Another Marijuana Myth Goes Up In Smoke by Paul Armentano
- 06-09-2006, 07:45 PM
Another Marijuana Myth Goes Up In Smoke by Paul Armentano
Another Marijuana Myth Goes Up In Smoke
by Paul Armentano
Another Marijuana Myth Goes Up In Smoke by Paul Armentano
Epidemiological data presented last May at the International Conference of the American Thoracic Society concluding that smoking marijuana, even long-term, is not positively associated with increased incidence of lung-cancer, is just the latest in a long line of government claims regarding the alleged dangers of pot to go – pardon the pun – up in smoke.
Investigators from the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California assessed the possible association between cannabis use and the risk of lung cancer in middle-aged adults (ages 18–59) living in Los Angeles. Researchers conducted interviews with 611 subjects with lung cancer and 1,040 controls matched for age, gender, and neighborhood. Data was collected on lifetime marijuana use, as well as subjects' use of alcohol, tobacco and other drugs, diet, occupation, and family history of cancer. Investigators used a logistical regression model to estimate the effect of cannabis smoking on lung cancer risk, adjusting for age, gender, ethnicity, education, cumulative tobacco smoking, and alcohol use.
"We did not observe a positive association of marijuana use – even heavy long-term use – with lung cancer, controlling for tobacco smoking and other potential cofounders," investigators concluded. Moreover, their data further revealed that one subset of moderate lifetime users actually had an inverse association between cannabis use and lung cancer. Much less surprising, the NIH-funded study – the largest of its type ever conducted – did find a 20-fold increased risk in heavy tobacco smokers.
Officials from the White House’s Drug Czar’s office had "no comment" on the UCLA findings.
While the investigators’ failure to demonstrate a positive association between cannabis use and cancer may seem surprising to some, the bottom line is that scientists overseas have been studying pot’s potential anti-cancer properties for nearly a decade. Most recently, investigators at Italy's Instuto di Chemica Biomolecolare reported in the May issue of the Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics that compounds in marijuana inhibit cancer cell growth in animals and in culture on a wide range of tumor cell lines, including human breast carcinoma cells, human prostate carcinoma cells, and human colectoral carcinoma cells.
Previous studies by European researchers have shown that cannabis’ constituents can reduce the size and halt the spread of glioma (brain tumor) cells in animals and humans in a dose dependent manner. Separate preclinical studies have also shown marijuana to inhibit cancer cell growth and selectively trigger malignant cell death in skin cancer cells, leukemic cells, and lung cancer cells, among other cancerous cell lines.
But none of these findings should come as a surprise to the US government, which ironically, sponsored the first experiment ever documenting pot's anti-cancer effects in 1974 at the Medical College of Virginia. The results of that study, reported in an Aug. 18, 1974, Washington Post newspaper feature, were that marijuana's primary psychoactive component "THC slowed the growth of lung cancers, breast cancers and a virus-induced leukemia in laboratory mice, and prolonged their lives by as much as 36 percent."
Shockingly, federal officials have steadfastly refused to fund any follow up research on the subject in the following decades, and today continue to oppose any use of cannabis – even for medical purposes in states that have authorized its use. What’s the Fed’s rational for maintaining such a foolish and misguided policy? Most likely, they have "no comment."
June 9, 2006
Paul Armentano [send him mail] is the senior policy analyst for the NORML Foundation in Washington, DC.
Copyright © 2006 LewRockwell.com
- 06-09-2006, 07:52 PM
Or that people use their medical pot as a way to sell it for money or other items much like the old food stamp deal.
Regardless if pot causes cancer or not it still shuldn't be legalized for a good reason. Alcohol is often used as an arguement on a harmful product allowed to be sold in our society but forget that the gov't did try and ban it but people lost their minds because it was ingrained into society and they refused to let it go.
Why introduce yet another product in this manner only to have a backlash that couldn't be stoped...again? I honestly don't think recreational use has too many consequences if used responsibly like many other things. the problem is that abuse is much more likely to happen than recreational/occasional use. I have enough of a problem with cell phones, hamburgers and alcohol in drivers hands killing their driving ability.
- 06-09-2006, 07:58 PM
Originally Posted by Jayhawkkthe problem is that abuse is much more likely to happen than recreational/occasional use. I have enough of a problem with cell phones, hamburgers and alcohol in drivers hands killing their driving ability.
