The President is going to address both houses to decriminalize Pot

[Ichingcarpenter]

Actually he already did.



In 1978, President Carter told Congress that


Marijuana continues to be an emotional and controversial issue. After four decades, efforts to discourage its use with stringent laws have still not been successful. More than 45 million Americans have tried marijuana and an estimated 11 million are regular users.

Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself; and where they are, they should be changed. Nowhere is this more clear than in the laws against possession of marijuana in private for personal use. We can, and should, continue to discourage the use of marijuana, but this can be done without defining the smoker as a criminal. States which have already removed criminal penalties for marijuana use, like Oregon and California, have not noted any significant increase in marijuana smoking. The National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse concluded five years ago that marijuana use should be decriminalized, and I believe it is time to implement those basic recommendations.

Therefore, I support legislation amending Federal law to eliminate all Federal criminal penalties for the possession of up to one ounce of marijuana. This decriminalization is not legalization. It means only that the Federal penalty for possession would be reduced and a person would received a fine rather than a criminal penalty. Federal penalties for trafficking would remain in force and the states would remain free to adopt whatever laws they wish concerning the marijuana smoker.



Read more at the American Presidency Project: www.presidency.ucsb.edu http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=7908#ixzz1OcVhoo6x





Come on President Obama....... do the right thing

[villager]

1. What are the sad long odds of Obama ever daring to say something similar...

...to Congress?

:shrug:

[Angry Dragon]

5. ...................

:rofl:


They tried to outlaw booze and it did not work..........
Is there any difference with pot??

[tblue37]

6. Yeah--pot doesn't cause physical addiction, and there is no evidence

that people die from using it. That is a major difference--but of coruse booze is legal, and pot is not.

[Dutchmaster]

68. Marijuana . . .

. . . does cause physical addiction, and while you can not die from overdosing on marijuana, it does have harmful effects on the body which can shorten one's life expectancy, especially if it is smoked. Just because you want marijuana to be harmless, doesn't make it harmless.

[myrna minx]

72. Would you please cite the sources for your conjecture? Thanks!

[Dutchmaster]

75. The first indicator . . .

. . . of physical dependence is development of tolerance.

[Warren DeMontague]

81. And the first indicator of taking a shit is usually sitting down

but that doesn't mean that everyone who sits down is taking a shit.

[Enthusiast]

136. LOL!

We have RW trolls.

[tekisui]

130. There are no withdrawal symptoms. It is not physically addictive.

[RaleighNCDUer]

133. Of which there is ZERO evidence with pot.

You do NOT have to consume greater and greater quantities to get the same high.

You can, of course, get habituated to pot, but not addicted.

[Dutchmaster]

139. There are withdrawl symptoms . . .

. . . and it is addictive, particularly psychologically, but also physically. Feel free to paint your reality as you wish though. Make your sky green and your grass blue if you so desire.

[frylock]

149. so links to that claim with scientific evidence will be forthcoming?

right? you can provide such evidence, can't you?

[Name removed]

155. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[frylock]

162. oh, i'm sure your time here will be short-lived..

go peddle your drug warrior propaganda bullshit elsewhere. otherwise back up your fucking claims with evidence, sport.

[Dutchmaster]

177. I've been trolled by much better than the likes of you, sport.

Keep trying though.

[frylock]

211. who's the troll here now?

still waiting fo you to back up yer shit, hunnybunch.

[kenfrequed]

166. Err...

Isn't supporting a claim with some kind of factual source a basic idea that everyone can agree to? Are you so averse to the idea that you have to crack wise?

I would like to know if you are a sock-puppet or is this just a hit and run job. My suspicion is the former.

[Warren DeMontague]

179. Oh, sure, you want "facts" and "science" and "evidence".

How typical of a weenie pothead.

[myrna minx]

195. I suspect your professors will not accept research papers that contain foot notes or end notes that

say "the information is out there". It's up to *you* to support your claims not for us to try to prove a negative.

[Dutchmaster]

201. I'm not trying to prove anything. . .

. . . by academic standards. If you need that kind of proof, feel free to do the legwork. I'm not writing an APA paper every time I discuss something on the net. I won't do it half assed. If I had anything on the subject of MJ I'd happily share it, but I don't. I do have a policy paper regarding the negative impact of drug prohibition on society, if you're interested.

[frylock]

212. so what you're saying, in essence, is that you know fuckall

[comtec]

223. Beste klootezaak

ik vind het grappige dat je kompt hier, om its tegen wiet om te zeggen.

je weet wel hoe laag problemen met wiet is in het nederlands.

Waarom dan, doe je iets flauwe hier?

Zal ik reizen dat je CDA of VVD zijn?

Ga terug naar je gaat, je zelfzich idioot.

Hier JIJ BENT DE ALLOCHOON!

[RainDog]

230. Dat was een veel boos reactie!

het spijt mij, maar kan ik niet te veel goed Nederlands schrijven.

[comtec]

231. ik ook niet

na zes jaaren en mijn grammatica is echt rot.
ja, misschien een beetje boos, alleen omdat het CDA de Nederlands verpest worden
dat is a echte probleem

Ik zal niet zeggen dat wiet is het beste voor je, maar naar bij tobac of alcohol hij is niks.

Ja ik hen wiet gerookt, als ik in het nederlands gewoond. maar voor mij was het alleen na werk, en zeker ontspannend.

Ook goedkoper dan sigaretten omdat ik een joint drie keer kunnen roken voor twee euro.

[RainDog]

235. grappig

De herb is een aphrodesiac voor sommige dames ...

of zo heb ik gehoord

ik wil cannabis juridische hier: het is dom te verbieden

Helaas is het recht schroeven van de Nederlandse ook.

[comtec]

236. da is helemaal juist!

wel voor mij tenminste, word ik HEEEL geil na roken =3
helaas, mijn (ex)vrouw niet zo veel.

ik heb bet niet zo mooi om te ruiken dan amerikaanse wiet maar XD
mijn ouder zus had een echte drug probleem

She has probably done every drug out there (at least once, where pot was her fav), and god knows what else.
She did eventually mellow out.
Thing is, she never let whatever she did ruin her life (my sister is scary smart with IQ points to spare)

My sister and I are the prime example of NON-addictive personalities however.
Nether of us smoke or drink to excess.

I never found cigarettes addictive while I was smoking. When i got past my crisis, I stopped smoking them, and havent had a craving since, except if im under extreme stress, and even then, if I am going to start again, I'll import. American cigs are ass LoL

But the poster here, mr "dutch master" is to be ignored.
hij heeft niks waardelijk om te zeggen behalf he gewoon "wiet is kwaad"
at best he's a troll.
at worst he needs a pizza.

