Aaron, The "Pot smoking, sinner."

[Outcast]

So much to say on this topic, lol. A lot of it has already been said, but I'll make just a few points. Our bodies have evolved with cannabinoid receptors all over. We have them in the brain, our lymph system, our digestive system, our reproductive system and so on and so forth. Cannabis is not just used to get "high" if you will. And THC is far from the only useful cannabinoid released when cannabis is ingested. There are many many others that have many many useful purposes that have been studied extensively for years now. Although most of this research is taking place outside the US due to Federal Drug scheduling. Cannabis is a schedule 1 narcotic, so according to the federal government it has no medical benefit/purpose whatsoever. Cocaine isn't even a schedule 1, nor is morphine, they are both schedule 2 which is the same schedule that drugs like Adderall (yes the same drug we give to children for ADD). This to me is beyond asinine, but that's just my opinion. I'm glad to see the discourse shifting away from legislating morality to actually discussing this subject like adults. Hopefully one day we will realize that cannabis prohibition has failed, just like alcohol prohibition did.

I brought up the whole Nylon vs Hemp stuff that went on back when Cannabis was outlawed, but no one on face book wanted to listen. They all just called me names... LOL.. Though, face book is the devil.

 

[ch1ck3n_b0k]

I brought up the whole Nylon vs Hemp stuff that went on back when Cannabis was outlawed, but no one on face book wanted to listen. They all just called me names... LOL.. Though, face book is the devil.

Lol, if FB isn't the devil they are close personal friends at the very least. I agree with you, peoples perceptions need to be changed, but you can't change someones mind when they aren't even willing to look at the information, or the research that has been done. There are cannabinoid profiles that show anti-viral, anti-bacterial, and even neuro-protective properties. Hell our own government holds a patent on the neuro-protective cannabinoid profile. Yet they still classify the substance as having no medical purpose whatsoever. So hypocritical, much like many religions/religious persons. I'm so tired of do as I say not as I do. Or you're going to hell because you don't believe how I believe, and I grew up going to church every Wednesday and Sunday.

 

[ch1ck3n_b0k]

There is even research being done that shows cannabis could be the cure for things like MRSA. But no, pot is teh debil...

 

[Tavia]

....
I also agree that Churches should not be a political ground, but history has shown us that to be nearly impossible...

Many so called Christian churches could definitely stand to ponder this scripture a bit more deeply. John 17:16.
However, I think most churches could stand to actually read the Bible more, all of it, since most of what they teach isn't in there.

 

[kathylove]

" Originally Posted by VickyChaiTea View Post
I, personally, would like to see cigarettes AND alcohol banned, with the medicinal use of marijuana legalized but recreational kept illegal. I don't like harmful substances, substances that people can kill themselves with if used recreationally, made legal. It just doesn't make any sense. I am a firm believer in the saying "Sometimes people have to be saved from themselves." Which is very slippery territory, I know.

Originally Posted by VickyChaiTea View Post
I also have to disagree with you and say that the government does not control us too much. I haven't heard of any laws that are unreasonable to me. Most of the time, I don't think they're harsh enough!"



WOW! Those are some VERY scary thoughts to me - where to begin??!!

(NOTE - all of the "you" and "your" statements are not directed only at VickyChaiTea, but to any reader who wants to think about or discuss the topic).

I am not very religious, and I have no interest in marijuana or other recreational drugs. BUT - I believe in protecting CHILDREN from themselves, and allowing ADULTS to benefit - or suffer - from the consequences of their own free choice. True, there is some muddy water. For example, what is the proper age to be considered a complete adult - 18? 21? or some other number? I am willing to negotiate the actual age. But at SOME point, citizens should be responsible to make adult choices and live with the results.

Another example - one might overdose on a drug without having insurance, and cause taxpayers to bear the financial burden. BUT - we ALREADY have lots of similar examples - no way around it. People who smoke, drink, overeat, drive carelessly - all can cause a financial burden to taxpayers in a similar way. Humans are imperfect and will sometimes make poor choices no matter how much you try to restrict or encourage whatever you consider to be the "right" choices. To what length should "those in charge" (whoever they are) go to assure adults make the correct choices? Maybe Dunkin' Donuts, McDonald's, and Burger King should all be classified with drugs, and put out of business? They cause harm to health, too. Heck, peanuts cause more deaths than pythons - we don't need peanuts THAT badly - put them out of business, too.

There is a long line of possible "problem" choices. Regulating them can SEEM to range from very reasonable to absurd. But exactly WHERE on that line, do YOU draw YOUR line? Wherever your line is drawn, I guarantee that many on this forum, and everywhere else, will draw it in a different place than you do. And therein lies the problem.

