Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

Another Marijuana Myth Goes Up In Smoke by Paul Armentano

Jayhawkk said:
He would be the idiot since he took it to that extreme that forced the cops hand. The cop didn't know anything else about this person. Just that he ran when making a simple traffic stop. You know how many stops that started out simple ended up killing officers?

And this is the mindset I'm talking about, it doesn't even occur to you to question the reason for stopping him. In your mind the kill is justified because apparently all laws are worth killing for. I know damn well cops are killed, one of the first posters I saw when I was gonna go that route for a career was a cop in a pool of blood next to car, with the caption below "Routine traffic stop..." Point being though that you apparently won't even consider the idea that the laws bring about such situations. Maybe the laws are the reason every citizen is a God damn fleeing suspect and potential death threat. No one is killing cops because they bought some JD for a party, but if they have some coke in the trunk they just might.

And there's many accounts of cops pulling out guns and killing people just sitting there minding their own business smoking a joint?

Most people take the practical approach and surrender. That's their choice. Doesn't mean death is out of the picture or not what's driving the law though. But perhaps you'd like to look up on the web the number of drug raids and the like that go bad, and then the cops don't find what they were looking for. Look up the case of a Mr. Paz, he was killed in a mistaken drug raid on the wrong house. The cops siezed his savings too and tried to hold on to it under seizure laws even after it was shown Paz had nothing to do with drugs on any level. Just another necessary casualty of war to you I guess, maybe you'd think different if it was your father, wife or kid that was killed.

At first I thought you actually had an arguement but as it turns out you don't. You just believe with what you believe and **** everything else. No amount of 5 dollar words or thesaurus fvcking will change the fact that you're a ****.

No, it won't. Edit that before a mod does though, they might get mad. I don't give a **** though. I've tried talking and changing the laws from in the system, it doesn't work because the government has people like you brainwashed and thinking so irrationally it's useless. When you're dealing with someone like that you have to smack them a few times to get some sense into them, it's just the way of the world.
 
Jayhawkk said:
Actually something that was said earlier would be something I could agree on.

legal is but increase the penalties of crimes involving use. i.e.,driving while high etc. Making very stiff penalties for both children and parents for underage use(of course to and extent regarding parents who are shown to clearly play an active role). Strong penalties for use/selling/buying in school zones.

I would also raise the legal limit to 25. At 21 you're having enough of a time trying to stay sober.

Gee, we agree...
 
Doesn't matter about what the reason was to stop the guy. Why can't you understand this? If he led police on a high speed chase what normal thinking person would have done this with no reason?

Again you're brining up incidence of mistakes or wrong doing. I can bring up more cases of drug users making violent offenses than you can of cops raiding the wrong house.

EDIT
 
Last edited:
I support decriminalizing (personal amounts of) marijuana. Cops have better thing to worry about than petty drug busts. Legalizing? It sounds good in theory, but I'm not sure it'd work.
 
Jayhawkk said:
Doesn't matter about what the reason was to stop the guy. Why can't you understand this? If he led police on a high speed chase what normal thinking person would have done this with no reason?

The normal person who knows that even though they haven't hurt anyone, stolen anything or damaged property or in fact engaged in any act that would be considered traditionally criminal, but knows they might end up in prison because, God forbid!, they have a substance the government doesn't approve of. That aside, the main point is death is at the end of the enforcement of any law, because there is no point at which you or any other law enforcement official would say it's not worth it to pursue anymore. Even if you knew that all the person was guilt of was some minor violation, they'd better stand tall for the law or they're dead. Again it comes down to what I brought up with BP, subserviance. Perhaps a person would resist the enforcement of a law because the law is BULL**** and deserves to be scrapped.

Again you're brining up incidence of mistakes or wrong doing. I can bring up more cases of drug users making violent offenses than you can of cops raiding the wrong house.

Suppose you can, your point would be what? Not only did those people use drugs, I can guarantee you they also... DRANK MILK! They may have also, oh my God... EATEN FOOD! You're confusing correlation with causation and/or implicitness, and only because you were taught to think that way. There are plenty of drug users, the vast majority in my experience, whose only crime is the sale, aquisition and possession of the drugs. They are otherwise peaceful and law abiding. Once more, do we outlaw alcohol because some users drive under the influence, or get drunk and beat their wives? No, because the vast majority don't do those things and it would be absurd to make a law that indiscriminantly targets all users of alcohol because of the foul acts of a small subset of those users. It would also be absurd because it is obvious alcohol is not the cause of that behavior, it is at most a contribution element in the already ****ed up pathology of a moron with no self control, violent tendencies, etc. By your reasoning just because a few schmucks drive under the influence we should stop by the bar and lock up the whole happy hour crowd.

And why should I edit it? You have flat out insulted me throughout this thread. used repeated words to try and discredit me and belittle the way I think.