[RainDog]

246. LOL

Ik vind het ook heel mooi.

Of zou, of hebben... zucht...Het maakt dingen die goed gevoel voelen nog beter

Ik denk dat de persoon betekent goed, maar ziet hij een deel van het onderwerp, maar niet alle van het.

dag, vriendje! :hi:

[Fly by night]

250. Well, that's easy for y'all to say.

It is easy to recognize contrarians around here. I've noticed that pro-science, common sense and compassion threads about cannabis draw them like blow(hard)-flies or bought-and-paid-for contributors around here.

But hey, what do I know? English is my second language (Southern being my first).

[RainDog]

255. I speak southern!

in fact, I've been told that, when I speak English, I have a southern accent - and when I mangle Dutch I speak with a Flemish accent - or "Southern Dutch," lol. someone from The Netherlands told me that a couple of days ago, in fact.

funny, over the many years I spent going to Belgium to see relatives, living there briefly... I never once went to The Netherlands to try the new super scary pot 2.0.

jammer.

[Fly by night]

256. Be careful with that super scary pot 2.0. (But get it quick.)

I understand that the Netherlands (or at least some Dutch cities) will no longer allow non-residents to purchase illegal smiles from their coffee houses.

Who says that only the US of A has flying monkeys in their halls of power.

I guess the only illegal smiles left for tourists in the Netherlands will be in the red light district. More expensive, less long-lasting and requiring a rubber rather than a vaporizer.

Sounds like a (non)weiner to me.

[RainDog]

257. yes, I guess I missed my chance

I would've really liked to have gone to the Rijksmuseum and looked at those brush strokes on the great masters' oils.

[RaleighNCDUer]

168. You know, there is not a fucking thing in the world that is NOT addictive

to somebody.

Anything that somebody likes, that they have a strong desire to repeatedly experience, can be called addictive. I know people who are addicted to WATER. They PANIC if they don't have their water bottle within reach. I know people who are addicted to their cell phones. They fret and are nervous about not being in touch. Those are withdrawal symptoms.

You claim to be a substance abuse counselor - so that means you SEEN people with REAL withdrawal, right? Shaking with the DTs. Crying at the pain.

Have you EVER seen anything remotely like that with ANYBODY from pot?

A little nervouosness is not 'withdrawal'. It is a sign of habituation, not dependency. And 'wanting' something is a world away from 'needing' something. If a 30 year five bowl a day smoker was abruptly cut off I promise he will NOT have to go to the ER.

Addiction recovery is a HUGE business, and it is in their interest to keep pot illegal and 'addictive' - because 'curing' potheads takes NO effort, but still rakes in big bucks. It's a scam, and distracts from those who really need help with REAL dangerous substances.

(edited for typo)

[Dutchmaster]

180. None of which meet the criteria for addiction.

Of course withdrawl from MJ is nothing like withdrawl from heroin, or alcohol, or meth, or inhalants - the list goes on. I never said it did. However, it does have symptoms of withdrawl, because it is physically addictive. MJ withdrawls generally involve anxiety, depression, sleeplessness, and extreme irritability. Degree of symptoms =/= absence of symptoms.

The 2 primary criteria for addiction by APA and AMA standards are tolerance and craving. Like it or not, MJ meets these criteria.



"Addiction recovery is a HUGE business, and it is in their interest to keep pot illegal and 'addictive' - because 'curing' potheads takes NO effort, but still rakes in big bucks. It's a scam, and distracts from those who really need help with REAL dangerous substances."




1) Yes and no regarding the size of it. The days of insurance companies paying for multiple 30 day stints in rehab are long over. Today you are lucky to get one shot at outpatient, regardless of severity of the presenting problem. States however, are more and more turning to treatment as an alternative to imprisonment. Not necessarily out of kindness and understanding, but out of fiscal concerns. Cost benefit analysis is the new millennium's version of compassion. The VA is doing better than they have done in the past as far as providing treatment, but not necessarily with how MUCH they will pay.

2) I'm not sure who "they" are, but I can assure you that the overwhelming majority of Substance Abuse Professionals are for decriminalization. We don't need help from lobbyists to keep our beds full.

3) Treating addiction of any sort is never easy. In spite of your perception, it is hard work. I work hard, and so do my successful clients.

4) Scam? The people who call me on their sobriety anniversaries to thank me for helping save their lives might be inclined to disagree.


Thank you for your thoughtful and assertive reply. I am happy to respond to these kinds of posts with the information that I have available to me. Trolls are easily dismissed.

Cheers!

[RaleighNCDUer]

193. MJ withdrawls generally involve anxiety, depression, sleeplessness, and extreme irritability.

How is that physical withdrawal rather than psychological withdrawal?

You are talking poorly defined symptoms, any and all of which could be as easily ascribed to psychological habituation.

Since most substance abuse comes from people self-medicating, how do you distinguish that depression as being a sign of withdrawal, rather than a pre-existing condition which was being countered or masked by the MJ use? Same goes for the other symptoms - anxiety, sleeplessness, irritability, etc.

You are looking at a few mild symptoms after the fact, and ascribing them to the MJ, not to the person. Maybe THAT is why treating addiction is such hard work - because 95% of 'treatment' is bass ackward. That certainly has been my experience.

In our pill-happy society, when something goes right we bless the pill, when something goes wrong we damn the pill - but it always comes down to the pill, the specific for the symptom, not the disease itself.

[Dutchmaster]

200. The majority of psychological symptoms . . .

. . . in withdrawl actuate from changes in brain chemistry, which is physical in nature. As is sleeplessness.

Studies suggest that 50-80% of people presenting with addiction also present with comorbid psychiatric disorders. The rates for anxiety and depression are 70%+, but drop to a 20-30% rate after 4 weeks of treatment. This suggests that a significant portion of the anxiety and depression present is associated with use and withdrawl.

I'm not certain what your experience is, but in today's environment mental health and substance abuse are being approached more holistically. Any SAP worth their title is well aware of rates of comorbidity and creates treatment plans for multiple diagnosis' and challenges.

I will agree that our society tends to be pill happy, however, the medical model still has it's place. Let's not forget all the good that the western medical model has done. Penicillin anyone? :D

[emcguffie]

225. If what you are saying is true, then just about every medication I have --

-- ever been prescribed has been addicting. I have CFIDS and FM, and I have taken lots of drugs for that. Neurontin -- that worked okay, but if I ran out of it, sleep was out of the question, and I think you could describe my nervous system as unhappy.

Same thing goes for antidepressants. They are often prescribed to people with CFIDS/FM. But if you take them and you run out of them -- excuse me, I should speak for myself here I suppose -- when I took them, if I ran out of them, then sleep would be out of the question.