And how do we determine which choices a free, adult, citizen should be allowed to make? Which of our fine, upstanding, Congress Critters (or other politicians) do you feel is smarter, more honest, and generally all around "better" than you are, to make those choices for you? Take a look at the personal records of those individuals on matters ranging from unpaid taxes and parking tickets to corruption and sex scandals before you decide which hands you want to put your life choices in, rather than relying on your own judgment. I much prefer my own judgment, ESPECIALLY since I am the one who will reap the benefits or suffer the consequences of my choices.

I actually have another reason in addition to individual freedom that I really, really, wanted to see the marijuana proposal pass in California. That is simply because the drug war isn't working any better than the Prohibition worked for alcohol. Just like Prohibition created more profitable and more violent criminal opportunities, so does our current drug war. I would imagine that the people most against legalization of any drugs would be drug dealers. Their huge profits would go down the drain very quickly if any drugs were legalized! I have heard of a few cigarette smugglers trying to avoid taxes. But how often do you really hear of underground, illegal deals with alcohol and cigarettes? And how much money does government get in taxes from their sale? Now compare that potential marijuana tax money to the jillions that we pay for the drug war, and to incarcerate those involved in it. I am a pragmatist - the drug war just doesn't work. Google Prohibition - you might see some similarities.

At the risk of this post becoming a book, I still have to make mention of the whole marriage / civil union idea. Why should the government be involved in "marriage" ? Because of tradition and religion, the word is very emotionally charged. Why not leave the term "marriage" to the church, and let the government certify only civil unions, with all of the benefits and responsibilities of the contract, no matter which 2 people it binds together? Many people who believe in equal treatment for gays don't want to use the word "marriage" because of the religious meaning it has for them. So let them have that word! Each church can decide for itself whom it wants to honor with the word. If you want that blessing in addition to your LEGAL contract, then you can find the church that conforms to YOUR needs, whatever they are. The government should not be involved in such things - they need to stick to a more bland, but equal, "civil union", IMHO, of course!!

Whew - rant over!!

 

[Leew]

As always Kathy, I worship the ground you walk on. You must be two people, one person couldn't be that smart.

 

[Tavia]

@Kathy
As well written & thought out as ever. Don't always totally agree with you on everything, but you are always worth reading!

 

[Outcast]

I have to go to class now, but I cannot wait to read Kathy's thoughts. I love how well thought out every one of them tends to be.

 

[ch1ck3n_b0k]

I actually have another reason in addition to individual freedom that I really, really, wanted to see the marijuana proposal pass in California. That is simply because the drug war isn't working any better than the Prohibition worked for alcohol. Just like Prohibition created more profitable and more violent criminal opportunities, so does our current drug war. I would imagine that the people most against legalization of any drugs would be drug dealers. Their huge profits would go down the drain very quickly if any drugs were legalized! I have heard of a few cigarette smugglers trying to avoid taxes. But how often do you really hear of underground, illegal deals with alcohol and cigarettes? And how much money does government get in taxes from their sale? Now compare that potential marijuana tax money to the jillions that we pay for the drug war, and to incarcerate those involved in it. I am a pragmatist - the drug war just doesn't work. Google Prohibition - you might see some similarities.

Kathy you make some great points about prohibition, and i agree with all of them. There is however a flip side to the coin of who wants to see drugs remain illegal. Law enforcement for one, they get reap the benefit of seizures of money and property when a drug bust is made. The laws differ from state to state, but most of them all have asset forfeiture laws in place. There is also a huge private prison industry in the US, not to mention "rehab" facilities, and so on and so forth. Here in Ohio one of our very own Senators brothers has millions invested in the private prison industry, and it has also been found that there are judges, lawyers, etc that all have a vested interest in seeing prohibition continue. Whether it be just Cannabis prohibition or any other recreational drug for that matter. There is to much money to be made on both sides of the "law" for any of them to actually want to see an end to the drug war. It sad really, but we're a greedy species, lol.

 

[Leew]

I have a hard time justifying the existence of any law because certain groups are profiting from it. Weather you are for or against legalizing marijuana, I don't think the profit angle is a good reason. The drug lords are making a great deal of money on marijuana, should we support them as well? I would that alone would be good reason to legalize dope. Put it in the grocery store and let the grocer make money instead of the drug cartels.

