Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Debra J. Saunders :: Townhall.com Columnist
Obama Should Act on Medical Marijuana
by Debra J. Saunders
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


During the campaign, President Obama said he would stop federal raids of medical marijuana clubs in states (like California) that had passed medical marijuana laws. Yet federal agents raided medical marijuana dispensaries, including the Patient to Patient Collective in South Lake Tahoe, two days after his inauguration. The Tahoe Daily Tribune reported that agents seized between 5 and 10 pounds of marijuana.

The Marijuana Policy Project, which wants to legalize marijuana, accused the Drug Enforcement Administration of "defying" Obama's position on medical marijuana and "called on the president to immediately replace Bush administration holdovers at DEA.

"During the presidential campaign," the press release continued, "Obama repeatedly promised not to waste federal resources interfering in states with laws protecting medical-marijuana patients from arrest, and he told Southern Oregon's Mail Tribune editorial board on March 28, 2008, 'I'm not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue.'"

So will Obama keep his word by directing federal drug agents to concentrate on going after drug kingpins instead of sick people?

I understand that Obama has bigger issues on his plate, which probably is why the White House has yet to respond to my Tuesday query. That said, this issue is vital to many Californians with health problems.

Item No. 2 for the Marijuana Policy Project: In the closing week of Bushdom, the Drug Enforcement Administration rejected Administrative Law Judge Ellen Bittner's decision to allow the University of Massachusetts to grow marijuana for medical research. Until now, only the University of Mississippi has filled that role -- and not well, according to critics.

Again, the Bush-DEA's action undermined the position of the incoming administration. Obama also told the Mail Tribune, "I think the basic concept of using medical marijuana for the same purposes and with the same controls as other drugs prescribed by doctors -- I think that's entirely appropriate."

Obama is right. Some doctors believe that marijuana has properties -- it can ease pain, is an anti-inflammatory and stimulates appetite -- beneficial to patients with AIDS, glaucoma and muscular dystrophy and other chronic diseases, as well as cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.

Aaron Houston, the Marijuana Policy Project's director of government relations, said U. Mass. agronomy professor Lyle E. Craker has until Friday to file a motion to reconsider the DEA's last-minute gambit, which Craker plans to do. "We want (White House Chief of Staff) Rahm Emanuel and the White House to do the same thing that the White House did for the other actions" -- that is, direct federal agencies to hold off on rule-making on medical marijuana until the Obama folks take a look at it.

Judge Bittner was highly skeptical of some of the claims made by marijuana advocates who complained about the quality of medical marijuana supplied by the University of Mississippi. But Bittner also found that the National Institute of Drug Abuse has failed to make marijuana "available to all researchers who have a legitimate need for it in their research."

You could understand the institute's opposition to these projects if marijuana were a rare and lethal drug. But it is impossible to take a lethal dose, and marijuana is so prevalent that a 2005 National Drug Threat Assessment reported that, in some areas, marijuana seems "easier for youths to obtain than alcohol or cigarettes."

To the extent that federal officials have been slow to approve medical marijuana research, you have to believe that their biggest fear was that the research would be successful. That's right, it might help people in pain.

Obama has made much of his commitment to "restore science to its rightful place." Here's his chance.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Debra Saunders' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Legalize marijuana now!
Keep it green ya'all!

Peace

this would be very good
Having worked in the criminal justice system for 3 years, I never met anyone who became violent after they smoked too much pot. I may have seen over 1000 cases where drunk people were violent and abusive. Unfortunately, the Republicans (mostly) in the past protected big pharma who put out great drugs like vioxx -- which would kill people. Marijuana is very bad for big companies since you cannot patent it -- so you cannot make any real money on it. Of course, the old adage is that anyone who smoked pot became a crack adict. Of course, Republicans would defend smoking cigarettes (which are not at all adictive). In my experience, there was more of a connection between heavy drug use and tobacco addiction than recreational marijuana use.

Think of all the money we'd save
by abolishing the DEA.

A reasonable article

Yes, it would certainly be humane to allow use of this drug for medical purposes. There really hasn't been much pharmaceutical research regarding drugs that can help very ill people - we need better pain medications, anti-fatigue medications, and whatever will help.

There's been decades of research (psychological) on the effects of marijuana. Although there have always been claims that pot is dangerous, there still is no good evidence that it impairs short term memory, motor control, attention, self control, and so on.

Also regarding marijuana, a number of states have ridiculous sentences for possession of a small amount this drug. Mandatory sentencing and "three strikes" types of laws have led to an explosion in our prison populations (which are far and away the highest in the civilized world).

Marijuana is very dangerous

But if Liberals want to use it thats fine with me.

The Other Side of the story
Its interesting to see people want to legalize something for their own reasons and opinions when there is NO CREDIBILITY. Marijuana killed my wife from overuse she died terribly from COPD and the fact that one marijuana cigarette is the equivalent to over 2 packs of tobacco
IN ADDITION there are over 500 chemicals to be inside one cigarette and of those only 13 have been identified one of course is TLC...so I see so many have NO KNOWLEDGE of the drug nor do they publish the negatives of the product. If someone is dying certified then that is another story but to legalize a drug like marijuana is to kill and maim more innocent people. Marijuana is a gateway drug to heroin meaning those that use heroin have smoked pot first and it can kill as in my case a young kid of 22 who smoked pot then went to crack and cocaine and then shot a 100% pure shot and died...so dont blow smoke at people when there is the truth and knowledge of TOO MUCH NEGATIVITY...
US Army retired hard

Let keep to the subject shall we....
John....its awful about your wife! My sympathy goes to you!

BUT I do wish people would READ the article before starting to rant on about legalising marijuana, acceleration up the drug ladder and of course the hoary old "liberals" diatribes.

This is about marijuana for MEDICAL usage only, to ease pain. Which it has been proved to do.

If someone has cancer, and is in unfathomable pain, do you think they are really going to become herion addicts? Of course not, they just want it to help ease pain we can only imagine.

So keep it in perspective people. Marijuana for pain relief is something that us caring people should help through and support.

If you are going to throw in all sorts of curveballs that are irrelevent people who need pain relief arent going to get it, and you will be selfish and self serving!

John
Sounds like you think the old "Reefer Madness" movie gave an accurate depiction of how marijuana affects people. I am sorry to hear about the loss of your wife but that is not an excuse for you to spread false information.

"the fact that one marijuana cigarette is the equivalent to over 2 packs of tobacco"

In what way? If you mean in the amount of "tar" a cigarette or joint of equal size produce, there is no way to really quantify that. Not everyone "smokes" the same way. Some inhale deeper than others and there are many other variables. What studies have shown however is that unprocessed tobacco use has far lower rates of cancer. It is all the added chemicals the cigarette companies put in cigarettes (in order to make them more addictive) that is really dangerous.

I don't mean to sound rude or cold hearted but you need to realize marijuana did not kill your wife. COPD did. You have absolutely no way of knowing if your wife would or would not have contracted COPD if she had never smoked marijuana. I have had several family members die of various cancers (throat, lung, lymph system) and none of them had ever smoked anything. Not cigars nor cigarettes nor marijuana.