I take diuretics for blood pressure nowadays. Whenever I run out of those, I start to swell up. I keep swelling up until I get those diuretics again. Dependence? I guess.

I now take pain meds, and they are addictive. If I run out of them or don't take them, I have very real physical symptoms. It's funny, craving isn't one of them. Maybe that's because I don't take them to get high, and do not take enough of them to get high. At the same time, when I'm having those unpleasant symptoms, I know that if I take the medication, those most unpleasant symptoms will go away. But it's not the same as craving.

Still, I take as little as possible, and for years have gone into withdrawal every night, because I didn't take them at night, because the pain I have only happens during the day.

That to me is dependence/addiction. That horrible feeling of discomfort that will only go away by getting your fix. That happens with cigarettes.

None of the pot users I knew or lived with ever seemed to have that kind of a problem.

[liberalmike27]

221. It is Slightly Addictive, and I'd Cite My Personal Experience

But it isn't as addictive as cigarettes. I finally kicked the habit on October 10, 1997 or 98. I actually never thought I'd be able to.

But clearly it should have never been illegal. At the least we should decriminalize. This is true of most drugs too. We can offer other options where people can actually seek help with addiction of whatever kind, without fearing capture, imprisonment, and prosecution.

[emcguffie]

222. I used to know lots of pot smokers.

I don't anymore. And I never became one myself, because I have a very unpleasant reaction to it. But no one I ever knew who smoked pot ever had any withdrawal symptoms from it when they didn't have it. Not like smoking a cigarette. I was a heavy cigarette smoker for 20+ years. When I ran out of cigarettes, I HAD to get more, immediately. I had to light up first thing when I opened my eyes in the morning.

I never saw anyone who smoked pot regularly behave like I did with cigarettes. Not close. Nothing resembling it. I never heard, "I have to get some pot." Never.

Consequently I do not believe it is addicting, and I believe addiction refers to physical addiction. Otherwise, it is a habit.

Nicotine is addicting. Caffeine is addicting. I think cocaine is probably addicting. Narcotics -- and I mean real narcotics -- are addicting. You have withdrawal symptoms which are extremely unpleasant when you give those things up after using them regularly.

I can't speak from personal experience about marijuana, but I can speak from personal observations of others who used it, and they never seemed to have any withdrawal. They certainly never became violent or had accidents, either.

[Mojorabbit]

74. In nursing school in the 70's

even back then, we learned that there is no physical addiction with pot though it is possible to have a psychological dependence on it. I don't believe that any of this has changed but I may be wrong.

[RevStPatrick]

112. I'll have to agree with this poster, who possibly has an agenda...

The physical addiction is very mild, but it is there. For me, after a few weeks or months of smoking everyday, if I take a break, there's a day or two of mild "jonesing" and befuddlement. I start dreaming again and my energy level gets much higher. This is different from the mental addiction, which generally manifests itself as "damn, I want to get high!" After 2 days or so, the physical symptoms go away, but then when I do smoke again, it actually, you know, gets me high and giggly, which will decline over time. You know, the whole tolerance thing. Everybody with whom I've discussed this reports similar experiences.

And, as this poster suggests, smoking anything is just not good for you. "Just because you want marijuana to be harmless, doesn't make it harmless." I think that's fair.

And yes, I have smoked marijuana nearly every day for 30 years, and have no plans to stop. It should be totally legal, and the notion that humans actually do something like make a plant that grows in nature "against the law" is one of the things that makes me believe our species of silly monkeys is an evolutionary abberation. Religion is another...

[dotymed]

134. Welcome to DU.

I see your point of view.

I don't necessarily agree with everything, but I am glad to see (most) other view points.

[Dutchmaster]

184. Thanks. I have been a lurker here for many years now.

Just recently decided to start posting.

[Dutchmaster]

144. I have no agenda. . .

. . . just years of experience with substance abuse, both personally and professionally. I am not saying that weed is exceedingly bad for you (side note: with some clients, I will mildly advocate the continued usage of small amounts of MJ based on the harm reduction model), I just get a bit perturbed when people want to run around screaming at the top of their lungs that it is GOOD for you. It isn't. And I don't like the idea that someone who is on the fence about it might be influenced by someone on the web's uninformed, uneducated opinion, which has been tainted by decades of weed colored glasses and wishful thinking.

The symptoms of withdrawl and craving you described are very typical in acute MJ users. Thank you for your honesty and enlightened opinion. And happy smoking, if that is what works for you. If it stops working for you, gimme a call ;)

[Upton]

182. You have an agenda..

you've already admitted to working in the substance abuse field, you're on the drug war gravy train. How much more obvious can it be?

[Dutchmaster]

185. Admission?

I considered it stating, admission makes it sound as if i were initially hiding it or ashamed of it. Which I am not.

Drug war gravy train? That is a very offensive statement. My colleagues and I work very hard in a very frustrating and difficult field and none of us are getting rich. We do it because we care about other people and their lives and well being. I'm very sorry you take issue with that.

[Upton]

213. No other way around it..

it's in your direct self interest to not only continue the drug war, but to perpetuate the myth that pot is somehow physically addictive..

The same with politicians, cops, judges, prison guards, etc...you're all on the drug war gravy train and you don't want to see it end.

[TheEuclideanOne]

215. Just shut the fuck up

Quit with your bullshit claims based on nothing (as you stated). When you make a claim and state is as fact, prove it. Just fucking prove it! You are the only one here trying to influence people with your own uninformed, uneducated opinion. Let em guess, you have years of personal and professional (I call bullshit) experience, but you can not find a single link to backup a single point you are making. Professional my ass!

[liberalmike27]

224. Dutchmaster

I have to agree. In a very real way, the mild effects of Weed are perhaps its most sinister quality. It doesn't rot your teeth, you don't clinch in physical withdrawal. You don't even get three days of fairly strong yearning like with cigarettes. But since the effects are fairly mild, especially in the short run, I think it takes many years of smoking to kind of begin to understand that, yes, it does have a down side. I quit 13 years ago, and my memory is shit. I thought it'd slowly come back, and maybe it did get a bit better. But I have good days and bad days.

I've always lacked motivation a bit, but I will always wonder how much my lack of motivation has been brought about by the years of smoking. I did finally awaken to all of this, and manage to stop. It wasn't just the effects of the weed. At some point I just got tired of hanging out with some of the people you end up dealing with, putting up with. It's great fun while you are smoking. But clearly when you use any drug, or drink, you are sidleing up with all sorts of folks you wouldn't if you didn't share the addiction to whichever drug you are talking about. Friends should be chosen by more than just your choice in drugs.