06-09-2006, 08:17 PM
Well, if what you're saying is right then why would people risk their lives destroyed and being locked up.? I grew up in a household of drug users and also lived around drug users most of my life. One of the first drugs other than alcohol used is pot before they go on to harder and more dangerous drugs. You can say that gateway drugs are propaganda all you want but I can count the number of recreational users on one hand that have not went to harder drugs or had it effect their lives(non incarceration) but I can count non stop on the people i've known who have had it effect them in serious ways.
06-09-2006, 08:33 PM
To say that people will do harder drugs after they try pot, is a weak argument in my opinion, most of these people would have tried these other drugs whether they tried pot or not, it was just one in a line of other drugs they were exposed to. Lifestyle and where u grow up and the friends people choose to have has a much bigger effect on what drugs people use..If a person wants to smoke at home to relax or sleep, this person is not automatically a danger to society. I feel it should be legal for adults to consume like alcohol, with similar penaltys for driving etc. etc.....
06-09-2006, 08:43 PM
The reason it's used as a gateway is the same reason why a lot of people use oral steroids vs going straight into muscle injection liquid steroids. It's an easy way of jumping into something.
Trying pot and realizing it didn't kill you is much easier than shooting up a spoon, full of heroin. Regardless, everyone finds reasons to justify their use or belief in something and i'm no different. I just posted my opinion on the subject that was based off my personal experiences.
06-09-2006, 09:06 PM
Mostly because they think they won't be caught, and for the most part they're right. A minority however gets screwed over for no reason. People take risks all the time to get things on the black market besides drugs, addiction is not the reason.Originally Posted by Jayhawkk
According to our own wonderful federal government there are less than 1 users of cocaine or other hard drugs for every 100+ marijuana users. If you still believe the nonsensical gateway theory you're about as far from reality as it's possible to get on the issue.I grew up in a household of drug users and also lived around drug users most of my life. One of the first drugs other than alcohol used is pot before they go on to harder and more dangerous drugs.
That's nice, because my experience is quite the opposite. Generalizing from your personal experience with the losers you dealt with as a reason to imprison any and every user you possibly can is ridiculous, illogical, unethical and immoral. The data suggest there is no causal relationship between marijuana use and use of harder drugs. As with ANY activity, people have different risk tolerances and desires. Most chose the moderate route, some go harder, a smaller number go harder still. It's no surprise that users of hard drugs have or still use marijuana. The relevant fact is how many marijuana users go on to use harder drugs. Incidentally the 99 IOM report also noted that if marijauna has any gateway effect it's due to its legal status, not any inherent property of the drug. Since the store (dealer) selling the weed has access to other types of illegal drugs a level of exposure to those substances is achieved that would otherwise not happen or happen at a much lower level in a legal market. In other words, as is the usual result, prohibition ends up being counterproductive to its own stated goals.You can say that gateway drugs are propaganda all you want but I can count the number of recreational users on one hand that have not went to harder drugs or had it effect their lives(non incarceration) but I can count non stop on the people i've known who have had it effect them in serious ways.
06-09-2006, 09:10 PM
Your welcome to it. I used to share it. Reality has a way of intruding though, and I know several people who are locked up right now and are screwed for life because of peopl who share your opinion. Maybe the people you grew up with belonged in prison. There are MILLIONS in prison here and abroad who don't belong there and who had their lives shattered because of this ****ed up war on drugs. Millions. Perhaps the enormity of that fact has no effect on you, it sure as hell woke me up.Originally Posted by Jayhawkk
06-09-2006, 09:25 PM
Those screwed over for life are not usually those who are the occasional user. they are usually the dealer or a buyer of large amounts with several infractions.
So these people arrested for pot were all caught while buying right? None were caught while high driving? None were caught with way more than what they would need for occassional use? None were caught with other offenses included like drinking and driving etc? Cause here are some facts.
1. No officer will go through a vehicle on a traffic stop unless there is suspicion of drug/alcohol use or there's a consent to search or there's plain sight drugs. Or inventory because the vehicle is being towed due to the stop(suspended license, tags etc)
2. No officer will get a warrant to search your house unless there's large amount of use or dealing/buying going on there. Not going to waste the time needed and man power to bust you for occassional use amounts.
