine from the people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by n0nsensical

Actually, I'm going to save this post for later

Please post it.

World's King · 04-22-2007, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

No, it's not. Not according to the controlled substances act and the supreme court decision in ashcroft(gonzalez) v. raich. The commerce clause has been abused to the point that congress can regulate anything you wish to grow or posess.

Actually it is.

I live here.

pan6467 · 04-22-2007, 11:24 AM

World and DK it can be both.

As World mentioned it is still illegal as far as the state is concerned and the state can bust you. Same with federal. Cali, made it legal but then the Feds using the Ashcroft(Gonzalez) v. Raich decision made it legal for the Feds to bust anyone in the state for it.

That's another thing, and I argue it in the OP a bit, states and communities can make it legal or decriminalize it, BUT the Feds can bust anyone they want for it regardless of the fact the people there voted to legalize/decriminalize it whether for medicinal use or other.

World's King · 04-22-2007, 11:37 AM

Yeah... it's both.

It's legal in the city/county but it not legal according to the state and federal laws.

It's just a small step in making it legal everywhere. But as we all know, that's never gonna happen.

Vincentt · 04-22-2007, 03:16 PM

We are trying to put laws in place to stop tobacco smokers from smoking. And DWI laws for drunk driving etc are also becoming more and more strict.

Personally I wouldn't want to green-light a "legal marijuana" without a breathalyser type test. DUI laws are already in place for it, just need the test.

With that... I really see no real difference between marijuana and alcohol.

http://www.houseparent.net/informati...ohol-marij.htm

My problem with legal cannabis comes down to having a high people out in public.

Most pot smokers I know don't see a problem with lighting up early in the day. While getting drunk in the morning after waking up is seen as a horrid abuse... Some pot smokers simply do not see it that way.

stevie667 · 04-22-2007, 03:18 PM

I believe that cannabis has legitimate medical usage, which should be exploited as far as necessary.

I do not believe, after MUCH careful consideration, that cannabis should be legalised, i do not know one single person who has sucessfully balanced cannabis usage and having an actual life.

As for controlled legislation, such as with amsterdam, i would only consider it above 21, and strict controls therein, such as liscenced premise and random police checks. Even then i am in personal debate.

There is an extreme danger in both mental health, and physical health. Smoking is bad for you, vaporising is bad for you, eating is not so bad for you. Medical usage would need plenty of research to extract the active compounds required, but until then i am happy with those who need it to ingest the product how they so wish.

And before anyone asks, i have ingested probably my fair share of illicit materials, so i know firmly where i am coming from. These are my views on the entire matter.

ngdawg · 04-22-2007, 03:43 PM

I know more than one who uses weed regularly and they live exemplary, productive lives. But, that's not the point of the OP....
Hearst and DuPont were the catalysts for making hemp illegal. Because of its association with marijuana(they are not the same plant, just closely related), it too was made illegal. I don't think you'd find a single drug manufacturer that would be for at least decriminalizing pot and hemp. Granted, some are doing studies on the cannabis extraction, but I'd venture a guess in saying we'll never see a quick and positive outcome.
It's been proven over and over that cannabis relieves nausea,lessens effects of glaucoma and might even help MS patients. It can act as a muscle relaxant, helping arthritis sufferers.
The government stance on marijuana is fraught with inconsistencies and lies; people abuse spray paint, but you can get that at any Home Depot, so what's their point, exactly? Big business. The almighty dollar.

snowy · 04-22-2007, 05:10 PM

Where I live it's decriminalized (less than an ounce is equivalent to a speeding ticket) and medically available. My friend's mother has a medical card for it, and my friend is her registered grower. I've been considering getting my card, to help with chronic back pain.

Furthermore, if a person in Oregon smokes marijuana for medical reasons, and is cited or charged for possession, they can fight the citation or charges by applying for a card, and if the card is awarded, the citation or charges are dropped.

I fully support medical marijuana, and fully support the decriminalization of marijuana for recreational use. If the government wishes to regulate the smoking of marijuana, I wish they would take the same tack as the Dutch government, and control where it is sold and by whom.

dksuddeth · 04-22-2007, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by World's King

Yeah... it's both.

It's legal in the city/county but it not legal according to the state and federal laws.