John cont'd
"IN ADDITION there are over 500 chemicals to be inside one cigarette and of those only 13 have been identified one of course is TLC...so I see so many have NO KNOWLEDGE of the drug nor do they publish the negatives of the product."

How can they know the number of different chemicals in a "cigarette" (I assume you mean joint) but be unable to indentify them? By "TLC" did you mean THC? Sounds like your in the "no knowlege" group to me. They never publish the "negatives" about marijuana? Are you kidding me? For over 100 years almost nothing but negative things have been said about marijuana. And most of those negatives are outright lies.


"Marijuana is a gateway drug to heroin meaning those that use heroin have smoked pot first..."

And even more heroin users smoked cigarettes and drank alcohol first. And every one of them (heroin users) drank water (and lots of it, for years!) before the first time they used heroin. WE MUST OUTLAW WATER. EVERY CRIMINAL AND DRUG ADDICT WAS USING WATER FIRST! Seriously though. If people did not have to deal with "drug dealers" to get their marijuana (and did not go to bars to drink), they would probably never be exposed to heroin, crack or coke.

The stated goal is never the real goal
This never was about drug use, it was originaly about a highly sought after natural fiber, hemp, competing with man-made fibers from Dupont. Dupont got their buddy W.R. Hurst to use his bully pulpit in the newpaper industry to turn it into a drug issue with racial overtones. He is the one to start using the nomanclature "Marijuana" a hispanic word for hemp.
These days the lobby for big pharma and the alchohol and tobbacco undustries know legalisation of pot would stop dead the sales of almost all anti-depressents, most cheap beer and probably half the tobacco.
They will do absolutely anything before they let that happen.
So forget legalisation, it's simply another path to wealth for the lefts political elites. They will take the bribes from big pharma/alchohol/tobacco and the laws will stay the same.

destabilization of Mexico
Another facet of this subject that crossed my mind last week after hearing about Mexico's expected governmental failure and our military plans to (basically) invade Mexico (to protect them in case they are "attacked" of course)Is that by keeping the pot laws in place and keeping the border open, they have affectingly guaranteed the destruction of the Mexican government, paving the way for an American military presence down there. Can you see the path to a "North American Union" coming from this?
The money to be made from developing the Baja area alone is worth our national debt.

"Medical" Marijuana
The entire idea of medical marijuana is specious on it's face. THC (the active ingredient in marijuana) is available as a pharmaceutical, but no one wants to use it. Oops, no high. There is no credible evidence that marijuana has any medicinal properties whatever. Is giving a known carcinogen to a cancer patient really a good idea?
If I had a terminal illness, I'll confess that I might want to spend my last days stoned. I'd like to think that I'd score my own dope.

BTW, I'm in favor of industrial hemp.
There's no real excuse for not allowing hemp production.

I see no reason to...
...keep marijuana illegal.

It's hard for anybody to actually make the case that it's more harmful than many of the pharmaceutical grade drugs available. Long term effects are certainly no worse than alcohol or tobacco use.

So it seems as if the reasons are purely political, rather than designed for the good of the people. Which suggests that the government is overstepping it's boundaries, and I was under the impression that conservatives were against this.

Alcohol is Far Worse than Marijuana
I don't smoke marijuana and haven't in about twenty years. I don't have a need for it, don't like and won't begin using it again. That being said; it is sooo plainly evident that legal alcohol use is ad-infinitum more destructive to our society than marijuana use. No-one has ever once read a headline about a guy who was stoned on "marijuana cigarettes", and rammed his car into a minivan...killing everyone inside...including three girl scouts, a nun, and the president of the local chapter of the Masons.

This is in the paper every single day as regards drinking. the continued war against marijuana is one of the reasons I am leaving the republican party to vote libertarian. It is a totally useless venture that destroys lives, takes up unneccesary money, and is in general totally useless.

For Buckaroo @ 08:24
You gave a start-point there for a history of WHY charas was illegalised.

It was due to much lobbying by Bill Hearst, who was supplied with wood-pulp newsprint, and also owned shares of companies (such as Weyerhauser, GA-Pac, ...) which produced wood-pulp paper. So he lobbied to remove the competing product (hemp paper) from the market by illegalising its source-crop.

Take the demands $
The war on drugs is too expensive and is a big burden on the tax payers.

Illegal drugs corrupt the many governments and right now have caused at least 4,000 deaths on the Mexican border so far with countless deaths in the U.S.A.

I’m going to suggest that the possession of drugs for personal use is treated like drunk driving with a PROGRESSIVE FINE.

TAKE THE DEMANDS MONEY STOP THE SUPPLY OF DRUGS.

This will take the lawyers out of the equation and prison too so that will cut the cost of the war on drugs.

People that do illegal drug are walking around with a huge hole in their pockets.

Communities with drug users are being bled dry of money.

The crime and vice that goes with illegal drug use is causing economic and academic drought making government programs a complete waste of tax payers money.

rivenburg - you almost got it right
If you also add the fact that *hemp* grows naturally all over North America. THAT is the reason it had to be outlawed - because it could NEVER be governed.

Walk along any railroad tracks and find the stuff - it grows literally, like a weed (hence it's other nickname.)

How do you *tax* what people can grow anywhere?

Can we *tax* tomatoes? Can we *limit* how many tomato plants people can grow?

THAT is why it is illegal. NO OTHER REASON!

Developing Baja
>The money to be made from developing the Baja area alone is worth our national debt.<

Just what we need, development of another western desert with no water resources. The Colorado River is already stressed beyond its natural abilities providing Southern California, Las Vegas and parts of Colorado, Utah and Arizona their primary source of potable and non-potable water.

It's ridiculous to think Baja could sustain heavy development without further deterioration of the Colorado.


As long as there is a campaign ...
... against cigarette smoking, marijuana will remain illegal. Someone better talk to all those libs trying to get rich off the tobacco companies before even thinking about extolling the virtues of marijuana.

It's not political. It's all about money. The chemicals in marijuana that provide all these "medical benefits" can be isolated and easily made into pill form and distributed through legitimate pharmacy prescriptions. But nobody seems to want to go that route. Instead, as with cancer patients for example, they wish the patient to inhale chemicals (see the reference to tobacco above) that are most likely more carcinogenic than that which caused the cancer in the first place.

If it was really about medicine, it would be a campaign for doctors to write prescriptions to be filled at a legitimate drug store, not some half-baked "club" growing it on their own.

Federalism and drug laws

I've never been in favor of making psychotropic drugs illegal just because they make people feel good. I think it is enough to make certain antisocial behaviors illegal; driving while impaired, fighting, stealing, and whatever other behavior might ensue from partaking of an intoxicant or the pursuit of money to get one.

Pot is not likely to cause a lot of activity, with most people it causes the exact opposite - lethargy and that is hardly a prescription for rioting in the streets.

I'm 54 years old and I've seen the effects of drugs on people over the years and while it's sad that some of them are in a downward spiral, that is their own fault.

Conservatives are against big, centralized government and for federalism - letting states make choices on how to handle various situations. Doing so means that if states are doing something 50 different ways we can look and see which is working out best and try that model elsewhere.