I have belittled you? You would happily throw me and people like me in prison for extended periods of time because of a bull**** law based on ignorance and misinformation. What am I supposed to do, be nice? To hell with that, I've had it with being nice to people who support such insanity. Not only does it not accomplish anything, they don't deserve niceness. I mean, do you lack any perception of what it is you do to people when you arrest them? You are ****ing people's lives up and they have done nothing to deserve it. Belittled you? Deal with it.

I just didn't use your style of wording in the process of doing the same in return. I started with an opinion that differed and you started with the insults.

Your opinion was a blithe dismissal of legalization, meanwhile people are rotting in jails, have had their careers and families trashed and their lives ****ed forever because of your opinion. Your opinion deserves belittlement. I'm not the one advocating throwing people in prison for smoking a weed I don't like. I'm not the one saying all users should be ****ed because a few behave like idiots. And I'm sick of being 'civil' towards people who would have happily torn my life to pieces.

Let's go back to the red head analogy, it was bad I admit. Let's talk sodomy. There's no need for blowjobs, it's a purely voluntary behavior. So I guess all those sodomy laws on the books that were often selectively enforced against gays are fine by you, right? Guess they should just buck up and accept the consequences of their actions, right? After all, It's The Law. And we'll just ignore the fact that the consequences are totally invented by the government. Lest we forget there are people who think sodomy is just as indicative of a degenerate nature as you think drug use is. Should they all just rot in prison? No one is born with a joint between their lips, and no one is born needing a knob shine either when there are so many other ways to get their rocks off. So those laws must also be just fine and dandy by you. And they are complete bull**** as well.

Criminalizing voluntary and consensual behavior that does not hurt or endanger other people, be it drug use, knob shines, religions or whatever, is anti freedom, anti liberty and anti american, not to mention immoral, unethical, unjust and just plain ****ing disgusting and irrational.

And if a routine traffic stop is what causes the death of a cop and not the offender in your mind then argueing anything using logic or sense is out the window for you. If I stop you for a expired tag or dead tail light and i get shot and killed. in your mind I deserved it because the law was stupid. I'm just glad more of you aren't running around.

Perhaps if the books weren't full of laws that made every single citizen an enemy combatant in the eyes of law enforcement, people would be less likely to shoot you. Perhaps if there weren't so many laws making it impossible to not break them just by cracking a fart people would be less jumpy when you pulled them over. I'm sure you're happy that there aren't many people like me running around, because much as I love freedom at this point in my life I'd have no qualms throwing you in prison over some bull**** law just to give you a dose of your own medicine. Hypocritical? Absolutely. Sue me.

As for the edit I suggested you make, it was for your own preservation. I seriously doubt a mod would make much of it, but you never know. I don't care what people call me, especially those of your ilk. And now, after a night of drinking diet coke and hauling some drunks around (Oh my God, responsible drug users!?!??!?!?), I'm going to bed.
 
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to CDB again.


I don't smoke pot....But I believe in freedom.

Keep fighting the good fight.
 
Criminalizing voluntary and consensual behavior that does not hurt or endanger other people, be it drug use, knob shines, religions or whatever, is anti freedom, anti liberty and anti american, not to mention immoral, unethical, unjust and just plain ****ing disgusting and irrational.

Amen.
 
Invalid Link Removed

Does a responsible person or two who does drugs means that the majority do? EDIT
 
Last edited:
Jayhawkk said:
Invalid Link Removed

Yeah, just because Oh my God, you know a responsible person or two who does drugs means that the majority do? But in the end my opinion happens to be the law and here's the kicker...Your opinion isn't and you have to live with it. Hopfully while you're transporting a car load of these people you get stopped and OMG! get your life screwed while you rot in prison making friends with bubba and learning to cry yourself to sleep at night thinking the whole time you should of went back to Amsterdam. Enjoy your life :)

Jay! Don't talk like that bro. I know you and you're too good of a man to get all ****ty like that. You know how much I honor and respect cops and military personnel too, but CDB is basically right with most of this. Tell me one thing, are you the kind of cop that would have arrested that teacher with the pot? Or would you see that society really needed him more than the system did, confiscate his stuff and let him go? That’s really the difference between a good cop that get’s it and a mindless robot cop like CDB was talking about that only sees the law with no understanding of right or wrong in his heart.
 
Jayhawkk said:
Yeah, just because Oh my God, you know a responsible person or two who does drugs means that the majority do?

Yes, actually. Almost everyone uses drugs of some form or other, whether it's an over the counter cold medicine, aspirin, blood pressure meds, etc. Most of them are responsible.

It's when we start picking and choosing which drugs are ok that it gets tricky. I have seen people drink a ton of coffee/energy drinks and act stupid and hyper. I've also seen people drink bottles of cough syrup to get high.

And I when I used to smoke (I stopped about 2 years ago) I would watch a movie usually or listen to music, usually at home by myself. I liked it because the pot makes sensory input more interesting.

I didn't bother anyone, I went to work everyday (and I never was high at work), and I didn't drive high.

The fact that others may use a drug irresponsibly should have no bearing on my ability to choose to use it.
 