It's just a small step in making it legal everywhere. But as we all know, that's never gonna happen.

and I wasn't trying to show you up or anything. I realize some localities have legalized it, which really means that the local law won't enforce the fed law, but the feds still have it as illegal and they will come down on you. just pointing out the overreaching feds is all.

analog · 04-22-2007, 08:03 PM

If it was made legal and drug companies sold it, it would be held to the same FDA standards as all other drugs for purity and potency.

Believing that people would be "slipping" stuff into it is paranoia. Hmm... paranoid thinking from the pot camp... how bizarre.

lol

Decriminalizing it would be a step in the right direction- but the way drug companies are, they will push for its legalization if it came down to decriminalization. Why? Because pot is cheap and easy as shit to grow, but can be sold for whatever they damn well please. Drug companies would salivate at the chance to sell actual marijuana... their profits would be higher than their consumers.

ldodb · 04-22-2007, 08:59 PM

I just heard this monologue on the issue the other day and its one of the most insightful reports I have heard on the issue since as long as I can remember. http://www.mikehagan.com/2012/mp3/cl...nabispsych.mp3

kevpdx · 04-22-2007, 09:27 PM

I can't remember where I read it or how reliable it was, but it said that 35% of Americans smoke weed and only 17% of Dutch people smoke. Interesting statistic.

I think it should be legalized, at least for medicinal purposes. Pills can cause nausea and it would be so much easier for people with cancer and AIDS to smoke if they choose to. A natural plant is so much better for you than all of the addicting prescription crap out there.

Vincentt · 04-23-2007, 06:23 PM

Poison Oak is also natural.

flat5 · 04-23-2007, 06:29 PM

snowy · 04-23-2007, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flat5

The US gov. wants to outlaw/control ALL holistic medicine.

FDA wants to control natural foods, vitamins, minerals, herbal supplements, natural therapy massage oil treatments, etc., etc.. you name it!
You US citizens have till April 30 to protest this.

http://tinyurl.com/2u7ghc

Actually, I think passing legislation extending the control of the FDA would be a good thing. We have had a lot of incidents in the United States in the last five years where herbal supplements have caused permanent damage and even death because of improper usage and lack of oversight. Lots of fraud has been committed because of the lack of regulations regarding herbal supplements, natural foods, and vitamins.

As for homeopathic medicine, the FDA has been overseeing true homeopathic remedies for almost 20 years now. It has to be proven safe, not effective, and I could see similar allowances being made for vitamins and herbal supplements.

pan6467 · 04-23-2007, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vincentt

Poison Oak is also natural.

What's your point? Marijuana has been proven to have medicinal benefits. Why keep the people who need it from having it? Because of bullshit antiquated laws that were racist, warped and twisted to suit people in power some 75+ years ago? Doesn't sound like a country that has the best interests of its citzenry in mind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flat5

The US gov. wants to outlaw/control ALL holistic medicine.

FDA wants to control natural foods, vitamins, minerals, herbal supplements, natural therapy massage oil treatments, etc., etc.. you name it!
You US citizens have till April 30 to protest this.

http://tinyurl.com/2u7ghc

The scary thing is this will make those products more expensive because now they will be taxed and because of the research that has to be paid.

IMHO all this does is takes away these products from the people who cannot afford prescriptions, doctors, insurance in general.

Ballzor · 04-23-2007, 10:03 PM

For what its worth, to add to this horribly exhausted debate, I learned recently (from drug/alcohol class) that doctors are no longer allowed to perscribe medical marijuana because it technically causes harm to patients who use it (carcinogens, etc.)

I cant verify this fact and I hope it isnt true, but hope it helps.

jorgelito · 04-23-2007, 10:22 PM

I would think that the smoking does more harm than good. Still, it should definitely be legal.

As far as medicinal goes, I'm sure they can make it into a pill form and extract only the medicinal properties so you don't get high but still get the medical benefit. That sounds like the best plan.

Stick · 04-23-2007, 11:33 PM

Here's something for you to take a look at.

http://www.healthrelatedinfos.com/20...ng-cancer.html

Marijuana Compound May Fight Lung Cancer
Posted on April 17th, 2007 by HealthRelatedInfos
While smoking marijuana is never good for the lungs, the active ingredient in pot may help fight lung cancer, new research shows.