3. Even if were not the case a single bust or two would not screw you for life on pot charges. Hell, you can still get hired on to police depts. with pot use as long as it isn't habitual which according to you it isn't habit forming so if a life in law enforcement or something is your goal then smoking pot shouldn't stop you from obtaining it.
Last edited by Jayhawkk; 06-12-2006 at 01:00 PM.
06-09-2006, 09:28 PM
And where the hell are these millions of drug users who were screwed for life because of just their DRUG USE? I bet those drug use charges were sitting right next to some more serious charges. EDIT. I haven't met too many morally concious dealers who didn't deal to people they knew had addictions or to small children.
Last edited by Jayhawkk; 06-12-2006 at 01:01 PM.
06-09-2006, 10:36 PM
You want to smoke pot, be my guest, I could care less, it's your mental state your screwin with but I gotta somewhat agree with Jay on one more friggin distraction for drivers.
Locked up, or "screwed" over by the system because YOU chose to break the law? Please. Laws are laws and just because you don't agree with them, or even if it's a crappy law does not mean you shouldn't suffer the consequences for breakin them. I CHOOSE to use scheduled steroids without a script and I happen to think the laws are bogus but I do so with full knowledge that if caught and incarcerated I can blame only myself for the consequences of MY decisions.
06-10-2006, 12:31 AM
I have smoked pot for 7+ years the arguement that pot is not addictive is false. Pot is and was the only drug that I liked/did sure I tried drinking it wasn't my thing now I did not go on to harder drugs but I was compleatly addicted to the pot. You try hardcore pot use for years on end and then quit, I will almost guarantee you will get withdrawl symptoms like I got when I quit. I have been sober for over a year now my addiction is back where it belongs, lifting weights. And when I first started smoking pot I thought that it would not take away from my weight lifting I was wrong. It took awhile but eventually I loved the smoke more than I loved the weights. Moral of the story if you wanna use pot that's your call but don't kid yourself that it does no harm you just might get to the point I was at where you love the smoke more than anything else.
06-10-2006, 01:05 AM
Incorrect. As with the recent ridiculous change in how the law deals with dosage units of steroids, arbitrary amounts determine the crime. Have over a certain amount and no matter your intention, you're a dealer and subject to harsher penalties under the law. I might ask if you've ever even heard of mandatory minimum sentences, Rockerfeller Drug Laws here in NY, etc? do you even know how many people in this country are in prison for nonviolent drug offenses? We have more people in prison right now per capita than any other nation on the planet I believe.Originally Posted by Jayhawkk
One, caught while buying. One, caught while selling. Two caught for possession of large amounts at a Phish concert some time ago that I just learned of from a high school buddy of mine. Serving nice sentences in a state and local penetentiary so they don't turn up in federal statistics when law makers try to convince people that only dealers are being targetted.So these people arrested for pot were all caught while buying right?
No, none I know were driving. Implicit in your statement above is the idea that you somehow have the right to determine how much they are allowed to use, which in my opinion is complete BS. I know two people who had grow rooms who never dealt, but would have gone to prison for decades if caught. Also implicit is that somehow when people smoke or drink they have apparently no choice but to drive and endanger everyone else, so let's be clear about this: there is a difference between responsible and irresponsible use. That some morons drive drunk isn't a justification for the reinstatement of alcohol prohibition, nor is that fact that some morons drive while stoned a justification for locking up all weed users. It's a moronic argument and no one is saying people should be allowed to drive stoned, nor is it necessary to lock up all users to stop such activity so one wonders why you would even bring it up. Straw man perhaps?None were caught while high driving? None were caught with way more than what they would need for occassional use?
Tell that to the cops at the check points around here. So long as the stops aren't random but patterned they stop as many people as they want, get them out of the car, do a plain sight search, which incidentally often includes the glove compartment and other such storage spaces.1. No officer will go through a vehicle on a traffic stop unless there is suspicion of drug/alcohol use or there's a consent to search or there's plain sight drugs. Or inventory because the vehicle is being towed due to the stop(suspended license, tags etc)
Perhaps you've heard of the unofficial Drug Exception to fourth ammendment? Getting a warrant on a drug search is a damn site easier than getting it for other offenses in my experience. It's also a lot easier to get evidence admitted it seems.2. No officer will get a warrant to search your house unless there's large amount of use or dealing/buying going on there. Not going to waste the time needed and man power to bust you for occassional use amounts.