It is only logical to allow states to try different approaches to marijuana. Having Congress mandate one approach for the country and never even consider a different one in different states is antithetical to the bedrock principles of federalism.

I'm not saying psychotropic drug use is good or that it should be encouraged, just that states should have the flexibility to try different approaches.

Robet in CO
Welcome to the party Long live Liberty and the Libertarian Party

84rules - (From what I hear,
I don't REALLY KNOW!):

The effects of the 'pill form' of THC are very small in comparison to that of the 'inhalation' method. Takes longer to achieve a smaller amount of pain-relief.

Works Cited from a term paper i wrote
British Medical Journal. "Cannabis Intoxication and Fatal Road Crashes in France: Population Based Case-Control Study." British Medical Journal. 1 Dec. 2005. 19 June 2007 http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/331/7529/1371

Frood, Arran. "Alcohol Impairs Driving More than Marijuana." New Scientist 20 Mar. 2002.
NewScientist.com. 20 Mar. 2002. 19 June 2007 http://www.newscientist.com/
article.ns?id=dn2063

“Marijuana Research: Marijuana as a Gateway Drug.” Drug Science. 2006. 19 June 2007
http://www.drugscience.org/sfu/sfu_gateway.html

“Marijuana Research: Marijuana’s Dependence Liability Compared to Other Drugs.”
Drug Science. 2006. 19 June 2007 http.drugscience.org/dl/dl_comparison.html

“No Link Between Marijuana Use and Lung Cancer.” Newswise. 16 May 2006. 6 June 2007
http://www.newswise.com/p/articles/view/52052

Safer. “Marijuana Vs. Alcohol.” Safer - Marijuana Vs. Alcohol. 1 Feb. 2007. Safer Alternative for Enjoyable Recreation. 19 June 2007 http://www.saferchoice.org/content/view/24/32/

The real issue
There are compelling arguments on both sides of the legalization/prohibition divide. I'm not fully informed enough to weigh the relative harms of the various drugs, legal or illegal. Nor am I fan of the compulsive marijuana users I've met in my life. There just may be solid justifications for keeping marijuana illegal.

But the real issue is: thirteen states have passed laws making marijuana legal for certain uses. I believe all of laws were passed via voter initiative. The national government's meddling in these state's affairs is unjustifiable in our federal republic.

Dream ON
Libertarian Party will never run this country because drug use requires a large government and lots of tax dollars to fix the damage drug use causes.

More cited works
“NORML Statement on the Cultivation of Industrial Hemp.” National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. 2006. Abstract. 3 June 2007.

http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5447

Parenthetical reference (Norml 1)

“War on Drugs Clock.” DrugSense: Drug Law Reform. 3 June 2007. Abstract. 3 June 2007

http://www.drugsense.org/html/modules.php?name=Wodclock

Parenthetical reference (Clock)

“Kentucky-Norml.” National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. 2006. Abstract.
3 June 2007

http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4539&wtm_view=estim ate

Parenthetical reference (Norml 2)

Pirate Rob
Thank you for your Opinion....lets keep the negativity minimal

Not another executive order request for
Between stimulus checks, and all the executive orders already written how did the dopers get left out. President Obama will makeup for his oversight he willl blame the media.

Welfare State
Before the big government programs people spent their own hard earned money on vice.

Now the taxpayers have to support organized crime, big government and the drug users and their families.

Freedom
Not at my expense.

Keep your drug users off my wallet.

To all who oppose Marijuana
should we prohibit alcohol again. Alcohol use kills more people every year than Marijuana. Drunk drivers killing innocents, alcohol overdose, liver disease, and drowning on ones own vomit, just to name a few.

Free at Last
Maybe you Libertarian drug users could have a giant bake sale or a car wash to support the big government programs.

Not a proper subject for preemption
Personally, I don't think there are very many positive aspects fo Mary J. I think there are a lot of negative consequences and that states that legalize it won't benefit from the legalization. That said, if a state wants to experiment and allow marijuana for medicinal purposes, what business is it of the federal government?

This is exactly the type of police power that the founders expected would be exercised by the states. If Washington wants to allow it, why should senators from NY or OK have anything to say about it? This is not a case where the state's conduct has such a federal impact that the federal government has a right of preemption.

Here's a radical thought, let's go back to federalism and allow states to serve as the laboratories they were meant to be!

Pirate Rob
So you actually think that allowing people to use marijuana would cost more than the amount of money we spend on related law enforcement, imprisonment, and pharmaceuticals that marijuana would replace?

Charles LPKY
Charles you must be about 16 years old skipping school and smoking dope?

Decriminalize all use!
Why? The above posts give plenty examples of how it is less harmful than alcohol or other drugs. This can be further minimized by the way you smoke it.

Now consider what it is doing to border security and the entire country of Mexico. The drug trade exists largely because marijuana is illegal. Decriminalize marijuana and its cultivation and in a matter of months millions, if not billions, of dollars will be taken from the hands of the drug smugglers, never to return. They may try to move to other drugs, but I've known many responsible smokers for 40 years that would never think of trying coke, meth, or heroin. You want to help border security and Mexico, that's how. The open border and smugglers are a much greater threat.

Freedom
I don’t care what you do with your body I just wish you would keep your bodies off my paycheck.

I’m all for freedom but the reality is

drugs use equals big government programs.

Tax Payers
Have you ever seen the Jerry Springer show?

Who do you think is supporting those drug users?

Pirate Rob
How does drug use = big government programs ???

I think it's blatantly clear that drug prohibition = big government programs

Pirate Rob
That's it attack the person not the argument

My background
Born 1971, Grad high school 1989, Marines 89-95, Army 95-97, Infantry in both services, Disabled Veteran, Grad college associates degree in Computer Programming in 08 with 3.94 GPA

Please do not embarrass yourself further, stick to the argument.

Micheal in AL
Spot on Prohibition= Big Govt.

FeargalX - Hm? So is Aspirin.
--
Writes FeargalX:

"Marijuana is very bad for big companies since you cannot patent it -- so you cannot make any real money on it."


A bunch of pharmaceutical chemical entities are off-patent, including Aspirin (Bayer's proprietary name for acetylsalicylic acid, trademarked in 1899).

(( Didja know that "Heroin" is also a Bayer trademark name? They patented it as a product in 1898. ))

The real greed impeding the decriminalizatrion of ditchweed is not in the pharmaceuticals industry, but rather in the "Drug War" industry.

Decriminalize marijuana and a lot of these government-paid thugs will have difficulty justifying their budgets, and might find themselves seeking honest employment.

Remember the raid on the Koresh compound (the Branch Davidians) at Waco?

That was undertaken as a "ZBO" ("Zee Big One") to gain publicity for the BATF at a time when their budget was up for grabs.

Like any other cadre of bureacrats sucking at the public teat, the Drug Warriors have ben using whatever political clout they can exercise to keep these unconstitutional laws from being challenged.

The War on (Some) Drugs is a waste and a crime.

Time to treat it as such.



See http://www.adrugwarcarol.com/ADWC.php and get a bit of historical perspective on the subject.