Harvard University researchers have found that, in both laboratory and mouse studies, delta-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) cuts tumor growth in half in common lung cancer while impeding the cancer’s ability to spread.

The compound “seems to have a suppressive effect on certain lines of cancer cells,” explained Dr. Len Horovitz, a pulmonary specialist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City.

According to the researchers, THC fights lung cancer by curbing epidermal growth factor (EGF), a molecule that promotes the growth and spread of particularly aggressive non-small cell lung cancers. “It seems to go to (EGF) receptor sites on cells and inhibit growth,” said Horovitz, who was not involved in the study.

The findings are preliminary, however, and other outside experts urged caution.

“It’s an interesting laboratory study (but) you have to have enough additional animal studies to make sure the effect is reproducible and to make sure that there are no overt toxic effects,” said Dr. Norman Edelman, chief medical officer of the American Lung Association. “It’s a little more than tantalizing because it’s a compound that we know has been in humans and has not caused major problems.”

The findings were to be presented this week at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) in Los Angeles.

Lung cancer is the number one cancer killer in the world. Lung tumors that over-produce the EGF receptor tend to be extra-aggressive and don’t respond well to chemotherapy.

THC is the main active ingredient of Cannabis sativa –marijuana. It has been shown to inhibit tumor growth in cancer, but specific information on its action against lung cancer has so far been limited.

In the new study, the researchers first showed that two different lung cancer lines, as well as samples from patient lung tumors, produced the cannabinoid receptors CB1 and CB2.

Endocannabinoids — cannabinoids produced naturally in the body — are thought to have an effect on pain, anxiety and inflammation when they bind to cannabinoid receptors.

Next, the researchers injected standard doses of THC into mice implanted with human lung cancer cells. After three weeks of treatment, tumors shrank by about 50 percent in animals treated with THC, compared to those in an untreated control group, the researchers reported.

The findings may shed light on a question that has been puzzling Horovitz: Why hasn’t there been a spike in lung cancer in the generation that smoked a lot of marijuana in the 1960s.

“I find it fascinating, wondering if the reasons we’re not seeing this spike is that THC inhibits lung cancer cells,” he said. “It would be very ironic, although you certainly wouldn’t tell somebody who smoked cigarettes to add marijuana.”

A second set of findings presented at AACR suggested that a viral-based gene therapy could target both primary and distant tumors, while ignoring healthy cells.

When injected into 15 mice with prostate cancer, this “smart bomb” therapy eliminated all signs of cancer — effectively curing the rodents. Researchers at Columbia University, in New York City, said the therapy also worked in animals with breast cancer and melanomas.

And in a third hopeful trial reported at the meeting, German researchers at University Children’s Hospital, in Ulm, said they’ve used measles viruses to treat brain tumors. In mouse experiments, the virus attached to the tumor from the inside out, the team said.

(HealthDay News)

MSD · 04-23-2007, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vincentt

We are trying to put laws in place to stop tobacco smokers from smoking. And DWI laws for drunk driving etc are also becoming more and more strict.

Personally I wouldn't want to green-light a "legal marijuana" without a breathalyser type test. DUI laws are already in place for it, just need the test.

There is no reliable field test to determine how much THC is in the bloodstream, therefore there isn't a way to make a breathalyser test. All you can do is rely on conventional sobriety tests.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevie667

I believe that cannabis has legitimate medical usage, which should be exploited as far as necessary.

I do not believe, after MUCH careful consideration, that cannabis should be legalised, i do not know one single person who has sucessfully balanced cannabis usage and having an actual life.

I agree that there is legitimate medical usage and that the minimum that should be done is to allow doctors to prescribe it like any other medication. I disagree with your second conclusion. What we do with our bodies is none of the government's business as long as any harm is only done to ourselves. Letting smokers get their weed legally with regulation of the supply chain will move it into the realm of tobacco and alcohol usage. People will buy a pack of joints at the store, or blunts of various potency, just like the grades of pipe tobacco and cigars, and the criminals who use drug traffic to fund their gang wars and criminal enterprises will lose a source of income.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vincentt

Poison Oak is also natural.

Poison oak does not have discernible medical benefits. Marijuana use for neurological disorders such as MS is, in most cases, more effective and less harmful than conventional drug treatments like interferons, which are known to cause severe liver damage in significant numbers of patients and may cause additional nerve damage.