Addictive and habit forming are two different phenomena, perhaps you should learn the difference. Biting your nails can be a habit, as can pot smoking. The 'withdrawal symptoms' are about the same for both too. Pot is not physically addictive because people do not reliably build a tolerance to the drug and there is no clearly defined withdrawal syndrome aside from grouchiness.3. Even if were not the case a single bust or two would not screw you for life on pot charges. Hell, you can still get hired on to police depts. with pot use as long as it isn't habitual which according to you it isn't habit forming so if a life in law enforcement or something is your goal then smoking pot shouldn't stop you from obtaining it.
Perhaps you should read the studies first. I have. Check out Heath and Nahas as they're popular with the prohibition crowd, or the larger scale studies done in Greece, Jamaica and Costa Rica which always get ignored because well they just don't find much of anything with regards to negative effects. Every single study that the government uses to prove how horrbily evil weed is ends up being so riddled with errors and bad methodology that no one in their right might would take it seriously. Doses upwards of 200 times the human psychoactive dose on small animals for ridiculous times periods, little things like that. Use that methodology and coffee becomes evil. It's such a popular subject I won't even go into it here, there are pages and pages of analysis all over the web with the references and often the fulls texts of the studies available.I will make a guarentee that my life experiences far outweigh yours in both my personal and professional experience. You show me a study countering pot? Hell, I can show you a study that is for and against pretty much anything. Have you ever figured out if global warming is actually happening due to people's contributions or is it a natural cycle? My point is that using a study that backs your beliefs doesn't make it proof of anything. You didn't believe all those other studies against it, right?
As for your guarantee about your experience, I could give a **** less because there's no way to prove it and it doesn't matter in the end, and neither does my experience. Data and logic matter. People with your opinion have been locking people up for decades and haven't made a single dent in usage rates or the supply or demand for this stuff, and yet you continue with the policy. That alone is enough to convince any sane person that you guys left the boat of reality a long time ago as it's a common definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
You know, in my entire time at DARE I never saw a single pusher approach a school, and I was in some ****ty schools. Drugs sell themselves, they rarely if ever are pushed. Ah but yet, implicit here is the SAVE THE CHILDREN argument. **** the children. I'm sick of seeing people's lives destroyed so others can raise their broods in a world they find more aesthetically pleasing. **** the little rug rats. If you people can't deal with the fact that they might have to interact with this world and may get a scratch or two, don't have them. I'm sick of seeing adults' rights to choose sacrificed at the alter of the almighty CHILDREN. If they're using drugs habitually you raised them wrong, just as if they are fat and have poor exercise and/or eating habits. Deal with it. We used to have a nice seperation between things that were appropriate for adults and children, now it seems to protect the stinky little angels we all have to live by rules designed to govern the behavior of four year olds.And where the hell are these millions of drug users who were screwed for life because of just their DRUG USE? I bet those drug use charges were sitting right next to some more serious charges. And if you think dealing is okay then you are the one far from reality. I haven't met too many morally concious dealers who didn't deal to people they knew had addictions or to small children.
As for the charges, indeed there often are violent charges next to the drug charges, and there often are not. Incidentally the violence is derrivative of prohibition, not the drugs. During alcohol prohibition there was violence surrounding the sale of alcohol, now there isn't. Gee, those are really two impossible to connect dots.
First, even though I didn't quote it here, I have to know what fantasy land you people are living and what's this constant obsession with driving? NO ONE IS ADVOCATING BEING STONED AND DRIVING. Jesus Christ, why is that so hard to understand? And as for opening some flood gate of stoned drivers, are you honestly that blind? The drugs are HERE ALREADY, EN MASSE. There is no ****ing floodgate, you're living in the river already and think you're on dry ****ing land. The ****ing damn has broken already, hell it was never there to begin with, and anyone who is going to drive while stoned IS ALREADY HERE AND DOING SO. You are not adding to anyone's problems.Locked up, or "screwed" over by the system because YOU chose to break the law? Please. Laws are laws and just because you don't agree with them, or even if it's a crappy law does not mean you shouldn't suffer the consequences for breakin them. I CHOOSE to use scheduled steroids without a script and I happen to think the laws are bogus but I do so with full knowledge that if caught and incarcerated I can blame only myself for the consequences of MY decisions.