--

Michael - Absolutely! ILLEGAL DU only!
More government programs for prevention, detection, enforcement, conviction and imprisonment and rehab.

PS - Most people who want to legalize or decriminalize cannabis - do NOT want to do so for other drugs, drugs that are proven harmful and addicting. Cocaine, meth and heroin would STILL be illegal. It would not be a 'gateway drug' in that respect either.

((Maybe he was talking about Medicaid and that govt 'prescription' program?))

Drugs=poverty
Have you ever seen the show cops? Or Gang land?

Most of the destruction in this country like crime, murder, and poverty is caused by drug use.

Most of the dead beat dads are drug users.

Most of the dead beat moms are drug users

Welfare State
Most employers drug test because dope heads don’t show up to work or they screw everything up when they’re at work. (law suits)

So drug users end up taking low paying jobs or go on welfare or prison.

Pirate
please cite sources

pirate
how about alcoholics...in relation to the workplace...more trouble...more of them

"Medical" marijuana
I use the quotation marks with "medical" because many of the Californians using it do not appear to be sick. Not physically sick, that is.

I wonder if President Obama thinks Eisenhower was using Federal resources to "circumvent" state laws when Eisenhower sent the troops to Little Rock High school? Maybe it's just me, but I thought Federal law takes precedence. Good to see that the Pres. is a states-rights kind of guy.

Pirate
The number one reason Most employers do not random drug test...they would loose a large part of the workers...

cited resorces
see my posts at 9:52 and 10:02

Work Place rules
Alcohol is a drug same thing. Two wrongs don’t make it right or equal.

Most work places have zero tolerance for all substance abuse.

Nothing to do with Science
Much like many other agendas of the left, this has nothing to do with science but is really an attempt to further the cause of the degenerate minorities.

It's Time For Freedom To Reign
Since drug prohibition first got started at the end of the 19th century, it has been aimed at the "minorities" among us. More than that, if you can't effectively discriminate against them directly, just outlaw the activities they engage in and harass them into incarceration. Possession laws in a free country are anathema to real freedom. If there is no damaged complaining party, there is no crime. It is even more hypocritical that one of the most damaging drugs on earth, Alcohol, is quite legal and accepted by the DEA goons who bust other drug users. And let us not forget that if there is no legal market, there will be an underground market if the consumers are there. If an individual actually owns himself, then no one else, even a social or political majority, has the superior position to classify someone else as a criminal for enjoying their own drug of choice, medical or not.

?
Why would employers pay good money for drug testing if drugs didn’t cause problems in the work place?

this would also reduce violence
on the mexican border most of which is caused by cartels trying to garner their share of the marijuana trade to the United States.


Oh, why...
...not.

We're going to need something to take our minds off the government writting checks we can't cover.

Pirate
now that we are in agreement that alcohol is a drug can we agree that alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana. Make sure you got to my resources before you answer. posted at 9:52 and 10:02

Drug testing
I have to take a durg test every year.

It's random testing so you never know when we are going to get tested.

Jesse
That type of negative sentiment is only damaging the Republican party. It furthers the mostly incorrect stereotype that Democrats have been banking on for years. So why perpetuate it?

Pirate
it is a waste of money on Drug testing...in the federal gov, the positive result is a very small percentage of tests given...this equates to about (cannot remember exact numbers) 70,000 dollars in negative tests for every single positive test.

Not to mention the invasion of ones privacy, Illegal search and seizure, and the prove your innocence mentality of drug testing.

Real Jobs
If you want a good job you're going to have to take a drug test.

Not my fault just the way it is.

Cuts costs
Yes, drug testing keeps drug use down and law suits too.

Also keeps damage to people and property down at the work site.

Pirate
I see that you will not research or look at the links i posted...I cannot beat a dead horse...and drug testing increases cost not keep cost down. Have a nice day

Safety first
There is a lot of ways to get killed or injured at my work we don’t need substance abuse added to the mix.

I know your side of the debate I'm telling you the way it is and why.

Pirate
Last post to you... if you drug tested everyone in an average factory, such as the ones that i have worked at, 25 - 30 percent would pop hot...You know when a yearly test is going to be...so people do not Smoke for 30 - 45 days to clean their system... after the test they start back.

Pirate
are we the only two here...and i did not mean to come off as an @$$hole...i understand that this is the way it is, but changes need to be made. I do not support the legalization of an illegal substance other than Marijuana. This is based off of the research I have done...Not personal opinion.

Drug Testing Violates the 4th and 5th
amendments of the constitution and should never be done without probable cause. To do otherwise violates the individual rights, is a police state action and reprehensibly immoral. But that doesn't seem to stop the DEA. MaryJane is the least harmful of all illegal and legal drugs. This fact is totally lost on the DEA and the past administration. Now is time for the President to live up to his campaign promise. But somehow I don't think he will considering his waffling and inconsistent record on keeping promises made on the campaign trail. The promise seems to be more Obama Koolaid used on the masses to get elected. Why am I not surprised.

Ah...
Have you ever talked to a pothead who has been using for a long time? They are stuck at whatever age it is they started so I wouldn't go saying there are no affects. The THC content in pot has been studied and said to kill brain cells. Yeah, you can argue that because I am sure another study showed something else but just talk to a dopehead and see why them call them dopeheads. What happens to construction companies who's employees deal with heavy equipment and dangerous equipement? A guy comes in high and hurts himself because he isn't in the right frame of mind and the employer gets sued. You can't have someone high or drunk working in most jobs and of course that would be abused. Pot does go along with other abuses, be it alcohol or other drugs. And yeah, there are some that only smoke pot but most will try other things as well. There are enough people walking around with air between their ears.

Michael
How is that negative??

Susan
yes i have and there are a few that OVERUSE and have become burnt out...But the majority you would never know that they smoke marijuana unless they told you. Now i have also talked to people who overuse alcohol, and they are much worse off than those who use marijuana...from what i have observed. A person i grew up with overuses alcohol... he shakes constantly, when he is not drinking, and is a horrible person to be around when he is. My father is the same way.

Ignorance, that's why
Pirate asks: "Why would employers pay good money for drug testing if drugs didn’t cause problems in the work place?"

Because they are as ignorant as you are. Really, people are giving you actual scientific studies and data to back their points and you respond with assertions based on what you see on TV. Are you a satirical character trying to make conservatives look like idiots? If so, you are succeeding.

And despite your ignorant assertion, if you get a REALLY good job you don't have to take a drug test because your potential employer can't afford to eliminate rare candidates on such baseless nonsense.

Susan asserted: "Have you ever talked to a pothead who has been using for a long time? They are stuck at whatever age it is they started so I wouldn't go saying there are no affects."

You are as ignorant as Pirate, just making stuff up rather than dealing with evidence. There is not a shred to science to back what you've said.

Especially revealing of your ignorance is that the two of you equate a positive drug test with impairment at the time, which is not remotely correct. Someone could be completely sober and unimpaired and test positive for drugs anywhere from days to weeks after they took them.

Finally, here's the most glaring flaw in drug testing arguments. If drug use is so damaging to a person, then you shouldn't need a drug test to tell who is who. Simply fire people based on shoddy performance, whatever the reason may be. See, the reality is that drug use isn't nearly as damaging as you guys claim (sans evidence) which is why one would have to employ tests to figure out who is and isn't using.