Fly · 04-24-2007, 03:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ngdawg

I know more than one who uses weed regularly and they live exemplary, productive lives. But, that's not the point of the OP....
Hearst and DuPont were the catalysts for making hemp illegal. Because of its association with marijuana(they are not the same plant, just closely related), it too was made illegal. I don't think you'd find a single drug manufacturer that would be for at least decriminalizing pot and hemp. Granted, some are doing studies on the cannabis extraction, but I'd venture a guess in saying we'll never see a quick and positive outcome.
It's been proven over and over that cannabis relieves nausea,lessens effects of glaucoma and might even help MS patients. It can act as a muscle relaxant, helping arthritis sufferers.
The government stance on marijuana is fraught with inconsistencies and lies; people abuse spray paint, but you can get that at any Home Depot, so what's their point, exactly? Big business. The almighty dollar.

the big drug companies won't let it happen.

they want us to buy their man made drugs........fuck that,i'll take a natural pain killer any day

04-22-2007, 07:47 AM	#2 (permalink)
highthief Junkie Location: Ontario, Canada	I think your first line hurts your paper. "... the government has no right to regulate ...". The government has every "right". They, in fact, define "right" in the legal sense, and they definitely regulate virtually everything else that citizens consume, one way or another. I'd choose another phrase to make your point. Did you really use the phrase "BTW" in a paper? __________________ Si vis pacem parabellum.

04-22-2007, 07:58 AM	#3 (permalink)
Val_1 Addict Location: In a State of Denial	Minor point but, marijuana is not a proper name and therefore does not require capitalization. I second the "the government has no right" comment. The government has the right because they are the government. And at the time of the creation of the legislation making marijuana illegal they were voicing the opinions of the greater majority of the American populace. Of course, they also created the negative perception of marijuana with a large propaganda campaign. The analogy that other legally prescribed drugs can be abused as well is the best point in the paper. __________________ I feel sorry for people who don't drink. When they wake up in the morning, that's as good as they're going to feel all day. -Frank Sinatra

04-22-2007, 08:24 AM	#5 (permalink)
Fly see the links to my music? Location: Beautiful British Columbia	free world? my ass......................... government or not........noone should be able to tell us what to do,or how to do it,or what we choose to use to relieve pain. ah hell............i'm not even gonna go into it. free world? my ass................. __________________ BASTARD SterlingStudios

04-22-2007, 10:05 AM	#8 (permalink)
debaser Sir, I have a plan... Location: 38S NC20943324	The real problem with legalizing marijuana is that the vast majority of people who are fighting for medical legalization look like they walked out of High Times magazine on their way to the local head shop. Point being that a large percentage of the vocal advocates of medical legalization have obvious ulterior motives. __________________ Fortunato became immured to the sound of the trowel after a while.

04-22-2007, 10:36 AM	#10 (permalink)
n0nsensical Junkie Location: San Francisco	Actually, I'm going to save this post for later Last edited by n0nsensical; 04-22-2007 at 10:52 AM..

04-22-2007, 10:47 AM	#11 (permalink)
World's King Here Location: Denver City Denver	It's legal in the city/county of Denver. You can carry no more then an ounce as long as you don't have any smoking paraphernalia like a pipe, papers, bong... what have you. Which is all well and good but you can still be charged by the state. There was a bill up last year to change that and it did pretty well... didn't pass but it was close. __________________ heavy is the head that wears the crown

04-22-2007, 11:24 AM	#16 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	World and DK it can be both. As World mentioned it is still illegal as far as the state is concerned and the state can bust you. Same with federal. Cali, made it legal but then the Feds using the Ashcroft(Gonzalez) v. Raich decision made it legal for the Feds to bust anyone in the state for it. That's another thing, and I argue it in the OP a bit, states and communities can make it legal or decriminalize it, BUT the Feds can bust anyone they want for it regardless of the fact the people there voted to legalize/decriminalize it whether for medicinal use or other. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

04-22-2007, 11:37 AM	#17 (permalink)
World's King Here Location: Denver City Denver	Yeah... it's both. It's legal in the city/county but it not legal according to the state and federal laws. It's just a small step in making it legal everywhere. But as we all know, that's never gonna happen. __________________ heavy is the head that wears the crown