 

[vetusvates]

Kathy you make some great points about prohibition, and i agree with all of them. There is however a flip side to the coin of who wants to see drugs remain illegal. Law enforcement for one, they get reap the benefit of seizures of money and property when a drug bust is made. The laws differ from state to state, but most of them all have asset forfeiture laws in place. There is also a huge private prison industry in the US, not to mention "rehab" facilities, and so on and so forth. Here in Ohio one of our very own Senators brothers has millions invested in the private prison industry, and it has also been found that there are judges, lawyers, etc that all have a vested interest in seeing prohibition continue. Whether it be just Cannabis prohibition or any other recreational drug for that matter. There is to much money to be made on both sides of the "law" for any of them to actually want to see an end to the drug war. It sad really, but we're a greedy species, lol.

Some good points ch1ck3n_b0k.
And I am not going to pick apart details, but will simply tell you my point of view.

I am a substance abuse counselor, with two other unrelated degrees. I don't believe morality can or should be legislated, for a litany of reasons.
However, legalizing marijuana is not going to put a dent into my livelihood. Why?...1) a disproportionately low number of people seek professional help for marijuana use/abuse/life problems (i.e., marijuana as a drug-of-choice alone and by itself);...and 2) I run a 60-bed (post-rehab) halfway house, and on my very desk at this moment in addition to applications via the conventional route that are in my In-box,...I have another waiting list, that is at this very moment 416 people long.
I could only wish "something" were legalized and/or people no longer needed help/fixing, and I coud say "no room at the inn" fewer times a day.
My livelihood is not going to be effected significantly either way, as my service is provided as help to people to which alcohol and/or drug abuse has crippled them from living a normal life.
There exists a demographic...whose lives are just not crippled. And I can't help but think that laws relieving us from pursuing that particular group...wouldn't be a boon to police as well. Then they could focus all of their resources on "real" crimes.

Now, this having been said, I deal with a fed/state funded not-for-profit company, so I work with and for the indigent,...or 'quasi-indigent'.
But, I do have colleagues who work in the private sector. More toward white collar populations, who have insurance of some type and degree,...but marijuana treatment, alone as a DOC by itself, is an even smaller issue in that particular demographic than it is in mine.

 

[ch1ck3n_b0k]

I have a hard time justifying the existence of any law because certain groups are profiting from it. Weather you are for or against legalizing marijuana, I don't think the profit angle is a good reason. The drug lords are making a great deal of money on marijuana, should we support them as well? I would that alone would be good reason to legalize dope. Put it in the grocery store and let the grocer make money instead of the drug cartels.

I agree with you to a point, save the amount of money "drug lords" make off of cannabis. If you just look at the Mexican cartels, marijuana makes up barely 3% of their profits. Now 3% of their profits is still around $180 million, and that's just for California, but still, it's minimal compared to their real cash crops of cocaine and heroin, not to mention human trafficking and guns, etc etc. They would just move on to something else to make up for that 3%. However look at the inverse, and see how much money law enforcement makes from seizures, etc. It's a much larger percentage to them.

 

[Leew]

So do you think it is ok to put people in jail since the police are making so much money off of dope?

 

[Tavia]

I think that is pretty messed up too. My grandma studies with women in the local women's prison. They don't ask them what they are in for but the women can tell them if they want to. And a distressing number of them say they are in there because they happened to be in close proximity to their boyfriends when the boyfriend got busted for drugs & they jail them basically as an accessory. Most of the women claim that they didn't even know about the drugs.

 

[ch1ck3n_b0k]

So do you think it is ok to put people in jail since the police are making so much money off of dope?

I don't know if that was directed towards me or not, but if so, hell no I don't think it's ok to put non-violent drug offenders in jail. I have seen firsthand what a privately run jail is like, yes I was a guest, and yes it was because I was caught with a small amount of marijuana. I now have a misdemeanor record in the state of Indiana, and if I'm ever caught in Indiana with any amount of marijuana ever again it's an instant felony... What a joke.

 

[VickyChaiTea]

Hey VickyChaiTea,

I understand what you are saying because both my parents died from cigarette smoke. However, that was their chose. We live in a country were we should be able to do what ever we want so long as it does not hurt someone else.

I hate that stupid seat beat law and I do not wear one and I got the tickets to prove it. I hate that the Federal Government infringes on my rights to do as I please because if I chose to die in my stupid old truck that to me should be my right. I do understand your thought on what it would mean to my family but they all know my thought on it and would try to understand.

I figure by now you get what I would say about alcohol, but I would like to say one thing. I understand you do not like the taste of alcoholic drinks in your food but what about the people like me how do. I will admit that almost all the alcohol has evaporated out of the food by the time that I eat it but the flavor of the wine, booze, or beer is still there and I enjoy that flavor.

If any of this comes off as uncivil I am sorry. I did not mean it to.

Love the Fatman

I, personally, enjoy the taste of some alcoholic beverages. But I'd still like to see it banned.