Science Avenger
I think it comes down to more than what you sarcastically point out. What happened to the rule of law? Drug users are committing anywhere from misdemeanors to felonies. Why would any employer want that kind of person working for them?

Science,Pirate, et al

Conservatives, as a rule, have a hard time with science for one particular reason. Conservative thought, influenced by the Christian right, is based on the concept of revaled truth. The conclusion is established first, and anything that follows must either agree with the conclusion or be ignored.

The data regarding marijuana are overhwelming. It is a largely innocuous drug with negative consequences a tiny fraction of those attributed to alcohol. Efforts to curtail marijuana use are far more destructive and wasteful than any amount of marijuana use itself.

But, because the conservative mind has determined that "marijuana is bad" all the data in the world will not change their opinion. Unfortunately, their attitude toward marijuana is a corollary to their attitude toward all of science.

Jesse
So referring to any minority as "degenerate" isn't negative? You specifically said "degenerate minorities."

Speaking of the rule of law... where in the constitution does it state that the Federal Government maintains the powers they currently wield in regards to drug control?

As has been pointed out, many of the tactics the Federal Government uses to enforce these laws are unconstitutional based on the 4th and 5th amendment.

Exactly why is it that the government required to pass an amendment to prohibit alcohol, but not any of these other substances?

Buckaroo
Marinol, which is the pill form of THC, does not affect users in the same way that smoking or ingesting marijuana does. That is why it was not as successful.

I'm not sure why as I've never had any symptoms that required me to use marijuana as a medication so I obviously have no personal experience with marinol. It could be because of the chemical combinations that you get from smoking or ingesting the drug as opposed to getting a pill with just THC. Either way, medical marijuana needs to be legal and the Federal government needs to stop busting people in states that have legalized it for medicinal use.

legalize now
Marijuana is less harmful than alcohol and many prescription drugs. Legalize this crap now and treat it in the same manner we treat alcohol. The war on drugs is a failure, as a matter of fact, every time there is a war on something, precious lives are lost and unecessary tax payer dollars are spent. "Wars" have been waged on poverty, drugs, and terror. People are currently poorer then they have been since the depression, getting higher then they ever have, and terrorism is thriving in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. Spend this money on education, putting people to work, and homeland security.

Sorry, I Disagree
I am basing my opinion on facts and people I know, not ignorance. My opinion is not based on christian beliefs nor ignorance from never having been around it myself. Sorry. I grew up in the 70's so it's not like it's a foreign concept to me or something I know nothing about. But I grew up and many others never did. The old friends who still smoke dope are stuck in the same 17 year old mindframe they had years ago. My son started with pot and then graduated to other things, leaving him only to lie, cheat and steal and for what? He is now clean and sober and productive. So don't tell me I know nothing about what I speak. Obviously your still on the wacky weed. When are you going to grow up?

Michael
Like a liberal you are reading what you want, not what I said. I did not refer to minorities as degenerates as a whole. I was not even referring to minorities in the sense you think I was. I was referring to these small groups (gays, lesbians, pot head, etc) that try to push their agendas on others. Your question about the constitution and drug control is unintelligent at best. Where in the constitution do we have speeding laws? Are those unconstitutional as well?

Jesse
Given that even conservatives were taken aback by your coments, I suggest you find a better way to phrase your concerns. Virtually no one reading your language would interpret it in the way you say you meant it.


No Jesse...
...I read exactly what you said. If you meant something else, you should have said something else.

Many liberals feel the same way about religious conservatives pushing their agendas on others.

To my knowledge it isn't Federal Government agents riding around in local and state police cars writing tickets. There's also been resistance to Federally mandated speeding laws at the state level. So it's fair to say that I do think that this is another example of the Federal Government overstepping their boundaries. See the 10th amendment.

30,000,000 Americans Smoke Pot
I'd have to say that is one big minority. Bigger than the amount of illegal aliens in the U.S. and growing each day. Some of the greatest minds of the last century smoked pot on a regular basis. It didn't harm them physicially and it really harms only those incarcerated for using the substance. Not one death can be attributed to it's simple use. Not one! Legal drugs account for over 1.2 million deaths in U.S. each year. That's 1.2 million die each year from Federally santioned drug use! Big Pharma and the DEA entitlement is all that is propping the Feds obscene drug war at this point. So who is the hypocrite here? How is this helping citizens again?????

China fixed it.

The British grew opium in India and then shipped it to China to rob China of its wealth and to make the Chinese easer to control.

The first thing the Communist did when they got control of China was kill all the drug users.

The British and the Communist have no problem connecting the dot about Drug use.

Now I have noticed that our jobs are going to countries that smuggle drugs into the U.S.A.

And I also remember that the guy that built the De loran (sp?) car was busted for smuggling cocaine to help pay for his car company.

Now the Dope heads on welfare are helping to drive up taxes on American Labor and this is helping send jobs to countries that are smuggling drugs into the U.S.A.

Yes Michael
You should be smart enough to understand what I meant. Please take comments in here in context. In the future you could try asking what I meant instead of jumping to conclusions.

You are right, its not Federal Government agents riding around - its State government agents. And yes the 10th Amendment gives power to the States, but what does that mean? You want each state to set its own laws regarding drug usage? It has to be federally controlled due to interstate drug trafficking.

I don't care
I don’t care if you do drugs.

You dope using libertarians are just liberals that aren’t on welfare yet.

Science Avenger
"You are as ignorant as Pirate, just making stuff up rather than dealing with evidence. There is not a shred to science to back what you've said."

For someone who thinks they are mired in science they are not. There is absolutely tons of studies done on this and it is a proven fact. Drug abuse retards mental maturity. Do some homework.

"Simply fire people based on shoddy performance, whatever the reason may be."

Now here is where you are totally ignorant. Have you taken a look at the labor laws and what lawyers have done to them lately? It is very difficult to fire someone today and make it stick. Incompetence is no longer reason enough. Ask any employer about lawsuits and the threat there of.

This column is
really stupid.

The problem isn't with those that actually need pot for medicinal purposes.

The problem is with idiot doctors that set up shop and hand out medical marijuana cards like candy for a fee to a bunch of dope heads.

I can walk out my front door and have a medical marijuana card in one hour for $275.00. Doesn't matter that I have no medical need.

Science Avenger
let em have it

Works cited from a term paper i wrote
see my posts at 9:52 and 10:02

Very eye opening

Lolo
so all potheads should move to California?

Lolo,...wait...stop... yer killing me
You wrote: "There is absolutely tons of studies done on this and it is a proven fact."

and (snicker) you can cite these works?

I need some now.
I was never in favor of legalisation of Marijuana. However, after this election season of "mancrushes," crazy media reporting on "chizzled pectoral muscles, glinting in the sun," "feelings running up my leg(?)". What the hell, why not. Let's all get stoned. We can't do a darn thing about this crazed 'rookie' in the Whitehouse. My God, it's like he's channeling 'Jimmah' Carter. (OOPS! I forgot 'Jimmahs' still alive).