So for any young users, don't be fooled into thinking there is no down side. I did get pretty paranoid toward the end too. It might have, however, been as the saying goes--"If you've really got something to worry about, it ain't paranoia, just good thinkin'!

[RevStPatrick]

253. Threads like this simply amaze me!

The nastiness which with supposed "liberals" will treat their own and the vehemence with which DU'ers will pile up on each other can be distressing. Because you may work with people with substance abuse problems means you are "on the drug war gravy train." Sheesh!

I love marijuana, and I do think that it is "good for you" **in certain contexts** but I am able to admit that, like just about anything else in life, there are negative aspects to it. Why is that so difficult, fellow liberal DU'ers?

:shakes head in sorrowful disbelief:

[Dutchmaster]

145. double post

[bigwillq]

114. Hello

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[dionysus]

121. smoking *anything* is bad for you, but you'd be hard pressed to smoke enough herb to die from it.

[tekisui]

129. There is no physical addition. There may be psychological dependence.

But no addiction.

[Enthusiast]

135. Still, cost to society

from the legal status of marijuana is greater than that of the drug itself. The same could be said of other illegal drugs. Money spent to fight drug use and house prisoners could be redirected to treat drug addicts. This would be a far better strategy that continuing a drug war that, by any measure, has failed miserably.

[Ignis]

175. Links? Source? Cites? Anything other than wishful thinking?

We understand that some people really, really hate it when others take control of their consciousness. You have a right to that opinion. You do not, however, have a right to dispense made-up bullshit as medical truth.

[Fly by night]

194. Real (you know) medical researchers would beg to differ. Here are two teams of 'em.

Feds' Top Pot Researcher Says Marijuana Does Not Cause Lung Cancer:

A U of California researcher who has performed US-government sponsored studies of marijuana and lung function for over 30 years says that pot does not cause lung cancer. Dr. Donald Tashkin said that, when he began his work thirty years ago, he "opposed ... legalization because thought it would lead to increased use and that would lead to increased health effects." However, he now admits that his decades' worth of scientific research revealed an opposite conclusion. In 2006, Tashkin led the largest population case-control study ever to assess the use of marijuana and lung cancer risk. The study, which included more than 2,200 subjects (1,212 cases and 1,040 controls), reported that marijuana smoking was not positively associated with cancers of the lung or upper aerodigestive tract – even among individuals who reported smoking more than 22,000 joints during their lifetime. "What we found instead was no association and even a suggestion of some protective effect," Tashkin told the newspaper chain, noting that cannabinoids cause "cells die ... before they age enough to develop mutations that might lead to cancer." For more information on marijuana smoke and cancer risk, please see: http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6891. A literature review of cannabinoids' anti-cancer properties is available at: http://www.norml.org//index.cfm?Group_ID=7008.

"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."
---

Marijuana May Reduce Risk of Certain Cancers, Study Says
August 27, 2009

A new study finds that long-term marijuana users have a lower risk of certain head and neck cancers, Reuters reported Aug. 25.

Researchers from Brown University studied patients with head and neck squamous-cell carcinoma (HNSCC) and a control group and found that subjects who had smoked marijuana for 10 to 20 years had a 62-percent reduced risk of getting HNSCC. Those who smoked marijuana 0.5 to 1.5 times per week had a 48-percent reduction in risk.

The study authors, led by Karl T. Kelsey, said that the findings may be linked to the known anti-tumor action of cannabinoids. However, they cautioned that larger studies are needed to confirm the findings and that the risks of marijuana use may outweigh any health benefits.

The study was published in the August 2009 issue of the journal Cancer Prevention Research.

----

[Dutchmaster]

209. I don't see anything in there . . .

. . . that states inhaling smoke into your lungs and holding it there until it is absorbed into the blood stream is good for you :)

[Fly by night]

218. Three quotes for you (then get back to work, unless you are being paid to do this)

"Never argue with a man whose job depends on his not being convinced."
H.L. Mencken

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
Upton Sinclair

"It is better to remain silent and thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt."
Abraham Lincoln

[Dutchmaster]

226. I don't see that any of those are applicable to this situation.

Or are you saying that addiction is a myth?

Oh well, if it makes you feel better . . .

[Fly by night]

238. Of course you don't. For more elaboration, see my previous post above yours.

It is interesting that I gave you my personal email address hours ago because you said you wanted to see my Wyoming study and yet I've still not heard from you. I don't mind communicating with you off DU and I don't mind you knowing who I am.

If those are issues with you, well then ... they're your issues.

[Fly by night]

259. It's now been a day and you've still not emailed me with your address.

Have you lost interest in my Wyoming study

OR

do you not want me to know who you are?

Given your obsessive behavior on this thread, I'm going to give myself two guesses and both are going to be the second choice.

Drug worriers. Can't live with 'em, can't deal with 'em as normal human beings.

[Peregrine Took]

216. The "adjunct??"

Surely you jest.

[Warren DeMontague]

2. Kick

:kick:

[Vanje]

3. awwwwwww.For a minute, you had me going.

dammit.
We have stepped backwards in time.

[progressoid]

44. Yeah, me too. n/t

[99th_Monkey]

4. Sad to see how far USA has regressed since Carter. Geesh. nt

[Ichingcarpenter]

8. Yes , Even Carter's Energy Speeches were visionary

except with Nuclear...... He did have to deal with three mile island.


Sixty five thousand marched in Washington demanding that all nuke plants be shut down. and that did put a damper on the industry for a while.


Meanwhile.........I don't see much progress in either energy
or pot these days since the corporations have taken over.

[Solomon]

13. Yeah but Carter signed off on that report, I forget what you call

it, about overpopulation that said we need to get rid of a few billion people in the world. That's always bothered me about him and nobody ever talks about it or brings it up.

[99th_Monkey]

37. I never said Carter was perfect.

And the OP had nothing to do with over-population; but rather how we're going from bad to worse, to even
worser with this stupid "War on Drugs" that continues ripping our country apart at the seams, needlessly
criminalizing otherwise lawful citizens and throwing good tax dollars after bad to do so. :mad:

[FLPanhandle]

45. Smart man

Overpopulation is the cause of many of our environmental issues today.

[RainDog]

122. noting that overpopulation is a problem isn't the same as saying

we need to "get rid of" people.

really - don't try to peddle that sort of bullshit.

recognizing the problem of overpopulation, however, is useful when forming policy - like, don't tie aid to poor nations to restrictions on birth control, for instance.

that's not trying to "get rid of" people - that's trying to improve the quality of life for people by making it easier for a a place to feed a population.

not only that, but females who have fewer children, are an indicator of a nation that is better able to enact democratic reforms - the best indicator of hope for poor nations is education for females - which means not getting married early, not starting families early and not having as many children.