I am still a little high from all that dope I smoked back in the 80's
so it took me a while to read through this thread, does marijuana cause lung cancer or not?
Laws are laws if you don't agree with them,you have the right to be a dissident, but that carries its own risks. If you think that you can change the Marijuana laws you must know somebody in "high" places. I don't want to pay taxes. Mostly because I think alot of the money collected is wasted on profiteers. Some of the money does useful things like support the social infrastructure and the people that make it work, so at least there is some good, which helps ease my dissent as I pay.
When I examine the origin of the Income tax laws I find that there is a cloudy somewhat deceitful history of the people who designed and profit from the taxes that are collectsed(mostly bankers)
You could apply the same examination to the original marijuana laws from 1936. They were spurred by histeria over "black jazz" musicians swinging into town to dope up the " white virgins" Marijuana role as a menace to society was started in xenophobia and rolls forward from that point.
The smart money realized that people would pay good money for this guilty pleasure. The smuggling industries was started and funded by many well know tea and coffee importers. The magnitude of the profit they generated from the marijuana laws may never be known, but I am pretty sure they won't give up(legalize it) without a fight.

Try and remember cops don't make laws. They are paid to
enforce them..and just becuase something is your job doesn't make it right.

..."live free or die tryin" -Samuel Adam or maybe it was 50 cent
 
Pot is not addictive. I have smoked pot off and on for the past 15 years. I find it helps me relax after an insane day at work followed by a 90 minute drive home. My fiance says that she notices that I am less tense and that my normal levels of anxiety are gone.

I do not believe it impairs my workouts at all....I am 34 years old, 210 lbs (at 5'10") and am fairly lean...no idea on my bodyfat %, but I have good abs and my cardio sessions are always great. I have had no desire to do other drugs or experiment.
I can go weeks or months without smoking pot and do not "crave" it. I look at it as a "tool" in my arsenal of staying fit, strong, and most importantly, sane.

Gumbo
 
Depends on the situation Dr.D. If I found a brick of pot in a guys car then I doubt I would have taken the pot and let the guy go because that would of put my family in danger. That guy would of basically thought I took the pot to smoke it myself.


In my job I would of had two choices. 1. just let him go without taking a thing or 2. Arrest him. But i'm honest. I don't pull k-9 searches for just the hell of it. I don't search people's cars illegally and I don't go searching for more than i need to. If I would of pulled you over for a burnt tail light then you would of got a verbal and let go. I don't believe in suspicious cars. There's people who do suspicious acts.

EDIT
 
Last edited:
Jayhawkk said:
And anyone who basically tells me he wants me to see me dead or in jail and on and on can kill my ass. I can handle mature debates or arguements.

Not for nothing, but that's exactly what you've been saying to me, every other person on this board who uses or has used, and by default every other user, past presetn and future. Or do you think going to jail is a vacation to look forward to? As for your last post directed at me, I loved it. It takes so little to bring out the inherently viscious nature of people like you. And yes, mindless enforcement of a law without concern for its justification or consequences is visciousness. I'm sick of giving a pass to people on the "I'm just following orders" or "It's my job" lines.
 
EDIT
I live my life based on my morals,values and life experiences and you live yours by however you decide.
 
Last edited:
CDB, Jay -

Everytime a thread on drug politics comes up it usually ends up the same way with you guys being overly viscious toward one another. I understand the fury caused by the clashing of totally opposing viewpoints - but please be civil about it.

Try to focus on the things in life you both agree on, like lifting weights, supplementation, etc. Think happy thoughts. Remember what Bambi's mother said:

"If you cant say anything nice, don't say anything at all"

Invalid Link Removed

C'mon, doesnt that make you both smile? :D

BV
 
Jayhawkk said:
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.


I feel i should chime in, While i maybe talking about a friend(cough) this story maybe true or maybe false.

Anyways, my friend is very bipolar and has server depression has been sucidal and on and off medication his intire life, my friend can't drink and has no desire to after doing it for a while lost its magic. Not mention the many many ill side effects that it can have, well my friend used to be against pot heavy til he did a very very very extensive college paper (Started off against Ganja use) and turned around after reading threw the DEA's Bull**** lies, eventaully the only test for my friend to do was to try it and judge its distructive nature. My friend after trying it has used it a couple of times when down to turn himself around, over all my friend has found its medical/relaxtion property's to be very benifitacal at controlling the mood swings and has no desire to do it again. But may do it again in the future while visiting amsterdamn(*where this all took place*)

My friend didnt try any other drugs, Did'nt play with a gun and shot himself or a friend(as some comericals implicated) Didn't attempt to drive a car around, never went sold or advocated the spread of use to his friends/familys and others(outside of maybe telling me to add to this thread of misconcived notions) What i can say is after seeing how people act on Ganja compared to achahal that Ganja is far safer and alot more mellow, my friends defintly not new to see people under infulence of diffrent drugs and i must say that MJ happens to be the least ill effects and potenail good effects out of all the drugs out there. (Considering two of the most dangerous besides coke/meth are legal) Its too bad that the goverment can't see past its ill fated ways to except another safe drug that can be used at least medically if not reccerationally. Lets put it this way when i was in Amsterdamn people toked in lounges and were very normal and relaxed. These people weren't heavy drug users or scum bags they were normal bussiness class people relaxing with friends. Let me say i believe the reason MJ gets such a negivite rap is the normal people that won't break the law aren't doing it (for most part) and alot of regular crimnals who ignore the law anyways are doing it. So you can really only get a negivite picture of MJ. But if they allowed it to become legal you would see the same effect as Amsterdamn that it wouldnt have a negitvie effect it would be retrospectivally the same.