Prohibition
Was unable to stop people from using alcohol, and increased crime. Seems the same way with marijuana.

Jerry
Why not...or we could all get really drunk, and have the possibility of an overdose

You must be joking . . .
I've gone both ways on this argument, but after reading the pro-legalization posts on here, I've made up my mind... no legalization. A few personal observances to contradict statements in this joke of a comments section. 1.) Marijuana is deadly when it comes to driving. Studies have been done that prove that marijuana significantly reduces reaction time and can easily lead to accidents. You don't believe me? Have you ever seen how slow potheads are? 2.) Every drug user I've ever known in my life got started with pot. I'm sure there are some out there that just started shooting heroin and doing blow, but the vast majority started with weed or mixing pills, mostly weed. If you can't see the inherent dangers of legalizing a gateway drug, then you need to stop smoking dope.

Rohi
see my posts at 9:52 and 10:02...you will see the error in your posts. If you are talking about the US Gov. research, please realize that it is biased. The UK and France found the opposite on Driving. And it has also been shown that marijuana is NOT a gateway drug, most people drink alcohol before smoking marijuana.

make sure you visit the links

Rohi
You claim that Marijuana impairs driving and claim there are studies which back this up. CAn you cite one. The studies of which I am aware show that Marijuana actually decreases driving risk.

Let em ask you this. If it were the case that pot actually made people safer drivers, would you change you mind?

Below are a few citations. Please post yours.

1983 National Highway Transportation Safety Administration study: Stein, AC et al., A Simulator Study of the Combined Effects of Alcohol and Marijuana on Driving Behavior-Phase II, Washington DC: Department of Transportation (1983)
http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_myth12.shtml

1992 National Highway Transportation Safety Administration study: The Incidence and Role of Drugs in Fatally Injured Drivers, by K.W. Terhune, et al. of the Calspan Corp. Accident Research Group in Buffalo, NY (Report # DOT-HS-808-065)
http://www.drugsense.org/tfy/nhtsa1.htm

1993 National Highway Transportation Safety Administration study: Marijuana and actual Driving Performance, By Hindrik WJ Robbe and James F O'Hanlon. Institute for Human Psychopharmacology, University of Limburg
http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_driving4.sht ml


rohi
1. marijuana is deadly when it comes to driving.

2. every drug user I've ever known in my life got started with pot.

Alcohol is also deadly when it comes to driving. Should we ban alcohol? Many drug users start out using alcohol, before starting drugs. Prohibition does not work. I have been to Amsterdam where drugs and prostitution are legal. Guess what, they have a lower rate of STD's and drug addiction.

Wealth?
Can you imagine if 30,000,000 people spent that money at the store how many jobs that would create?

How about a 4 year CD at 4% or a Roth IRA in 30 years that would be enough to buy a house instead of living in a trailer park.

Charles
I'm not basing my point purely on scientific studies, which can easily be swayed in any direction... just look at "global warming." LOL. When my friends smoked pot in college and I did not, they were significantly and noticeably slower than me... with regards overall agility, hand-eye coordination, etc. There is no study that you can show me that would change my opinion about what I've seen with my own eyes. Not a gateway drug? I've known many, many people who have had alcohol and never done a drug, myself included, but I do not and have not known anyone who just smoked weed and did not, at some point, do other far more dangerous drugs. My points are based on life experiences, not potentially fabricated or skewed "studies." Oh, and I guess it's not addictive either, lol. If something alters your mind or your body in a beneficial or "feel good" way, there is a chance of physical or psychological addiction or both. Thanks for your hard work on connecting links but I'll use common sense and logic.

Marijuana is a paramount issue! 1
Who owns your body? Who owns mine? The self-evident truth that answers both of these questions ought to be enough to stop the madness of the drug policy of the last century or so. But it isn't. We are not, apparently, sufficiently chastened by the subsidizing of the Taliban and the entire gang culture in this country through our criminalization of a personal choice that is no business of anyone but the person making the choice.

It is ironic that conservatives who are fearful of laws that control what people eat, due to the coming nationalization of our health care system, and the impact obesity has on the cost of that health care, are completely oblivious to the stage-setting effect of 100 years of drug laws!

The same inalienable right to ownership of one's own body that makes food-consumption laws so onerous, is DOA due to our drug laws. They are vulnerable due to the inescapable fact that the same "principle" that permits criminalization of drug consumption, cannot rationally be rejected regarding food consumption - and with precisely the same justifications.

Smoking Dope
Getting a government check sitting on the couch waiting for your turn to get on the Jerry Springer show.

Rohi
See my earlier post, where I pointed out that conservatives often have a very hard time with scientific or even rational thinking. You have not, despite what you think, used any logic. You have simply come to a personal conclusion and then decided to ignore any information that runs counter to your position.

The fact that you simply brush aside not only the studies provided for you, but the very idea of scientific investigation tells us a lot abotu how the conservative mind works.

You are a poster child for why conservatives should not be allowed to make decisions when such decisions require the use of data and/or information.

Marijuana is a paramount issue! 2
Our goofy, counterproductive, impoverishing drug laws have not only enriched the most despicable members of society, they have corrupted and murdered countless thousands of citizens of other countries around the world.

Why is it that conservatives, who are usually staunch defenders of personal liberty, shrink like a cold winky when it comes to personal consumption of drugs? Allowing people to make decisions, even bad ones, is essential to a truly moral, just, and liberal society. I don't mean liberal like Obama and Pelosi, I mean liberal like Jefferson, Adams, Adam Smith, Washington, Locke, Burke, etc.

We are now confronted with the specter of imminent collapse on our southern border. Mexico is collapsing due to black market turf wars over who will supply those who choose to use with their product. The financial stake is astronomical. Billions of $ in drug profits. But that's a mis-characterization. The drugs themselves don't generate more than 5% of the money in the drug trade. The balance is risk management. The risk being jail and execution by rival drug gangs and thoroughly corrupted law enforcement institutions. That constitutes the majority of the price of illicit drugs.

Congratulations conservatives! Your idiotic support of an infantile, morally indefensible prohibition that denies the most fundamental human rights, as defined in our founding documents, has succeeded in corrupting entire countries, while exacerbating, at tremendous cost in law enforcement and incarceration, what would otherwise be a manageable problem of human weakness. We will soon reap the whirlwind!

Jesse
Don't push your poor communication skills off on me.

There's a massive difference between controlling interstate commerce and supporting agencies which violate the 4th, 5th, and 10th amendments.

The burden of proof here is on you. I have asked you to provide the parts of the constitution that support any of these measures you're personally supporting, and so far all I've received is insults in return. If all of this really is constitutional, it shouldn't be difficult for you.

The constitution specifically outlines the rules by which the Federal Government can operate. If our government overreaches, it is our obligation to question it. If you feel that what we are discussing should be a power of the Federal Government, the founding fathers outlined a process by which the constitution can be amended.

Welfare
If it wasn't for welfare these people wouldn't have money to buy drugs.

If you could get rid of taxes that support the dope heads we wouldn't have this mess because all the money would be gone after they spent last months welfare check.