No, pot is not the worst drug out there. But that doesn't mean it's not harmful when used recreationally.

Nanci, Bacon and sugar, when eaten in moderation, are not unhealthy. Sugar is actually something you need in your diet. Obviously, the same could be said about pot. Which is why I am against the recreational use of it, meaning smoking every day or so or more frequently. Honestly I'm against it being used at ALL unless it's used as a medicine, but that's just me. And I would LOVE to know some health benefits from alcohol that CANNOT be obtained by another food or drink that is no deadly. Really. I'm sorry, but the whole "Red wine is good for you!" Thing is pretty much a total lie. Yeah, it has anti-oxidants... but so does grape juice. And when you drink grape juice every night you won't get drunk/possibly hurt yourself/others or quite possibly become a "juice-a-holic" lol.

Starsevol, I did not know about that law but I can understand why it's around. It's unfortunate that you would be fined so much for letting someone use the restroom, though. That definitely seems like overkill. And for that list of laws someone posted that were crazy, I'm not totally sure all of them are true and even if they are, they are never enforced. I mean really.

KATHYLOVE! Aaaaah "Why not leave the term "marriage" to the church, and let the government certify only civil unions, with all of the benefits and responsibilities of the contract, no matter which 2 people it binds together?" THIS! A thousand times this!

And I am basing what laws I think should be passed on my own judgment and beliefs, which I think would benefit everyone in the long term. Like I said it's a very slippery slope. I think we have to balance laws that protect people's freedoms, and laws that protect people from themselves.

I think we have to look at it this way and answer these key questions. Is it dangerous? If so, to what extent? Is it necessary?

1st question. Is it dangerous? There are conflicting studies, but evidence does suggest that prolonged use (when smoked) it is.

2nd question. How dangerous is it? Prolonged use (smoked) can cause lung and throat cancer, memory loss, paranoia, hallucinations, lethargy, slow motor skills, and lack of judgment. It is, in one form or another, addictive.

3rd question Is it necessary? Recreationally, no. Medicinally, yes. It even has some uses as a fabric (hemp).

So it's dangerous AND unnecessary. If it wasn't dangerous, then that would be fine. But it is.If it was dangerous and NECESSARY, then I could understand. But it's not.

As for the whole prohibition thing... that was done in quite possibly the worst way possible. It was cold turkey, and they villanized alcohol. Made it out to be evil. Which is just dumb, really. I'd like to see the slow reduction of alcohol/cigs in our society along with rehabilitation centers set up for addicts to attend to help them get through the process of it being made illegal. The whole process should take no less than 10 years. Yeah, it would cost a lot of money, but it would also open up jobs. (working at rehab centers)

 

[starsevol]

I, personally, enjoy the taste of some alcoholic beverages. But I'd still like to see it banned.

No, pot is not the worst drug out there. But that doesn't mean it's not harmful when used recreationally.

Nanci, Bacon and sugar, when eaten in moderation, are not unhealthy. Sugar is actually something you need in your diet. Obviously, the same could be said about pot. Which is why I am against the recreational use of it, meaning smoking every day or so or more frequently. Honestly I'm against it being used at ALL unless it's used as a medicine, but that's just me. And I would LOVE to know some health benefits from alcohol that CANNOT be obtained by another food or drink that is no deadly. Really. I'm sorry, but the whole "Red wine is good for you!" Thing is pretty much a total lie. Yeah, it has anti-oxidants... but so does grape juice. And when you drink grape juice every night you won't get drunk/possibly hurt yourself/others or quite possibly become a "juice-a-holic" lol.

Starsevol, I did not know about that law but I can understand why it's around. It's unfortunate that you would be fined so much for letting someone use the restroom, though. That definitely seems like overkill. And for that list of laws someone posted that were crazy, I'm not totally sure all of them are true and even if they are, they are never enforced. I mean really.

KATHYLOVE! Aaaaah "Why not leave the term "marriage" to the church, and let the government certify only civil unions, with all of the benefits and responsibilities of the contract, no matter which 2 people it binds together?" THIS! A thousand times this!

And I am basing what laws I think should be passed on my own judgment and beliefs, which I think would benefit everyone in the long term. Like I said it's a very slippery slope. I think we have to balance laws that protect people's freedoms, and laws that protect people from themselves.

I think we have to look at it this way and answer these key questions. Is it dangerous? If so, to what extent? Is it necessary?

1st question. Is it dangerous? There are conflicting studies, but evidence does suggest that prolonged use (when smoked) it is.

2nd question. How dangerous is it? Prolonged use (smoked) can cause lung and throat cancer, memory loss, paranoia, hallucinations, lethargy, slow motor skills, and lack of judgment. It is, in one form or another, addictive.