As for your opinion on the laws BP, I have to say your subservience to the state is pretty disturbing. Perhaps my mindset is different, all I can say is by what ****ing authority does anyone have the gaul to try and restrain my behavior when I haven't hurt anyone and am not likely to do so? You see there's a fundamental difference in our thinking. You seem to think that, even though you disagree with the laws, they are rightfully enforced regardless. That essentially means you are putting the state above right and wrong, above moral and immoral. No matter the subject of the law, its enforcement is correct. To me that is insane, I can't even comprehend that. I can comprehend the practical fact of putting up with the punishment, there's only so much one person can do against the state. But by the love of God is there not one defiant bone in your body? Is there no higher authority or end than obedience for you guys?
Maybe in the end that's what I don't get, how so many people who are seemingly above average intelligence just so blindly accept a yoke on their shoulders, hell even are thankful for it. And never question what they're told it seems, even when the lives of so many hang in the balance of a certain policy decision. I don't understand how you so easily brush aside the millions of lives, people who are ****ed, whose families are screwed, hell entire countries destroyed and swallowed in the corruption vortex prohibition creates. Weed aside, look at the entire neighborhoods that have been taken over by black market drug gangs, not Pfizer or Merk, and the residents who live in absolute terror not because of the drugs but because of the black market gangs that prohibition empowers. Do these people mean nothing to you, and are you guys honestly that blind to the cause of their sufferring?
06-10-2006, 01:29 AM
You're really misinformed here. And I am a cop and I also know that no one is searching a locked glovebox or trunk and I also know that no one is doing a complete search of your vehicle on a check point because those check points are decided ahead of time what they are searching not to mention they are all over the radio and tv to let you know in advance.
So if it's a harsh law they serve pen time and it's unfair but if they serve under a year in a local pen then it's to avoid stats???EDIT? Do you also realize that any time is checkable? Regardless if it's state or lecal lock up? Any arrest is on record even the ones that are given PBJ's...
And those guys smoking at a concert had designated drivers right or took local transit? What the **** ever. EDIT
Last edited by Jayhawkk; 06-12-2006 at 01:01 PM.
06-10-2006, 01:31 AM
I guess I'm missing something here. Who made the argument that pot is not addictive or harmful? Then again, people get addicted to cell phones, and computers. Maybe we should outlaw them too.
I just think it's dishonest of our government to put all this effort into stamping out cannabis, when we have something like 400,000 people die each year because of tobacco, and another 80,000 people die because of alcohol. I wasn't able to find any statistics on how many cannabis related deaths we had in this country. I would suspect that it's not as high as alcohol or tobacco.
If our government is determined to save us from ourselves, then why don't they focus their efforts on stamping out alcohol and tobacco?
Originally Posted by B4n3 0n3
06-10-2006, 01:34 AM
It's not that there isn't more deadly stuff legal but why introduce something like this? Some societies could handle it but ours can't. Usually the related fatalities and incarcerations involving pot have higher crimes attached to it so the death itself isn't pot. I also think it's safer than ciggs and alcohol in moderation but it's still dangerous and easily abused and see no benefit from making it legal.
So what exactly is the benefit of legalizing pot? Is it just to keep people from breaking the law?
06-10-2006, 01:51 AM
I'll gracefully bow out as someone pointed out to me argueing this point is like arguing religion or politics. Just have to agree to disagree and move on I suppose.
06-10-2006, 01:52 AM
Are we even talking about the same thing here? These people knew what they were dong was against the law, gambled and lost. All for a high. Fing stupid. You could say the same about me I guess. I gamble with my drug use but I will not whine that the laws are unfair or immoral if I am sitting in jail. That is just adolescent. It's not like people are killing millions of unborn babies and our laws do nothing to stop it or anything.Originally Posted by CDB
Furthermore, who decides what laws are good and bad? By what moral authority shall we use as the crux? What if I think molesting children is my right? What about cannabalism? How about rape? Exceeding the speed limit? And who puts those chains on me and says how fast I can drive and that I need a seatbelt? Where is the line drawn? Perhaps you have the intelligence to judge correctly and perhaps the guy next to you does not. From what I see of the overall level of judgment of the average american ..... I am not impressed. I'll stick to following the laws we have, or at least accepting responsibility for my actions.