04-22-2007, 03:16 PM	#18 (permalink)
Vincentt Addict Location: Tokyo, Japan	We are trying to put laws in place to stop tobacco smokers from smoking. And DWI laws for drunk driving etc are also becoming more and more strict. Personally I wouldn't want to green-light a "legal marijuana" without a breathalyser type test. DUI laws are already in place for it, just need the test. With that... I really see no real difference between marijuana and alcohol. http://www.houseparent.net/informati...ohol-marij.htm My problem with legal cannabis comes down to having a high people out in public. Most pot smokers I know don't see a problem with lighting up early in the day. While getting drunk in the morning after waking up is seen as a horrid abuse... Some pot smokers simply do not see it that way. __________________ .

04-22-2007, 03:18 PM	#19 (permalink)
stevie667 Too Awesome for Aardvarks Location: Angloland	I believe that cannabis has legitimate medical usage, which should be exploited as far as necessary. I do not believe, after MUCH careful consideration, that cannabis should be legalised, i do not know one single person who has sucessfully balanced cannabis usage and having an actual life. As for controlled legislation, such as with amsterdam, i would only consider it above 21, and strict controls therein, such as liscenced premise and random police checks. Even then i am in personal debate. There is an extreme danger in both mental health, and physical health. Smoking is bad for you, vaporising is bad for you, eating is not so bad for you. Medical usage would need plenty of research to extract the active compounds required, but until then i am happy with those who need it to ingest the product how they so wish. And before anyone asks, i have ingested probably my fair share of illicit materials, so i know firmly where i am coming from. These are my views on the entire matter. __________________ Office hours have changed. Please call during office hours for more information.

04-22-2007, 03:43 PM	#20 (permalink)
ngdawg peekaboo Location: on the back, bitch	I know more than one who uses weed regularly and they live exemplary, productive lives. But, that's not the point of the OP.... Hearst and DuPont were the catalysts for making hemp illegal. Because of its association with marijuana(they are not the same plant, just closely related), it too was made illegal. I don't think you'd find a single drug manufacturer that would be for at least decriminalizing pot and hemp. Granted, some are doing studies on the cannabis extraction, but I'd venture a guess in saying we'll never see a quick and positive outcome. It's been proven over and over that cannabis relieves nausea,lessens effects of glaucoma and might even help MS patients. It can act as a muscle relaxant, helping arthritis sufferers. The government stance on marijuana is fraught with inconsistencies and lies; people abuse spray paint, but you can get that at any Home Depot, so what's their point, exactly? Big business. The almighty dollar. __________________ Don't blame me. I didn't vote for either of'em.

04-22-2007, 05:10 PM	#21 (permalink)
snowy Kick Ass Kunoichi Location: Oregon	Where I live it's decriminalized (less than an ounce is equivalent to a speeding ticket) and medically available. My friend's mother has a medical card for it, and my friend is her registered grower. I've been considering getting my card, to help with chronic back pain. Furthermore, if a person in Oregon smokes marijuana for medical reasons, and is cited or charged for possession, they can fight the citation or charges by applying for a card, and if the card is awarded, the citation or charges are dropped. I fully support medical marijuana, and fully support the decriminalization of marijuana for recreational use. If the government wishes to regulate the smoking of marijuana, I wish they would take the same tack as the Dutch government, and control where it is sold and by whom. __________________ If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

04-22-2007, 08:03 PM	#23 (permalink)
analog Banned	If it was made legal and drug companies sold it, it would be held to the same FDA standards as all other drugs for purity and potency. Believing that people would be "slipping" stuff into it is paranoia. Hmm... paranoid thinking from the pot camp... how bizarre. lol Decriminalizing it would be a step in the right direction- but the way drug companies are, they will push for its legalization if it came down to decriminalization. Why? Because pot is cheap and easy as shit to grow, but can be sold for whatever they damn well please. Drug companies would salivate at the chance to sell actual marijuana... their profits would be higher than their consumers.

04-22-2007, 08:59 PM	#24 (permalink)
ldodb Upright	I just heard this monologue on the issue the other day and its one of the most insightful reports I have heard on the issue since as long as I can remember. http://www.mikehagan.com/2012/mp3/cl...nabispsych.mp3

04-22-2007, 09:27 PM	#25 (permalink)
kevpdx Upright	I can't remember where I read it or how reliable it was, but it said that 35% of Americans smoke weed and only 17% of Dutch people smoke. Interesting statistic. I think it should be legalized, at least for medicinal purposes. Pills can cause nausea and it would be so much easier for people with cancer and AIDS to smoke if they choose to. A natural plant is so much better for you than all of the addicting prescription crap out there.