3rd question Is it necessary? Recreationally, no. Medicinally, yes. It even has some uses as a fabric (hemp).

So it's dangerous AND unnecessary. If it wasn't dangerous, then that would be fine. But it is.If it was dangerous and NECESSARY, then I could understand. But it's not.

As for the whole prohibition thing... that was done in quite possibly the worst way possible. It was cold turkey, and they villanized alcohol. Made it out to be evil. Which is just dumb, really. I'd like to see the slow reduction of alcohol/cigs in our society along with rehabilitation centers set up for addicts to attend to help them get through the process of it being made illegal. The whole process should take no less than 10 years. Yeah, it would cost a lot of money, but it would also open up jobs. (working at rehab centers)

Vicky, what you are not getting is that just because YOU think that something is dangerous or wrong or whatever is NO REASON to ban it or outlaw it!! If you are an adult and capable of making your own decisions, then the fact that government wants to control what you can and cannot do is abhorrant. It matters not what YOU or anybody else thinks, if it is dangerous and I want to do it, and my doing it does not hurt anyone else or step on anybody elses rights, then I should be allowed to do it. If I want to get my anti oxidents from red wine instead of grape juice, that should be my right. Whether you think it is for the public good or not, is not YOUR or GOVERNMENT'S decision to make!! You say you want laws that protect people's freedoms, but when you tell them that they must get their anti oxidents the way that you see fit and not the way they want, then you are taking away THEIR freedom!! You really can't see that?

Do you know that in West Warwick it is against the law to own a pet rabbit? Why is that even on the books if my owning a pet rabbit hurts no one and infringes on no one else's rights?

And about those "silly " laws that you say are never enforced...well, they are laws and on the books, and CAN be enforced at any time!! Why are they on the books at all?

The books are full of stupid and unjust laws, and more are written every day. I don't want government or anyone else "looking out for me". I am not a child and government is not my parent, thankyouverymuch!!

 

[oneirogenesis]

Many so called Christian churches could definitely stand to ponder this scripture a bit more deeply. John 17:16.
However, I think most churches could stand to actually read the Bible more, all of it, since most of what they teach isn't in there.

I have to spread some more reputation around before giving it to Tavia again.

Well said.

 

[ZoologyGirl]

Nanci, Bacon and sugar, when eaten in moderation, are not unhealthy. Sugar is actually something you need in your diet.

Actually, if I understand correctly everything I've read, we don't need to consume pure sugar (cane sugar, high fructose corn syrup, etc...). Our body does need glucose, but it makes that from foods we eat. So technically, they could ban refined sugar, and just tell everyone to eat more fruits and veggies.

I don't think alcohol is something that will do much damage in moderation. Not any more than bacon or sugar at least. I mean, I might have what amounts to 12 drinks a year. I'm not a big drinker, but I do enjoy some on occasion. I can understand a law on drinking and driving...but I don't think a law banning drinking altogether is necessary. Yes, people will go overboard, but it is like that when it comes to anything. People will go overboard on sugar, I don't think that's a reason to ban it.

Speaking of banning things...what's up with San Francisco banning toys in happy meals? Seriously?

I forgot where I was going with this.

 

[kathylove]

"Starsevol, I did not know about that law but I can understand why it's around. It's unfortunate that you would be fined so much for letting someone use the restroom, though. That definitely seems like overkill. And for that list of laws someone posted that were crazy, I'm not totally sure all of them are true and even if they are, they are never enforced. I mean really."

Something similar was in the news here a number of years ago. As I remember, a restaurant and bar was located a couple of stories high, in the Ft. Myers downtown area. The government told them they would have to install an elevator to assure handicap access. Unfortunately, the business found that it would cost an enormous amount of money to install it, and they couldn't afford it. They went back and forth for quite a while, trying to find any solution that they could afford, but the government was adamant about the need for the expensive elevator.

So the business shut their doors and their employees became jobless. Good intentions can often cause bad results when government is given too much power over us.

"I have a hard time justifying the existence of any law because certain groups are profiting from it. Weather you are for or against legalizing marijuana, I don't think the profit angle is a good reason."

I (and probably most of the readers here) would TOTALLY agree with you. But, unfortunately for this country, we CS members do not make the rules, lol! But when a lot of people with power and / or money have a vested interest in the status quo, you can believe that they will invent LOTS of very reasonable sounding arguments to support their needs. And their reasons will most likely have to appeal more to the voters' emotions than to logic, since the logic will probably be lacking. But they know how to manipulate emotions, and have a great motivation (and the money and power) to do so. Hmmm...sounds kind of familiar...