I can't believe some of the garbage that gets trotted out here as tho it makes sense.

[Solomon]

160. To say the world is over-populated could be right wing bullshit

too, you know. Have they convinced you that it's overpopulated? Or is the real problem the wrongful distribution of resources and wealth?

And if it is overpopulated, do you think there's too many white people on the planet? Or is it overpopulated because of other folk? I could be wrong, because I haven't seen that report in decades now, but it seems I recall it implicitly or explicity referring to certain people as causing the problem.

[FLPanhandle]

174. No, the right wing is convinced over population is as mythical as climate change.

You are in denial.

As for turning total human population control into a race argument it's either a sign of your poor position on this topic, or an indication of your intelligence. Neither option makes you look good.

[RaleighNCDUer]

138. No, he didn't say we need to 'get rid of' a few billion -

he said we have a few billion too many, and policies should be in place to encourage population reduction rather than population growth - things like birth control, planned families, limiting ourselves to 2 kids per family - so we begin a negative population growth.

For the entire world to have the quality of life enjoyed by Americans in the 70s, we need a world population of no more than 2 billion.

[Enthusiast]

140. Carter never said

we need to 'get rid of' a few billion people. He was concerned with human population growth and he was right. Why would it anger you that he was concerned about human population growth?

You actually believed Carter wanted to 'get rid of people'? You must hang out in some odd circles if you believed that about Carter. That sounds like an intentional right wing distortion. Are you a right wing misinformation peddler?

[Solomon]

146. Maybe you all should dig a little deeper.

For now, I'm gonna keep my mouth shut. Don't want to disturb you all.

I can't help but say this though - at least you all agree that the report said we need to reduce the world's population. Strange things started happening after that report. I won't say anything else. Obviously Carter has achieved saint status. I used to think of him that way too.

[FLPanhandle]

163. "Strange things started happening after that"

Unfortunately the only thing that happened after that was the world population has skyrocketed.

[Enthusiast]

170. "I won't say anything else."

Thanks. Good idea.

We don't come here to listen to wild right wing allegations against President Carter. We know what he said and what he meant. He was in favor of promoting family planning -something only brain dead Republicans and their Fundie idiot minions are against.

[RainDog]

227. some people believe in a conspiracy theory that family planning is an attempt to get rid of people

specifically, people of color.

personally, I find that sort of thinking to be sad in the extreme - tho I understand where it comes from.

it's not like people of color have not had a lot of bad things happen to them simply b/c of the color of their skin.

however, back when I was a kid, the idea of ZPG, or "zero population growth" was considered a sustainable model - replace yourself - but don't add more people to the planet.

I would rather see people choose to limit family size of their own choosing rather than see children die of famine, or people fight wars over water - not that this will stop wars - but wars for resources are realities.

I would like to see my sisters in other nations be able to claim their full dignity as humans and not be viewed as something bartered and sold by their fathers. I would like to see them have the opportunity to gain educations and contribute their particular knowledge to the wider world.

Carter may have been many things, but I never saw anything racist about him. Maybe I wasn't looking close enough - or maybe some who claim he was part of some scheme to do away with people of color don't understand that, since the Victorian era, people have recognized that smaller family size leads to more opportunities for women and a more likely way to move out of poverty.

That's what was behind reformers in Victorian England when they viewed the misery of the working classes there - but it wasn't okay to use a condom in polite society. Instead, people died of hunger, disease and violence.

[RainDog]

264. here's some reality to help your mind cope with... reality

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/08/opinion/08friedman.html?src=me&ref=general

Gilding cites the work of the Global Footprint Network, an alliance of scientists, which calculates how many “planet Earths” we need to sustain our current growth rates. G.F.N. measures how much land and water area we need to produce the resources we consume and absorb our waste, using prevailing technology. On the whole, says G.F.N., we are currently growing at a rate that is using up the Earth’s resources far faster than they can be sustainably replenished, so we are eating into the future. Right now, global growth is using about 1.5 Earths. “Having only one planet makes this a rather significant problem,” says Gilding.

This is not science fiction. This is what happens when our system of growth and the system of nature hit the wall at once. While in Yemen last year, I saw a tanker truck delivering water in the capital, Sana. Why? Because Sana could be the first big city in the world to run out of water, within a decade. That is what happens when one generation in one country lives at 150 percent of sustainable capacity.

“If you cut down more trees than you grow, you run out of trees,” writes Gilding. “If you put additional nitrogen into a water system, you change the type and quantity of life that water can support. If you thicken the Earth’s CO2 blanket, the Earth gets warmer. If you do all these and many more things at once, you change the way the whole system of planet Earth behaves, with social, economic, and life support impacts. This is not speculation; this is high school science.”

We’re currently caught in two loops: One is that more population growth and more global warming together are pushing up food prices; rising food prices cause political instability in the Middle East, which leads to higher oil prices, which leads to higher food prices, which leads to more instability. At the same time, improved productivity means fewer people are needed in every factory to produce more stuff. So if we want to have more jobs, we need more factories. More factories making more stuff make more global warming, and that is where the two loops meet.

[FrenchieCat]

7. Maybe Pres. Obama will get it done...who knows?

What I do know is that Pres. Obama actually took some concrete steps on another topic regarding drugs that some of us had been waiting on for a long time. I realize that saying what folks want to hear feels great....but actually getting something done should be the real test.
I've noted that this President gets little credit for what he has done, as the focus always remains on what he hasn't yet done....especially here at DU.


Obama signs bill reducing cocaine sentencing gap
President Obama signed a bill Tuesday reducing the disparity in penalties for the use of crack and powder cocaine, according to the White House.

The enactment of the law seals a hard-fought victory for civil rights activists who have argued for years that the differing punishments unfairly target African-Americans.

The Fair Sentencing Act repeals a five-year mandatory sentence for first time offenders, and for repeat offenders with less than 28 grams of crack cocaine. The old law set the mandatory sentence for conviction at five grams.
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-08-03/politics/fair.sentencing_1_powder-cocaine-cocaine-sentencing-gap-sentencing-disparity?_s=PM:POLITICS

[Jackpine Radical]

9. OK, I'll see your closing of the crack crack (ahem)

and raise you the Feds and their upsurge in busting the med marijuana clinics.

[Ichingcarpenter]

10. He's better than any Republican

that's for sure. ...... and I'll leave it at that.