Only there would be a safer option(IMHO) then drinking/smoking cig's

Anyways medically they have found(get this) THE DEA recently maybe 2months ago. Hired 12 sceintist to conduct a study on the harmful/negitive effects and wanted to prove there was no medical usefullness. The scientist came back with stunning and opisit results. Making matters worse for the DEA instead of addmitting they were wrong they threw the findings out and claimed there old research was right.

Talk about a load of ****, i'm sorry but trusting our goverment is worse then trusting the Supposivly informative Discovery Channel.
(sorry always wanted to use there dumbasses as a analagy after watching last 5 years of crap they've spewed out)

Anyways take the truth or leave it, and believe the great DEA who is so greatly protecting everyone from themselves(rofl)


Dr L
 
BigVrunga said:
Try to focus on the things in life you both agree on, like lifting weights, supplementation, etc. Think happy thoughts.
BV

Good idea. This subject really pulls out the ******* in me.
 
Anyways medically they have found(get this) THE DEA recently maybe 2months ago. Hired 12 sceintist to conduct a study on the harmful/negitive effects and wanted to prove there was no medical usefullness. The scientist came back with stunning and opisit results. Making matters worse for the DEA instead of addmitting they were wrong they threw the findings out and claimed there old research was right.


Do you have links to this happening? Not that I put it past the gov't to do this. Also, what people need to consider is that Amsterdam isn't even remotely close to the US society/culture. Introducing something that works/worked in one doesn't mean it'll produce similar results in another.
 
Dr Liftalot said:
My friend after trying it has used it a couple of times when down to turn himself around, over all my friend has found its medical/relaxtion property's to be very benifitacal at controlling the mood swings and has no desire to do it again. But may do it again in the future while visiting amsterdamn(*where this all took place*)

The politicization of the science surrounding weed is pretty incredible. However, regarding use as an antidepressant your friend should use care. Weed is a psychoactive and depending on social setting, current mood and expectations, etc., can have the opposite effect and amplify negative emotions. It's relatively innocuous for most people, but those with mood disorders should exercise caution when using any drug, especially ones with mental effects like weed, acid, MDMA, etc. The effects can be very variable.
 
Jayhawkk said:
Do you have links to this happening? Not that I put it past the gov't to do this. Also, what people need to consider is that Amsterdam isn't even remotely close to the US society/culture. Introducing something that works/worked in one doesn't mean it'll produce similar results in another.


Fair enough, it was the headline in the seattle times, will do what i can to find it.

But yes i will do that find it for you, you see i do understand where you are coming from, there was a time in my life where i felt as you do or perhaps did if you had/have gave some thought as to what has been said here. Strangly enough i thought MJ was so bad that i felt pot smokers should be beaten down and thrown in jail and considered them to be scum/crap/and less then normal people. I grew up around DARE all my life so by time i hit highschool and some people were on pot(of course the trouble makers) I automatically said this proves the point pot=trouble and was against it for years to follow until of course the project came along. And of course the trip to Amsterdamn, which opened my eyes to new possiblitys, that MJ is just like Guns in a way. (not corlating to any sort of the use for guns to MJ) But in the fact that in the countries where Guns are banned the criminals kept theres and kept defieing the law and for the most part good honest people gave theres up. *now comes for the link* And the same goes with pot, if we legalized it you'd have normal people getting high without the problems you described and you'd have the same scumbags doing it ether way, so in a way all the negitive things people do on pot could and would happen ether way because its not really pot, its just adverage pot smoker isnt a law abiding citizin for the most part anyways(of course not all are crimanals) but a good portion are already that so its not the MJ's fault.

So what i'm trying get at is it would look just like amsterdamn and be just like achohol. You have people high class who drink and still have a job and have a family , pay tax's etc. And your gonna have Joe **** bag who robs banks drives under infulence and has a I don't give a **** attitude about life anyways. So basically the banning is dumb espically when it has Medical aplication, and i honestly say its a safer alternitve to drinking. In retrospect you don't see to many crazy people who get high and go fighting people. I mean it happens but with drinking i see it all the time.

I defintly think they should try to tax and regulate its use and take the money out of the black markets hands. It can have very postive effects and there is no doubt in my mind that can be used safely, but the same with anything theres that 5% that will abuse it but theres nothing you can do about it because if it isnt MJ its gonna be drinking and if it isnt drinking its cough syripe etc.