Drama
I think we should move the drug demand closer to the drug supply on the tex/mex border
Give the rest of us a much needed break from all the drama drugs cause.

Pirate Rob
Do you have a stereotype check list in front of you and are posting them one at a time?

Hey who stole our idea
Come on people everyone know that legalizing Marijuana is a Libertarian thing. Every time a person mentioned that they are a Libertarian the response usually is, "Hey you're the ones who want to legalize Marijuana."

Glue
Did you drug head ever think about sniffing glue its legal and the taxes would help pay for the messes you dope heads make?

Flint
I live in Flint Michigan so I’m surrounded by dope heads.

Flint
If you live in FLint you are a dope, period.

Signed,

Ex Michigander


School
I got to go to my class so I'll be back later.
Bye, Bye

Rohi
So if you have never smoked marijuana then you do not know its effects.

I smoked when i was in college and carried a 3.94 gpa. I drank before i ever tried marijuana and smoked cigarettes before that. starting at the age of 13. I no longer smoke cigarettes, the hardest thing i ever quit. I quit drinking because it caused me to be an arrogant @$$hole and i almost lost my marriage, family, and job. When i stopped smoking marijuana, it was the easiest to quit of the three. No withdraws at all. Marijuana also did not make me arrogant, I never got into a fight when i was smoking marijuana, i never had any social problems like i had with alcohol, it just relaxed me.

consistent or hypocritical
"During the presidential campaign," the press release continued, "Obama repeatedly promised not to waste federal resources interfering in states with laws protecting medical-marijuana patients from arrest, and he told Southern Oregon's Mail Tribune editorial board on March 28, 2008, 'I'm not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue.'"


i would if ole barry will have the same position on abortion laws; let the states have their own laws even when they are contrary to the fed law.

roy

Roy
The fed has chewed the tenth amendment up and spit it out.

Rohi
BTW...I have never done any drugs (recreational) other then cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana. So your gateway Theory has a giant hole in it.

Confusing Conservative with Republican
Big mistake. I can be conservative and support the reform of drug laws. This is because it is part of the quest to get government out of our lives. Don't think that conservative = Republican. Also, to demean people over using Pot while you drink alcohol is hypocritical and just plain idiotic. And if you disagree, then you are worst than Hitler or ... errr.. say Carter.

OhNo
spoken like a Libertarian :-)

We want to be on the cutting edge...
...like Haight Ashbury.
If pain and suffering and compassion and boohoo all the desperate no-other-alternative people is the issue, why are we in Indiana not clamoring for marijuana?

Charles
Rohi is subject to the fundamental intellectual failure I descibed earlier. It's hard to allow any credibility to a person who openly states that scientific evidence is meaningless, but his own personal opinion must be accurate.

A correlated problem faced by many, but more often by conservatives is the logical failure of mistaking the part for the whole. TH as a site is loaded with people who point to individual circumstances and then generalize to the larger proposition. They think this is logical.

In terms of the gateway issue, it works like this. Some one used pot and went on the use other drugs. Conservatives go "ooh that proves it". It doesn't prove anything.

Meaningful information would be to take the universe of hard drug users and determine which drugs they began with. My reading indicates that cigarettes and caffeine are the two primary gateway drugs.

Or, one might take all pot smokers and detrmine how many went on the have problems with hard drugs. That number is likely to be very small.

Either way, conservatives simply can't seem to grasp these basic intellectual issues.


I am not Libertarian, just conservative
Charles,
My friends just call me 'No for short. I am really not Libertarian, but I do agree with quite a few of their positions. Where Libertarians and I mostly agree to disagree is pre-emptive actions, open borders and free trade. Other than that, they have some very good talking points. I am more of a Bill Buckley conservative than any other leaning.

Probably because your
prices are too high.

John
I agree with you...some people you just can't reach.

The research i have done points to Alcohol as the gateway. It is readily available to persons underage in their own home...in their parents liquor cabinet. But i can see nicotine and caffeine also as gateways.

I am not sure if you have seen my earlier posts, but if you look at the posts @ 9:52 and 10:02 you will find my works cited from tern papers i did while in college. Could be more fuel for the argument. they deal with cost issues and social issues.

OhNo
Nice to meet you
did not mean to offend...I was only saying the post sounded libertarian. I am glad you are on board with the marijuana issue. I am also conservative, Just a conservative Libertarian.

I'm back
I feel like that lady on the movie “Alien”

These blood sucking murdering thieving zombies are dangerous and you academics what to make more of them for your bio tech division.

Pirate
so much for peace and quiet lol

Stop Smoking, Barack
President Obama should stop SMOKING marijuana. What better explanation could there be for his tenacious clinging to Keynesian economics? No one in possession of his faculties could believe it will work.

Jeff
He isn't smoking weed...if he was he would think outside the box lol

lol
I can’t help it I wish I had that machine gun with the motion detector.

Time to go
see ya'll later...everyone have a good evening...Maybe i will see ya'll tomorrow.

Flint
I don’t have a problem with pot smokers it just some people don’t know when it’s time to get out of the kitchen.

Whole cities are going down the tubes.

You Show Your Scientific Ignorance

Rohi said: "I'm not basing my point purely on scientific studies, which can easily be swayed in any direction... just look at 'global warming.'...There is no study that you can show me that would change my opinion about what I've seen with my own eyes."

There's the Republican scientific ignorance laid bare: "Never mind the facts, I know the truth, and any study that says otherwise was intentionally swayed by biased researchers". Nevermind the much more likely scenario that you see what you want to see. For example:

Rohi again: "When my friends smoked pot in college and I did not, they were significantly and noticeably slower than me... with regards overall agility, hand-eye coordination, etc.

Don't all you guys understand that the reason scientists do controlled studies is because of the notorious unreliability of individual observation? People tend to interpret data in the way that most fits with their preconceptions, thus telling us nothing. Of COURSE your friends who smoked pot were slower than you BECAUSE of the pot. Couldn't POSSIBLY be any other reason. And of COURSE the people who were FASTER than you couldn't POSSIBLY smoke pot.

The truth is a ton of people you meet every day are smart, fast, responsible people who happen to like smoking pot. You just assume they don't because you have a worldview that is extremely ignorant. And since you dismiss any scientific study that says otherwise, you guarantee you'll stay that way. Got your Palin 2012 t-shirt yet?

Founding Fathers were "Dopeheads"

You guys pretending everyone who smokes pot is some welfare-sucking loser do realize that some of the Founding Fathers grew and smoked marijuana. I believe they accomplished a few things. It used to be actually quite common. And I hate to break the news to you, but marijuana smoking is VERY common in the intellectual professions.

It is also worth noting that this is not an abstract theoretical discussion any more. Many countries and states have legalized marijuana to various degrees and the doom and gloom the drugwar mongers predict NEVER happens. Never.

But again, who needs facts when you know The Truth right?