[IndyPragmatist]

24. Many Republicans are seeing the light on the failed war on drugs

I really think that marijuana will be decriminalization by a Republican under the guise of cutting costs. Obviously, guys like Ron Paul are already on the decriminalization bandwagon, and more are coming around to it. They all talk about making cuts, and few have the courage to cut our military, they are going to look for any other way to cut spending. And the billions spent on the war on drugs is an easy start.


I don't see Obama doing any decriminalization. I don't think we are within 6 years of that happening, so the timeframe wont work for him. But I also just don't see him doing it even if he had the opportunity.


Unless a pretty blonde girl gets killed near the US-Mexico border in a drug-related shootout. Then, I'm sure we will have protests across the country to legalize marijuana and stop the violence in Mexico. Few seem to care about thousands of Mexicans dying over marijuana, but I'm sure they will care when its a pretty blonde girl.

[Upton]

21. Oh, I give President Obama lots of credit..

for, in direct contradiction to his campaign promise, continuing the war on his fellow Americans by expanding the raids on MM dispensaries...

[Fly by night]

26. I'm glad the crack disparity has been addressed, which was clearly a racist thang.

However, even though cocaine is considered less hazardous than marijuana in the Controlled Substances Act, I am unaware of any scientific evidence supporting the more widespread availability of medical crack. Are you?

The only thing that cocaine ever did for me was make me a new man.

And all that new man wanted was MORE cocaine.

Glad to be free of it for over 17 years now (along with alcohol).

Sad that my President has not yet honored his commitment to treat medical cannabis like any other medicine. Cannabis is medically beneficial for a large and growing number of serious diseases and conditions, is nonaddictive and non-toxic -- and still non-available to the sick and dying in 34 states (except, of course, on the nearest junior high school campus.)

What is wrong with this picture? Besides ... everything.

[tekisui]

38. He broke his campaign promise by increasing the raids on med marijuana.

That is one the biggest disappointments and exactly opposite of what he said he'd do when asking for our vote.

[Dutchmaster]

69. Most medical marijuana . . .

. . . "dispensaries" are little more than extremely thinly veiled drug dealers. They deserve to get busted.

[tekisui]

83. You miss the point. He broke his promise. And the dispensaries are

legal in the states that have them.

[Dutchmaster]

147. Legal in the states

does not mean legal at the federal level. I don't read about the feds intervening in states where MJ has been decriminalized. It's one thing to say its ok to have a little weed; its another to open up a drug "cafe". Apparently.

[tekisui]

156. Right, legal in the states and Obama campaigned on respecting

the state's laws and not raiding. He then went back on that promise.

[Dutchmaster]

181. I did not pay a lot of attention to that particular . . .

. . . campaign issue, but it does not surprise me. I think we are all fully aware by now that candidate Obama and president Obama are two very different people.

[Le Taz Hot]

94. So don't visit them.

Problem solved. :shrug:

[Never Stop Dancin]

97. they just go there to get high

maybe 10% max are there for real medical reasons.

[Le Taz Hot]

100. It is illegal to smoke on the premesis.

Anything else you want to throw out there that I can debunk? I'm here to educate. :smoke:

[RaleighNCDUer]

171. That's generous of you.

For my part, I'm here to laugh at the uneducated.

I know. It's a failing of mine.

:evilgrin:

[Upton]

101. Only 10% go to dispensaries for medical reasons?

do you have a link or something to support that assertion? And btw, I can do without anymore of the DEA propaganda..

[RaleighNCDUer]

141. So 90% of the doctor-signed prescriptions are bogus?

And who are these doctors writing phoney prescriptions?

[Enthusiast]

142. Only a fucking Republican would say that........nt

[frylock]

150. my stats show that 178% of people that go there have a legit medical reason..

i can't cite any links to back that up however, but that seems to be okay with you, so i guess you'll just have to accept it.

[librechik]

178. Obama left the corrupt Bush Justice Dept. virtually untouched. He doesn't control their moves.

He specifically requested the DEA to stop raids, after he took office--they refuse to obey. That says something about both Obama and the DEA.

[defendandprotect]

11. Great reminder--!! Unfortunately, many in elites and government officials are

profiting from the Drug War --

We're going to need quite an uprising to overturn it!!

Our right to plants/nature is a huge issue -- elites/corporations see nature as

theirs -- to use and abuse as they wish -- to profit from.

[Uncle Joe]

12. Kicked and recommended for courage, common sense, logic and compassion.

Thanks for the thread, Ichingcarpenter.

[Never Stop Dancin]

14. bad idea

And I was shocked to learn their selling Pot 2.0 and Pot 3.0 at some of those dispensaries--hard drugs, known to cause paranoia and anxiety attacks.

[Shagbark Hickory]

15. Genetically Modified?

[Never Stop Dancin]

16. No.

They are selling the white widow, AK47. These are hard drugs.

[Ichingcarpenter]

17. Garbage ........claim

but thanks for playing

[Never Stop Dancin]

18. by law, they are not supposed

to sell pot that's over a certain THC % at the dispensaries. But they are doing it anyway.

[Le Taz Hot]

108. Another myth.

There is no limit on THC content. Jaysus, when you're wrong, you're REALLY wrong. Btw, at DU, we offer up links to our claims, otherwise, well, . . .

[Upton]

20. Hard drugs?

You're not even joking are you? It's always strange to see a Reefer Madness type opinion in today's day and age..

[Ezlivin]

22. Strong pot DOES NOT EQUAL hard drugs

All it becomes is a stronger soft drug.

It does not become more addictive.

It does not cause more damage.

It just takes less to do the same. For instance one toke of AK47 is (roughly) equivalent to six tokes of Mexican dirt weed.

[Never Stop Dancin]

25. Fail

your more impaired with strong pot than with a line of some other drugs

[Fly by night]

31. Also: "your" does not equal "you're". Rather than debating a topic you know nothing about, ...

... why not go back to school to learn basic English?

You'd be doing all of us (and your-own-self) a big favor.

Drug worriers. You can't live with 'em, you can't teach 'em basic English.

Much less anything about science, common sense and compassion.

[Never Stop Dancin]

36. are u the grammar police? (n/t)

[slay]

58. Why don't you do some research before you come in here spouting off nonsense - oh Welcome to DU

too i guess. :eyes:

your anti-pot shit reeks of bad propaganda. pot 3.0 bwhahahah. you really don't have a clue do ya? :smoke:

[Warren DeMontague]

78. That crap came straight out of some DEA think tank funded with our tax dollars...

"Hmmmm... How can we convince baby boomers- who smoked a TON of pot while listening to the Stones and Hendrix- that our $40 Billion Dollar A Year Gravy Train aimed primarily at pot smoking still makes sense???.."