I challenge you to go abroad to Amsterdamn and try it once, and then form your thesis, look how they live and tell me it isnt as i described. You say its a diffrent culter i challenge that, because its just as diverse if not more. I defintly think that the US would look similar because we like them have whats called a education and would have people using it at all levels like now, but we would get tax money, not speading money on keeping people locked up for a victomless crime(IMHO) and generally its a fun thing to do.

Dr Liftalot
 
CDB said:
The politicization of the science surrounding weed is pretty incredible. However, regarding use as an antidepressant your friend should use care. Weed is a psychoactive and depending on social setting, current mood and expectations, etc., can have the opposite effect and amplify negative emotions. It's relatively innocuous for most people, but those with mood disorders should exercise caution when using any drug, especially ones with mental effects like weed, acid, MDMA, etc. The effects can be very variable.


Agreed
Like all drugs every user responds diffrently due to there chemical make-up. That being said there is a general overall similar effect but thats about it when comes to every sort of drug.

But thanks for looking out ;-)
 
Anybody changed anyone else's opinion in this matter yet? No? Ok, off I go to re-unsubscribe and think happy thoughts! :) :run:

Besides, I don't want BigV hunting me down!:numbered:
 
I can't remember if it was the seattle PI or seattle times, but i did search a bit but said i needed sign up. Anyways i may make account just to find the artical.(depends how much sleep i get before work)

Night guys
 
Changed? Nah, most of these regardless never change a opinion usually ingrained after years of [insert reason]. However, you hope to inform the opposing side that the viewpoint isn't based off ignorance or hatred etc.

I don't believe pot to be bad in and of itself. I don't believe users are all bad people. Everyone has their reasons for use or their reasons not to use. Just like I don't believe every illegal immigrant from the southern border should be locked up for life among other things because some are here to escape poverty and feed their families. However, you still need laws and rules to keep some sort of order.

I believe that with the way our society is that due caution is deserved when thinking about introducing a substance like this. Not just immediate short term or believed to be long term results by those who want it legalized nor the Short term or believed to be long term results by those who want it kept illegal.

There's propaganda and lies on both sides of the arguement regardless of your stance. The hard part is sifting through both sides to find the truths and weigh those as well as possible and slowly, through intelligent debate, science and finally though laws make the changes that the people want.
 
Jayhawkk said:
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. :)


Jay your oppinion and mine are usually pretty close but answer me this one question...

Why cant i put what I want in my body?


I'm going to go one step farther and say that you are in opposition of freedom if you think cocane should be illegal. Again, I should be able to put what I want in my body. Just beacuse some people do stupid things while under the influence doenst mean I should be able to put what I want in my body.
 
Jayhawkk said:
EDIT
I live my life based on my morals,values and life experiences and you live yours by however you decide.


Nope. Doesnt work that way. I choose to live my life the way I want to, maybe smoke crack, I go to jail.
 
Jayhawkk4. 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?[/QUOTE said:
"intent to sell" laws are a crock of ****. If I walk around town with a knife in my pocket, do i get charged with attempted murder? Anyone who is charged with "intent" of anything is guilty untill proven innocent
 
"intent to sell" laws are a crock of ****. If I walk around town with a knife in my pocket, do i get charged with attempted murder? Anyone who is charged with "intent" of anything is guilty untill proven innocent

So you don't think there should be a recognized difference between a guy in a school zone with one crack rock vs. pockets full of them?

Also you're comparing apples and oranges.
 
Jayhawkk said:
So you don't think there should be a recognized difference between a guy in a school zone with one crack rock vs. pockets full of them?

Also you're comparing apples and oranges.


I'm saying (if i thought crack should be illegal, which i dont) slam him for SELLING, not because he might sell. How could you prove he was going to sell anything?
 
That's where they lawmakers came in. Motive bro, it's throughout all your laws. The intent behind the crime changes the punishment. If you're going to get angry at that then you need to be equally angry with non drug related crimes that have it.
 
Just want to add some personal input on the addictiveness of marijuana. I don't smoke, never have, but my best friend is a hardcore pothead and is addicted to the stuff in many of the same horrible ways an alcoholic becomes addicted to booze. As a person he has always had a natural lazyness about him, but smoking amplifies it drastically for him, to the point where he is lethargic and unproductive, unable to sustain an academic career at school or a normal 9-5 job. Although he graduated the same year from HS as me he has only 10 units of college credit total, has failed out of numerous community college classes, lossed many jobs, all because he can't get his **** together when he is smoking heavily. I am in no way trying to say the weed *made* he make these poor decisions, but he is so dependent on it he puts it above all his other priorities, and just litterally "shuts off" when he is without it. It is like he cannot deal with the normal pressures of life without getting high. Like alcohol or many other drugs it is an escape for him. He has gotten a lot worse lately, he can't go out anywhere without smoking first, and when he is down to his last dollar he chooses pot over food (wtf!?). From what I have described here you must be picturing someone living in a card board shack, but at first glance he would probably seem pretty normal. If you were to tell me he has other issues besides the weed, I wouldn't disagree, but lemme tell you for some people this stuff is as addictive as anything could be.