Charles and John . . .
Charles, I appreciate your courtesy and attempts at civil debate. Although, I disagree with you, I'm ok with that as I'm sure you are, too. John, on the other hand, seems to have a personal problem with what he incorrectly perceives to be my inability to reason or accept scientific facts. Contrary to your statement, John, I love science and always have. However, my doubts about supposed scientific studies have been solidified by being involved in several, and seeing test subjects or environments modified in order to bring about the desired results. Just like there seem to be so few truly credible and unbiased journalists, I have found the same applies to a surprising number of scientists. So, with that knowledge in hand, I tend to value personal observations as having more validity than unobserved studies. After all, if someone did a study and found that fire didn't really hurt anyone, would you blindly believe it and walk through a fire? Or would you instead rely on your personal scientific observations and studies that have proven that fire is actually quite painful. A somewhat sensational analogy, but it conveys my point. So, please stop with the insults and realize that we don't have to agree on everything. I'm cool with that.

84rules. . .
you are partially correct. However, look at the reality. Question for the smart MDs and others. Why would you give a cancer patient who is puking his guts out a pill? Ingestion through inhalation assures efficient delivery of the product. Research indicates, that although marijuana smoke causes irritation in the bronchial cavities, it has the OPPOSITE effect of nicotine. Marijuana is a VASODILATOR (opens up the lung passages (possibly a treatment for asthma) whereas nicotine is a VASOCONSTRICTOR (closes / restricts the lung passages). The federal experiment that shows monkeys sustaining "brain damage" due to "smoking" marijuana was fixed. You have to read far down in the literature that these monkeys wore masks to introduce marijuana smoke continuously to them for DAYS AT A TIME. They ingested more marijuana smoke than a person would do in a lifetime. So much for an "objective" study. The one authorized cultivator if marijuana purposely grows inferior quality product which affects the result of any study that utilizes it. The effects of marijuana have been known for hundreds (if not thousands) of years. Since it cannot be patented, there is no interest in "legalization". Besides, what would we do with all the DEA and other government "thugs"?

keeping pot illegal
keeps the cops busy
keeps the courts busy
keeps the prisons busy
while ruining countless lives
until this changes im rootin' for the terrorists
smoke on, america

Ease His Pain
I don't know about the rest of you but I know it would make it a whole lot easier to take the bad sh*t coming if we had some good sh*t to smoke.

In rebuttal to Science Avenger
*Don't all you guys understand that the reason scientists do controlled studies is because of the notorious unreliability of individual observation? People tend to interpret data in the way that most fits with their preconceptions, thus telling us nothing. Of COURSE your friends who smoked pot were slower than you BECAUSE of the pot. Couldn't POSSIBLY be any other reason. And of COURSE the people who were FASTER than you couldn't POSSIBLY smoke pot.*

-You act as though I did not know these people at all. They weren't test subjects, they were my close friends. I spent countless hours with them studying, playing video games and sports. I knew their abilities before they smoked and I witnessed those same abilities after they smoked. I did not base my observation on my bias or preconception, but on their behavior alone. When they smoked pot, usually by hitting the bong, they visibly changed. Our conversations changed and not for the better. They became, well, dumb for lack of a better word. My roommate sat and stared at a fish tank for over an hour without acknowledging anything around him. My ex-wife got some bad stuff, hallucinated the dorm was on fire and jumped out of a 2nd story window, shattering her ankle. Maybe they smoked too much, I don't know. Feel free to make your arguments for marijuana. If you are in favor of it, you will naturally defend it. I will simply disagree with you without attempting to insult you or your mind. Do not attempt to make someone seem less intelligent because they disagree with you. It makes you seem small. I hold no preconceptions, only realizations based on personal observations and study. If someone discusses something I know nothing about, I reserve any position or statement until I'm knowledgeable about the topic. Maybe you should use the same method in regards to those that disagree with you. Good night and God's peace to you.

Obama knows better...

Legalizing weed would keep the Liberals so high, they would forget to vote for him.

Hmmm?

The Title of this Article
"Obama Should Act on Medical Marijuana"

Um, given his past I think he has; and, given his present he is governing like he is.

Oh wait, you said "medical".

K.

THIS IS WHAT HE MEANS !
THE HIPPIE NATIONAL HEALTH CARE PLAN !NANCY POLISI AND JOHN KERRY CALL IT WOODSTOCK #2

THIS IS WHAT HE MEANS !
THE HIPPIE NATIONAL HEALTH CARE PLAN !NANCY POLISI AND JOHN KERRY CALL IT WOODSTOCK #2

Obama & MJ
Obama should do a line of coke, smoke a toke, drink a shot or more and relax, slow down. He is fouling up daily at a rapid pace.

For Buckaroo 1/29/09 @ 8:22am
Yes, there is a medical pill called Marinol that contains THC, known to be the component in marijuana that is beneficial. Some can take Marinol just fine and have it help their symptoms. For others, like those undergoing chemo, taking a pill is a problem. This is where the smoke form of marijuana is beneficial for administering the THC.

The worst side-effect I ever had from being "high" on marijuana was the uncontrollable urge to visit Taco Bell at 3am. Now, at the age of 49 and not having smoked marijuana in over 25 years, I still have those 3am Taco Bell urges. Darn that marijuana! Well, maybe my upcoming trip to Jamaica will lead to new discoveries via ganja!

Tod Kozeluh
Lexington, KY

Rohi
Chances are your wife's pot in the dorm was laced with something that she wasn't aware of, or that you weren't aware that she was aware of. Pot normally does not cause hallucinations but I've read that overdoses of THC can. It also seems strange that your friend would sit and stare at a fish bowl for an hour while high on marijuana. That sounds more like a stronger psychedelic drug to me, perhaps mushrooms or LSD.

Rohi
I'll try to find a succinct way to address these issues.

First off, your defense of your attitude toward scientific studies does not resolve the issue. It makes you look even more obtuse. There are literally hundreds of thousands of studies conducted every year, and you unquestionably use and rely on artifacts resulting from those studies on a daily basis.

Your personal experience with a few studies is 1) not a sufficient sample to make the determination you have made and 2) unreliable on the face of it given your attitude.

The only rational approach you could adopt would be to look at the individual studies in question and then judge the quality of the protocols and data. You are makign an unsubstantiated generalization.

Furthermore, your reports of the effects of marijuana do not jibe with the reports of anyone who has used or been around Marijuana use. Your ex-wife did not jump out a window due to marijuana use.

Your intellectual failing in this regard is exacerbated by the fact that the data on the safety of Marijuana is overwhelming. To date, there has never been a single death that can be unequivocally attributed to marijuana use. Alcohol, on the other hand, is directly responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths and millions of moderate to severe injuries each year.

So, despite the fact you don't like it, the conclusion reached by myself and science avenger is accurate. You really do not have very sophisticated thinking skills, even though you claim you do.




Rohi (row-high?) and Pirate
You guys are killin' me! I don't anyone who has ever had the following problems from weed:

1. Having a car accident (unless ALCOHOL was involved). If anything, these people drive SLOW.

3. Getting fired due to poor quality work.

2. Hallucinations--ro, your ex-wife was doing acid and didn't tell you.

4. Gateway drug--it can be. Going from one drug to the next sounds like an addictive personality, not specifically a marijuana problem.

5. Addiction. None.

John in Pa, OhNO, and Charles LPKY: good to know some Repubs feel the same way I do.




Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.