[Warren DeMontague]

76. If the pot people are doing a better job with sentence construction & spelling than you are

it doesn't help your arguments, Einstein.

[SammyWinstonJack]

125. LMAO!

:spray: :rofl: :thumbsup:

[Le Taz Hot]

120. LOL!

"You can't live with 'em, you can't teach 'em basic English."

Thanks for the guffaw. :hi:

[frylock]

47. prove it

[Occulus]

59. fail

strong pot makes you smoke less for the same effect

[Ezlivin]

199. Classification is not based upon the amount of impairment

Once you learn how a drug is categorized as either a hard drug or a soft drug you'll not make that mistake again.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Hard+and+soft+drugs

[Never Stop Dancin]

27. see link

http://www.marijuana.com/places-people/37463-powerful-weed-ended-up-er-5-days-later.html

[frylock]

49. bwahahaha!!!!

*splutter* *cough* now post SCIENTIFIC evidence, not some shit posted on a forum by a police officer.

[piratefish08]

88. ooooooooh - cop talk on a forum!

that's science!

[Le Taz Hot]

115. See link

http://www.scientificfactsofpot.com/studies.htm

It's the dueling links!!!!

[AtheistCrusader]

116. "I was 100 times over the normal heart-rate!"

Sooo... for me that would be 5300 bpm.

An impressive feat. Perhaps he could look into a new career as a floor sander.

[Enthusiast]

143. It's amazing!

It's a medical miracle!

[frylock]

46. ohh. emm. gee...

oh noes! not the white widows and the ak47s!!1 i'm guessing you haven't had a chance to try the blue dream or pineapple diesel, cuz that shit drove me to kill a man. shiz will fluff you up!

[Warren DeMontague]

80. ***

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/mv-XFPiJ/dr_bumquists_drug_lecture/

[piratefish08]

87. hard drugs?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I guess I should be laying on the floor babbling incoherently and drooling on myself right now.........


I better give this shit up and step back down to meth.

[Le Taz Hot]

102. White Widow and AK47 is pot. They are NOT hard drugs.

Hard drugs would be things like, say, alcohol, and that's legal. Bottoms up! :toast:

[AtheistCrusader]

113. I suppose you can back that up with a double-blind peer reviewed study?

I won't hold my breath.

[RainDog]

124. you are lying or misinformed. cannabis with more thc is not a hard drug

with cannabis with more thc per plant - people consume less.

it is the same plant - the difference is in the percentage of thc - which, btw, has no known level of overdose - or, rather, one that would be impossible for a human to achieve - which would be 1500 lbs of cannabis within 15 minutes.

this is physically impossible.

you have spent quite a lot of time spreading lies and disinformation on this thread. noted for future reference.

[RaleighNCDUer]

172. White Widow! Oh, NOOOOO!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_widow_%28cannabis%29

"White Widow has been reported to leave the user with a relaxed feeling.<2> It, like most indica marijuana strains, is a good appetite enhancer. However, being a cross between sativa and indica it also has the sativa quality of mood enhancement - bringing on an interest in activities one may not normally enjoy."

How HORRIFIC!!!

[mitchtv]

19. bad idea to keep it illegal

I just hate busy bodies minding my business. Which is what you prohibitionists insist on doing.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fly by night]

30. PS: "their" does not equal "they're". It's one sure sign you've been living ...

... under a bridge too long.

Get a brain, moran.

[JVS]

33. Pot 3.0?

[Warren DeMontague]

79. Just don't smoke that Pot Vista.

That shit will fuck you up, and not in a good way.

[RainDog]

107. LOL n/t

[frylock]

153. i rooted my pot 3.0!

[Occulus]

247. I'd like to jailbreak my Mary Jane 3.2.1, but the President won't let me.

:evilfrown:

[liberation]

63. Lots of allergies also trigger panic attacks...

we should outlaw nature then!

[Le Taz Hot]

99. "Pot 2.0/3.0" is a myth.

A few people ingest marijuana and experience paranoia as a result but that's no different that the population that experience side effects from pharmaceuticals so there's no anomaly there. Marijuana actually reduces anxiety in MM patients. I know. I'm one of them. Dispensaries do not distribute hard drugs.

Let me know if there's any other myths I can correct for you. :smoke:

[Romulox]

169. This poster reads a LOT like a recently banned one. nt

[Xithras]

205. Pot is no more genetically modified than the corn or tomatoes grown in your garden.

There's isn't a single plant you eat that hasn't been genetically modified by humans to better serve us. NOT ONE.

You breed the plants with the traits you want, and cull the ones you don't. Eventually you end up with a plant that suits your needs, even though it may not resemble the original plant you started with. We've been selectively breeding plants for more than 10,000 years to develop trees with more apples, maize with larger kernels, lettuce with larger leaves, etc. The same practices, applied to pot, merely created pot with more THC. There's nothing unnatural or improper about it...you're simply limiting breeding to enhance features that already existed in the plant naturally.

Corn, before and after we modified it:

[madrchsod]

28. that`s a million years ago....

today no one would dare say anything that displeases the right wing christian zealots in this country.

[fascisthunter]

29. WOW! I did not know this....

pretty ballsy

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Never Stop Dancin]

35. not ballsy--reckless

my sister's boyfriend freaked out after trying 2.0

[fascisthunter]

39. go bother someone else

[Never Stop Dancin]

40. I'm not bothering you

you came to my thread

[unapatriciated]

51. It is carpenter's thread not yours,

and you are trying to high jack it with reefer madness misinformation. You have one link that you keep reposting. Here are a few links...read and educate yourself.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Support/marijuana

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071123211703.htm

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=pot-joins-the-fight-against-alzheim-2008-11-19

My personal favorite....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atMQzRFvCIY

[Never Stop Dancin]

103. I posted here before that other person, though

[unapatriciated]

241. It doesn't mater who posted first.

All it means is you posted in a thread created by carpenter. You are entitled to your opinion but not ownership of the thread as in "you came to my thread".

[tekisui]

41. So what? Your sister's boyfriend shoulnd't smoke, then.

I don't think you really understand the issue. You just have reefer madness.

[Never Stop Dancin]

42. linked to psychosis in teens:

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20110301/marijuana-use-linked-to-risk-of-psychotic-symptoms

[tekisui]

43. You aren't going to get very far on your anti-pot crusade here.

I have smoked for 15 years and known literally hundreds of smokers. None of us have any psychosis. Give up your anti-pot hate.