Also, I gotta agree with Jawhawk in that our particular society could not handle legalized pot. Maybe you guys could, or some of your friends or family, but in general there are just too many idiots out there. It's not that weed is inherently evil, or that it has devestating effects in isolated incidents, but rather on a national scale it is likely to cause a surge in various negative behavoirs.
 
I have a couple of good articals for people to read in regards to the FDA's latest politcally motivated letter. (Prime example how it warned us of how dangerous plan B was, even though it has been proven to be safe)


For Immediate Release


April 27, 2006



Hinchey Leads Bipartisan House Coalition In Calling For FDA
To Explain Baseless Anti-Medical Marijuana Policy




Twenty-Four Members Say Agency Needs To Start Responding
To Science & Not To Political Pressure


Washington, D.C. - One week after the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a baseless, one page press release claiming that marijuana had no medical benefits, Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) led a bipartisan group of 24 House members in calling on the agency to explain its reasoning and show scientific proof to support its view. Hinchey, who has offered an amendment in the House three times that would bar the federal government from prosecuting medical marijuana patients, doctors, and suppliers in states where medical marijuana is legal, and his colleagues said the FDA's action appears to be politically motivated and defies the results of a White House-commissioned Institute of Medicine (IOM) study from 1999 that detailed the benefits of medical marijuana use.

"Despite the fact that you are responding to a scientific question, your press release failed to provide any scientific expertise. We call on you to show us the purported scientific evidence for the basis of this response. There is no evidence that you have new scientific proof or that you oversaw clinical trials," Hinchey and his colleagues wrote in a letter sent today to FDA Acting Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach. "It perplexes us that even though the FDA is responsible for protecting public health, the agency has failed to respond adequately to the IOM's findings seven years after the study's publication date."

On April 20, the FDA issued a one-page press release without any documentation to back up its claim that, "...No sound scientific studies supported medical use of marijuana for treatment in the United States, and no animal or human data supported the safety or efficacy of marijuana for general medical use." This statement fails to take into account the IOM report from 1999, which found that marijuana's active components are potentially effective in treating pain, nausea, the anorexia of AIDS wasting, and other symptoms, and should be tested rigorously in clinical trials.

"We saw it with the agency's decision on the emergency contraceptive, Plan B, and we're seeing it again with medical marijuana: the FDA is making decisions based on politics instead of science," Hinchey said. "The FDA should not be a political entity. Rather, the agency should be in the business of ensuring all Americans have access to safe and effective drugs, including medical marijuana."

Hinchey and his colleagues noted in their letter to von Eschenbach that the FDA has an Investigational New Drug (IND) Compassionate Access Program, which allowed some Americans with certain medical conditions to apply to the agency to receive marijuana from the federal government. Seven people are currently still in the program and routinely receive marijuana from the federal government. The House members suggest that the IND is an example of how the FDA could allow for the legal use of marijuana without having to go through the series of steps many other drugs go through before getting approved.

Hinchey intends to offer his medical marijuana amendment for a fourth time when the House takes up the Science, State, Justice, and Commerce Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2007. The measure would prohibit the U.S. Department of Justice from spending any funds in its budget to prosecute patients, doctors, and others who are associated with the use of medical marijuana in states that allow the drug from medical purposes.

###

The text of the letter from Hinchey and his House colleagues to FDA Acting Commissioner von Eschenbach follows:

April 27, 2005


Andrew C. von Eschenbach, M.D.
Acting Commissioner
Food and Drug Administration
5600 Fishers Lane
Rockville, Maryland 20857


Dear Dr. von Eschenbach:

We are troubled by the FDA's April 20th press release in which the agency states that
"[N]o sound scientific studies supported medical use of marijuana for treatment in the United States, and no animal or human data supported the safety or efficacy of marijuana for general medical use." The timing and the lack of substantial information included in this release lead us to conclude that this was a politically motivated statement rather than one based on scientific evidence and fact.

Despite the fact that you are responding to a scientific question, your press release failed to provide any scientific expertise. We call on you to show us the purported scientific evidence for the basis of this response. There is no evidence that you have new scientific proof or that you oversaw clinical trials. In conjunction with the lack of scientific evidence, it is troubling that your release seemed to defer to the DEA's medical opinions on the drug despite the fact that determining the medical importance of a drug is not in the DEA's jurisdiction.

After deferring to the DEA, your release reads that, "FDA is the sole federal agency that approves drug products as safe and effective for intended indications." Why then has the FDA failed to respond to the 1999 Institute of Medicine (IOM) report which concluded that marijuana's active components are potentially effective in treating pain, nausea, the anorexia of AIDS wasting, and other symptoms, and should be tested rigorously in clinical trials? It perplexes us that even though the FDA is responsible for protecting public health, the agency has failed to respond adequately to the IOM's findings seven years after the study's publication date. Additionally, this release failed to make note of the FDA's Investigational New Drug (IND) Compassionate Access Program, which allowed patients with certain medical conditions to apply with the FDA to receive federal marijuana. Currently, seven people still enlisted in this program continue to receive marijuana through the federal government. The existence of this program is an example of how the FDA could allow for the legal use of a drug, such as medical marijuana, without going through the "well-controlled" series of steps that other drugs have to go through if there is a compassionate need.