You are intelligent CDB, I do not dispute that. I just think you lack perception at times. Perhaps due to your obsessive over-thinking. <---- Totally poking fun bro. It's all good.
06-10-2006, 03:18 AM
IMO the government does not have the right to tell you what drugs to put in your body anymore than it does the food you put in your body. I guarantee you alot of foods are worse for your body than marijuana but you don't see the government throwing people in jail for eating pizza.
Marijuana grows out of the damn ground. At some point I guess the government got the gall to say "This plant is (tobbaco) is ok for you, this drug (aspirin) is ok, but you can't touch this plant or this drug."
People take drugs everyday. Caffeine in your soda, aspirin for your headaches, antidepressants, pills for if your **** is limp. What gives the government the right to decide one is legitimate but the other is not? Why put someone in jail for minding his own business smoking a joint in his house? I mean who the **** cares? Meanwhile next door someone is puffing away on another plant that grows out of the ground and it is perfectly legal.
06-10-2006, 03:46 PM
In all reality it is probly because the government is in bed with the alchohall and ciggarette companies since they get alot of tax money from that stuff. Notice the new Ethanol fuel for example. Ethanol is an alchohal derived from corn as such it is edible. So the government can't have that so they demand that the Ethanol is only E85 in other words 85% alchohal 15% gasoline to stop people from getting a cheap source for alchohal.Originally Posted by ArnoldIsMyIdol
06-10-2006, 03:54 PM
06-10-2006, 04:03 PM
I am too lazy to write the whole spiel in my head, but I agree with points being made by both Jayhawkk and CDB. I concur with CDB that there is no direct correlation between Marijuana use and hard drug use. I base my opinion as both an individual who has done alot of research in addictions counselling, and an individual who had to go through addiction counselling for very serious drug use. The relationship, IMO, is more indirectly consequential, as opposed to a direct correlation. Jayhawkk, you used the example of individuals using OTC orals before supplementing injectable AAS. I would venture to say that is more a consqequence of availability, not something to get their feet wet. I believe alot of people would make that direct jump if they could.
Although I do agree with you on some points Jayhawkk, I agree with most, if not all of the points CDB has made. The studies previously conducted and used for proliferation of 'anti-pot' beliefs are truly filled with holes from a physiological standpoint. I should state that I despise hard drugs with my whole spirit. They almost ruined my life, and are a serious detriment and epidemic to today's youth. However, I do not believe you can place marijuana in that same category. If it was legalized, I believe it would have even more of an opposing effect to what you believe. The individuals that were drawn into harder drug use would be more than likely directed away from that life because there would be no need to deal with shady pushers.
06-10-2006, 04:20 PM
The problem is there is no NEED now just a want. I want a lot of things but that doesn't mean I would risk doing time or getting a record. My problem is the euphoria reached with this drug is felt to be something that has to be had.
If someone could give me a list of benefits of legalizing the drug because making it a non crime I could possibly be swayed(not that you care to sway me). It seems that the growing list of reasons are all circular with the laws of it.
1. Not dealing with pushers
2. Not crowding jail space
3. Not ruining lives with criminal records
Being a cop you learn that no matter what you make a stop or arrest for. That person thinks that you would be serving better by stopping people doing 'real crimes' no one thinks their crime is real. If you're worried about your life and criminal record then drink a beer or two instead of risking it all by buying/selling/smoking pot. Until a law changes that's the safe way and if you choose to break the law then so be it.
I don't agree with many laws out there but it's hard to complain about them if I haven't actively went out and voted or did my best to change them. If you want pot legalized then get to work on it. Don't cloud it with fake issues like millions in jail for smoking a joint. Put real data and facts behind it.
I would be willing to bet that most people willing to sacrifice their way of life for a little pot are also the ones willing to drive drunk, willing to steal, willing to not get auto insurance etc. Is this a bold and broad statement? Yup but what else can you say about people who complain about their lives being ruined but at the same time keep doing the crime that will ruin it? Harmless drug? Maybe or maybe not but it is illegal. You do it and you take the chance of punishment. The same if you speed, drink and drive, use steroids. It isn't like it's a hidden law you don't know about.