04-23-2007, 06:23 PM	#26 (permalink)
Vincentt Addict Location: Tokyo, Japan	Poison Oak is also natural. __________________ .

04-23-2007, 06:29 PM	#27 (permalink)
flat5 Very Insignificant Pawn Location: Amsterdam, NL	.. Last edited by flat5; 05-03-2008 at 02:18 AM..

04-23-2007, 10:22 PM	#31 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	I would think that the smoking does more harm than good. Still, it should definitely be legal. As far as medicinal goes, I'm sure they can make it into a pill form and extract only the medicinal properties so you don't get high but still get the medical benefit. That sounds like the best plan.

04-23-2007, 11:33 PM	#32 (permalink)
Stick Psycho Location: Sydney, Australia	Here's something for you to take a look at. http://www.healthrelatedinfos.com/20...ng-cancer.html Marijuana Compound May Fight Lung Cancer Posted on April 17th, 2007 by HealthRelatedInfos While smoking marijuana is never good for the lungs, the active ingredient in pot may help fight lung cancer, new research shows. Harvard University researchers have found that, in both laboratory and mouse studies, delta-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) cuts tumor growth in half in common lung cancer while impeding the cancer’s ability to spread. The compound “seems to have a suppressive effect on certain lines of cancer cells,” explained Dr. Len Horovitz, a pulmonary specialist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City. According to the researchers, THC fights lung cancer by curbing epidermal growth factor (EGF), a molecule that promotes the growth and spread of particularly aggressive non-small cell lung cancers. “It seems to go to (EGF) receptor sites on cells and inhibit growth,” said Horovitz, who was not involved in the study. The findings are preliminary, however, and other outside experts urged caution. “It’s an interesting laboratory study (but) you have to have enough additional animal studies to make sure the effect is reproducible and to make sure that there are no overt toxic effects,” said Dr. Norman Edelman, chief medical officer of the American Lung Association. “It’s a little more than tantalizing because it’s a compound that we know has been in humans and has not caused major problems.” The findings were to be presented this week at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) in Los Angeles. Lung cancer is the number one cancer killer in the world. Lung tumors that over-produce the EGF receptor tend to be extra-aggressive and don’t respond well to chemotherapy. THC is the main active ingredient of Cannabis sativa –marijuana. It has been shown to inhibit tumor growth in cancer, but specific information on its action against lung cancer has so far been limited. In the new study, the researchers first showed that two different lung cancer lines, as well as samples from patient lung tumors, produced the cannabinoid receptors CB1 and CB2. Endocannabinoids — cannabinoids produced naturally in the body — are thought to have an effect on pain, anxiety and inflammation when they bind to cannabinoid receptors. Next, the researchers injected standard doses of THC into mice implanted with human lung cancer cells. After three weeks of treatment, tumors shrank by about 50 percent in animals treated with THC, compared to those in an untreated control group, the researchers reported. The findings may shed light on a question that has been puzzling Horovitz: Why hasn’t there been a spike in lung cancer in the generation that smoked a lot of marijuana in the 1960s. “I find it fascinating, wondering if the reasons we’re not seeing this spike is that THC inhibits lung cancer cells,” he said. “It would be very ironic, although you certainly wouldn’t tell somebody who smoked cigarettes to add marijuana.” A second set of findings presented at AACR suggested that a viral-based gene therapy could target both primary and distant tumors, while ignoring healthy cells. When injected into 15 mice with prostate cancer, this “smart bomb” therapy eliminated all signs of cancer — effectively curing the rodents. Researchers at Columbia University, in New York City, said the therapy also worked in animals with breast cancer and melanomas. And in a third hopeful trial reported at the meeting, German researchers at University Children’s Hospital, in Ulm, said they’ve used measles viruses to treat brain tumors. In mouse experiments, the virus attached to the tumor from the inside out, the team said. (HealthDay News) __________________ ominous adj. Menacing; threatening. Of or being an omen, especially an evil one.