In light of our concerns over this release, please inform us if there is new scientific information that disputes the IOM study, including the results of the evaluation, any scientific paperwork generated in the study, the length of time the evaluation occurred, and whether the DEA or any other federal agencies aside from the ones mentioned in the letter had a role in the evaluation. If, as the press release leads us to believe, there is in fact no evaluation, please let us know what motivated the FDA to write a release that lacks scientific review. It disheartens us to see the FDA veer off course in this area of public health especially at the expense of many terminally ill Americans. We understand that FDA's mission is to protect public health, which is why we respectfully request that you respond to these questions on this very important issue.


Sincerely,

Maurice Hinchey
Ron Paul
Barney Frank
Sam Farr
Tammy Baldwin
Raúl Grijalva
Robert Wexler
Dennis Kucinich
John Conyers
Maxine Waters
Dana Rohrabacher
Jim McDermott
Tom Lantos
Jerrold Nadler
John Olver
Lois Capps
Julia Carson
Peter Stark
Jan Schakowsky
George Miller
Zoe Lofgren
Tom Allen
Barbara Lee
Gary Ackerman


Invalid Link Removed
 
All SmokeThe FDA's statement on medical marijuana isn't about science.
By Sydney Spiesel
Posted Monday, April 24, 2006, at 3:36 PM ET

Download the MP3 audio version of this story here, or sign up for Slate's free daily podcast on iTunes.

Medicinal marijuana. Click image to expand.Medicinal marijuana
Last week, the Food and Drug Administration reported that it had definitively established that marijuana has no medical use or value. Definitively? Established? I don't think so.

The FDA's announcement begins by acknowledging the claim that smoked marijuana may be beneficial for some conditions. Then the agency points out that among drugs with a potential for abuse, marijuana is lumped in with the most dangerous drugs, the ones that have no potential medical benefits and the highest likelihood of misuse. The FDA next affirms that a collection of federal agencies have together concluded that marijuana is both dangerous and medically valueless, based on scientific studies in humans and animals. The announcement—actually, it's an "inter-agency advisory"—concludes by asserting, with a boldness that might belie a certain uneasiness, that it is the FDA's job to approve drugs. Take that, state legislatures and voters.

The FDA's statement implies that the agency reached its conclusion about marijuana after conducting a new serious analysis of the existing scientific literature on the drug. But of course no such analysis was reported in the medical literature and, in fact, no identifiable official at the FDA took responsibility for last week's advisory. It was just put out there as a statement of fact.
Click Here!

But it's not. In 1999, the Institute of Medicine, the medical arm of the National Academy of Sciences (an organization chartered by Congress to provide independent, nonpartisan scientific and technological advice) examined this same question in considerable depth and published a 288-page report of its findings. Put together by 11 distinguished scientists and physicians, the IOM report examined the known and potential harms of marijuana use and the known and potential medical benefits. The report is broad in its vision and thoughtful and cautious in its interpretations and recommendations. Its authors acknowledged that the medical uses of marijuana entail some risk of harm—for instance, it's pretty clear that inhaling marijuana smoke can't be good for the lungs, and who knows if there are significant psychological side effects for some users. But the authors concluded that these risks were not terribly high. They also found that other putative risks often attached to this drug—the potential for addiction, for instance, or for marijuana serving as a "gateway" to further drug abuse—were much overstated. The report urged further study to determine the real level of risk.

In examining the potential medical benefits of medical marijuana, the IOM report was equally cautious. It described relief from nausea associated with cancer chemotherapy, appetite stimulation for cancer and HIV patients, and treatment of muscle spasticity for patients with multiple sclerosis or spinal cord injury. Though these benefits seem real, the authors of the IOM report point out that we really don't know yet if they are significant or valuable enough to warrant the use of medical marijuana. Again, the report urged further study to determine the real level of benefit.

However, in the seven years since the IOM report was issued, virtually no research on potential risks and benefits has been done, because the government has blocked such studies. So, we know neither more nor less about medical marijuana than we did seven years ago, whatever the FDA says. Why would the agency inaccurately claim that the science is settled when it isn't? I hardly need to say it: This isn't a medical or scientific conclusion. It's a political one.

This is certainly not the first time that politics has trumped science at the FDA. Another recent example: the agency's decision to block over-the-counter availability for emergency contraceptives in the face of overwhelming evidence that the treatment is safe and effective, and support for over-the-counter availability by the FDA's own advisory committee. From my standpoint as a doctor, the question is this: What do you do when federal agencies become so politicized that their recommendations can't necessarily be trusted? Do you have to treat other things they say as suspect? I depend on good advice and honest information from government agencies in the daily conduct of my work. I need to know what epidemic illnesses are circulating in my neighborhood even if that information might put a government agency in a bad light. I need to be able to trust government-sponsored research (especially because, goodness knows, I have learned not to trust manufacturer-sponsored research). I need to know that the advice I glean from government-sponsored agency Web sites will lead to the best care for my patients.