06-10-2006, 04:21 PM
Well ethanol would be 200 proof alchohal for what about $3 a gallon. If I was a drinkin man I know what I would be buyin!Originally Posted by Jayhawkk
06-10-2006, 04:24 PM
I doubt it. Most don't drink alcohol to rip the lining out of their throat. Everclear isn't your usual party or weekend drink. Ones that an be tolerated and enjoyed are. And the ethanol is a 90% gas and 10% ethyl alcohol. The reason this is the case is becase any higher a % and cars would have to be updated to run that blend. This particualr blend allows all vehicles to run it.
06-10-2006, 04:31 PM
Jay, I just think the amount of capital involved in all facets of a drug arrest for simple Marijuana are ludicrous. At one time I will accept that it was a consensus crime, meaning it was felt to be a public danger and needed to be stopped. However, I no longer feel it is in the consensus or 'criminal' crime category. From not only a legal, but a sociological standpoint I think it's legaliztion, or at the very least de-criminalization has nothing but benefits. Let me give you an example Jay. Let's say you are out on patrol, you see a suspicious car and pull it over. Upon searching the car you find a copious amount of marijuana, in excess of 400 grams. However, it truly is only for the individuals personal use. Now, given the amount in most states this is cause for a trafficking or possession with intent to distribute charge, a fairly serious charge. Yet, the individual you pulled over is not a deviant, not a drug dealer, and is non-violent. In fact, he gives his time to various community charities, is a TA, and plans to be an elementary school teacher. Does society benefit at all from his imprisonment? No, it is detrimental, if only from a financial standpoint. Now, as a police officer you might find that scenario hard to believe, but it did happen, to one of my closest friends actually. He is now serving a very decent sentence and most likely will never be hired as a teacher. Now, you sway me as to why Marijuana should not be legal.Originally Posted by Jayhawkk
06-10-2006, 04:53 PM
Sure, a school teacher would be educated and would also know that he was carrying too much at one time.
A couple of questions.
1. Why was this car suspicious?
2. Why was this cop able to search this vehicle to find the pot?
3. Why was this pot stored in anything other than a locked glovebox or trunk?
4. Was this 400 grams of pot in a brick form or stored in individual baggies making them believe intent was to sell?
I'm not saying your friend is a bad person. I also know that there are many upstanding people who are later found to have violated laws and they are usually weighed in when deciding punishment. Was this guy given a leniant sentence?
06-10-2006, 05:02 PM
1) In Canada any suspicion of drug content in the vehicle lies soley with the discression of the Officer.Originally Posted by Jayhawkk
2)Same as above
3)I'm not sure. Everybody has made mistakes.
4)No, one larger brick. However the Crown decided this was too large of an amount to reduce the charge to a summary conviction of simple Possession.It was fairly leniant. But do you consider ruining his carreer leniant?
06-10-2006, 05:07 PM
Well, I can't comment on Canadian law but in the states there wouldn't of been probable cause to search the vehicle with what you described.
No I wouldn't consider it leniant but in all honesty he ruined his own career by taking that risk. I have sympathy for thse types of people becaus they are good people. Smoking pot does not make you a bad person. It makes you a person who broke the law.
But how does an officer get suspicion of drug content from looking at a vehicle? Smoke billowing out of the windows or was the car in a known drug area at 2am? This is what baffles me.
06-10-2006, 05:10 PM
The city I live it, despite of it's size has a very large crack-cocaine problem. Per capita, probably one of the worst I have ever seen, especially amonst minors. It was late and he was coming home from his girls house, the guy from afar probably did not look very shady and the officer pulled him over. The officer smelt Marijuana, and then had probable cause for a search.Originally Posted by Jayhawkk
Similar Forum Threads
- By BatCountry in forum Weight LossReplies: 43Last Post: 05-13-2012, 09:54 PM
- By superdrollover in forum Supplement LogsReplies: 60Last Post: 07-29-2007, 01:35 PM
- By powerlifter in forum AnabolicsReplies: 7Last Post: 10-20-2004, 08:30 PM
- By supersoldier in forum General ChatReplies: 7Last Post: 09-06-2004, 01:36 AM
- By Bean in forum AnabolicsReplies: 11Last Post: 10-22-2003, 04:36 PM