Marijuana as a medicine—whatever its risk and benefits are eventually determined to be—may turn out to be much less important than the question of whether we can count on agencies like the FDA to be honest in their dealings.

Invalid Link Removed
 
Jayhawkk said:
So you don't think there should be a recognized difference between a guy in a school zone with one crack rock vs. pockets full of them?

No, there shouldn't. One, because you don't know what any one person's intent is until you prove it with facts. Assuming it is just wrong. Two, the government's idea of levels that indicate intent to sell are often ridiculous. I've known people who grew their own weed who had more than enough in their houses at any given time to go to prison for life. They didn't sell however. Pretty soon having enough Dianabol for one cycle will count as intent to sell because of how they deal with dosage units legally. The laws impose an artificial structure that is more often than not divorced from reality on true intent.
 
Dr Liftalot said:

Nothing new here, actually, Doc. Scientists have been politely telling congress, the FDA and the DEA that marijuana really isn't all that bad in the end and probably shouldn't be illegal much less the focus of a drug war. Congress, the FDA and the DEA have been politely ignoring them for decades.
 
The problem CDB is that people seem to only care about the parts of the law like this when dealing with areas that affect them directly. In this case certain drugs. I won't argue that laws may be screwed but they are there.
No, there shouldn't. One, because you don't know what any one person's intent is until you prove it with facts. Assuming it is just wrong

A lot of law is based around certain facts to seemlingly prove others. i.e., they had prior selling charges, they were 35 miles from their house and had enough product on them at that time to supply personal use for 7-10 weeks.

Could he have just just been walking through the school zone from a friends where he picked it up to suply himself because going on buys every other day was too much of a risk? Very well could be. I didin't write the laws and I know you didn't either but they are there.

When dealing with law it sounds easy enough to just pull out a part we don't like and think it'll be fine but the puzzle that the law is makes pulling one piece usually mess other areas up that we don't see right away,
 
Oh and a Charge /= a conviction.
Saying no charges can be made without every provable fact out there would just take out the courts and put the cops as enforcement and judge. Certain criteria are met before a charge can be made but that doesn't mean they are enough to convict. What you are asking would be hell when applied to all law and not just the ones you feel passionate about.
 
Jayhawkk said:
Oh and a Charge /= a conviction.
Saying no charges can be made without every provable fact out there would just take out the courts and put the cops as enforcement and judge. Certain criteria are met before a charge can be made but that doesn't mean they are enough to convict. What you are asking would be hell when applied to all law and not just the ones you feel passionate about.

It ain't supposed to be easy, Jay. If it is that's called a police state. I would argue that if the law were restricted to those areas classically considered criminal, that is not victimless crimes and the like, that the extra burden you speak of would not be an issue. It is precisely the massive over reaching of law makers in an attempt to legislate every single aspect of our existence that makes the measures you mention necessary. I understand your point on needing more to convict, my answer would be it's a bit weird to argue over the specifics of the application of a law that I really don't think should even be on the books to begin with.
 
I can understand that. There's a lot of laws that I don't believe should be there to begin with or how genericly written they can be used by those wishing to bend the law to put you in a bad istuation.

I also know people who were wrongfully pulled over but ended up being charged for much worse. Like revoked license and suspended tags etc. They are too scared to do anything and usually too broke to get a good lawyer. But that's a whole other story.
 
I dont mean to be offencive, but I want you anti-pot dudes to answer me this question before you post anything else on this topic.

How does myself smoking weed IN MY HOME, not opperating a vehicle for the rest of the day, affect ANYONE else on the planet other than myself.

You give me a legit answer to this and I will NEVER say it should be legal again.
 
Jayhawkk said:
That's where they lawmakers came in. Motive bro, it's throughout all your laws. The intent behind the crime changes the punishment. If you're going to get angry at that then you need to be equally angry with non drug related crimes that have it.

If I attempt to sell weed, then charge me with selling. Kind of like a man who actually stabs you will get attempted murder as opposed to the guy with the knife in his pocket that never pulls it out.
 
How does myself smoking weed IN MY HOME, not opperating a vehicle for the rest of the day, affect ANYONE else on the planet other than myself.
Law makers have decided that the people who do this are in the minority. Change the laws is all I cansay or move to a place that better serves your interests. Most of the laws and people i've voted for have never seen the light of day. I don't agree with a lot of the laws out there but they are there.


When you find utopia please send me a email cause i'll pack my bags and join you.
 
If I attempt to sell weed, then charge me with selling. Kind of like a man who actually stabs you will get attempted murder as opposed to the guy with the knife in his pocket that never pulls it out.

Again, there's criteria that have to be met before a proper arrest can be made and that still will not always mean a conviction. I don't know what else to tell you.
 
Back
Top