[frylock]

50. 15 years?!

rookie! j/k :smoke:

[Le Taz Hot]

104. LOL!

Yep. :smoke:

[Beam Me Up]

188. Exactly. Since 1966 here.

[Fly by night]

251. Yeah, I'll see your 15 years and raise you 26.

Been using cannabis since 1970 and growing it since 1971. (Of course, I cannot grow now because 'that would be wrong' (right, Agent Mike?)

My resume is 14 pages long (believe me, it's the longest thing about me left) and every single entry on that resume was accomplished with measureable THC in my bloodstream. So I guess you can say my career was conducted under the "influence" of cannabis.

Thank the Goddess.

[liberation]

66. Shouldn't you be helping your "sister's boyfriend" get the mental health care he needs

If he had a psychotic break, your "sister's boyfriend" may suffer from psychosis or schizophrenia, the pot was just a trigger not a cause. So I recommend you help him out rather than waste time trolling on the internet.

[Never Stop Dancin]

89. um I don't think so

since she broke up with him yrs ago and I don't know where he lives

[Dutchmaster]

70. Nice to see the ad hominem attacks . . .

. . . and grammar policing going on here. The truth of the matter is, is that today's stronger marijuana can cause paranoia and panic attacks. It can also cause psychosis in teens. It also causes amotivational syndrome, and many other things which a lot of people might consider unhealthy and undesirable.

One hit of powerful MJ is not like doing 6 hits of ditch weed. The potent MJ can deliver a large quantity of pure THC into the bloodstream almost instantly, before the body can even react and begin processing the unwanted chemicals out. Additionally, there are aspects to a marijuana high that are not entirely chemically discernible. Evidence at this point suggests that stronger MJ has significantly stronger, and different effects on users. Anecdotal evidence shows that people do not generally pay significantly higher prices for the same buzz that can be had by just ingesting more of the cheap stuff.

I am not anti-pot. I think it should be decriminalized. However, I am anti-potheads providing misinformation about their drug of choice to people on public forums. I am also anti-potheads ganging up on people who dare to point out some of their drug of choice's potentially harmful effects.

[Never Stop Dancin]

86. thank the Lord

that someone here isn't blinded by the weed religion. Their minds are shut with cement.

[AtheistCrusader]

118. Lets see some double-blind peer reviewed studies to back all that shit up.

[Dutchmaster]

148. The evidence exists. . .

. . . if you really have any interest beyond trying to argue that pot isn't bad for you, Google is thataway ---->

I'm not writing a research paper on this site and you are not on my committee. I don't play that game.

[AtheistCrusader]

158. Translation: I ain't got shit.

Nobody asked you to do the study. Link one. It's not hard.

I'm not going to back up your unsubstantiated assertion for you.

[Dutchmaster]

183. Links only encourage . . .

. . . ad hominem attacks and trolling when it comes to issues of polarizing disagreement. That is not something I am interested in participating in.

Personally, when someone states something I find interesting on an internet forum, I find that it isn't difficult to move my mouse 6 inches across the screen to my bookmarks tab and open up google for a quick check to see if there is any merit to it at all. I'm sorry, I don't expect you to write a research paper every time you say something I disagree with or find implausible. I am an intellectually curious person though. Your mileage may vary.

[LanternWaste]

159. I imagine many people make claims they feel they are not responsible for.

I imagine many people make claims they feel they are not responsible for.

I also imagine other people may believe that valid, peer-reviewed evidence is not a "game" to be "played", but if it allows you to better rationalize your opinions, by all means... :shrug:

[RainDog]

127. you claims, however, are arguments for legalization/regulation

just as alcohol lists percentages, cannabis can (and should) list percentages of cannabinoids.

some people want to be able to use cannabis for the anti-inflammatory effects - this comes from cannabidinol - and is not psychotropic in the way that thc is. this is useful for people with arthritis, IBS, etc.

thc is useful for people with wasting from chemo. for people with glaucoma.

the combination of the two has proven to be more efficacious than synthetic thc, such as marinol, which lacks cannabindinol - and which even the leading pharmacologist in the UK has stated is not as useful as the whole plant.

however, marinol is a schedule I substance in the U.S. while cannabis is a schedule III.

this makes no sense whatsoever.

as far as the other poster here - he or she did not present factual evidence. in a study of all studies on cannabis and schizophrenia, for instance, the current understanding (again, see Pertwee, below) is that cannabis is not the cause of schizophrenia - schizophrenia has not increased in the general population with a rise in cannabis use - which would be the case if there was causation.

I have seen no evidence that matches your claim about stronger cannabis having dramatically different effects. there are no studies that back up your claim.

In fact, our own govt stated, over three decades ago, that cannabis is safer than aspirin - when a govt agency was tasked with studying this plant. The plant has not changed in three decades - its chemical compounds are the same. Levels of one molecule vs. another have not created something new and scary.

People are just calling out lies as they see them.

[Dutchmaster]

187. Great information.

I'm not even going to ask for links! ;)

[RainDog]

220. actually, you can go to my journal here on DU

because, for a while, I was keeping track of this issue after a friend suggested it. One post has study after study about schizophrenia, for instance.

The Pertwee info is in another post on this page, right below this - with a link to a British newspaper, but if you were to google Pertwee and cannabis, you'd find tons of the same info (he made his statement in Sept. 2010.)

In the Drug Policy forum, and also in my journal, I have links to the reports by the govt that state cannabis is safer than aspirin - or, again, you can easily find that information online as well.

You can also find LaGuardia's study of cannabis, done shortly after criminalization, in which the mayor of NYC said that Anslinger was lying and the reefer madness scare was bullshit. That's in a link in my journal too.

It gets tiresome to hear the same misinformation trotted out again and again - which is one reason I made a journal, just to be able to easily refer to studies.

The work being done in several nations that is looking at the potential tumor suppressing properties of cannabis for brain, breast and lung cancer is also worth checking out.

I don't claim that there is no potential harm from cannabis for certain people - and don't want to have people operating machinery under the influence, etc. - but I also don't want that for alcohol.

As adults, with honest information, we can do cost/benefit analysis of various policies - look at our entire history as one in which we claim we respect a right to privacy in belief and in the ways in which we live our lives (again, with a view of harm/benefit to society in mind) - and honestly, I find there is no rational reason to continue to treat cannabis as some scary substance that must be treated differently than alcohol, in the case of recreational use, or prescriptions for medical use.

The harm we are doing to people with illnesses who may benefit from this herb far outweighs any benefit, in my mind. But then again, I'm not making money off of prohibition and I won't be making any money off of legalization, either.

Take care. :hi:

[unapatriciated]

244. You are wrong....

There have been studies done that show psychosis in some teens after smoking mj, but you leave out the conclusion of most of those studies. The conclusion being that mj was a trigger not a cause. The psychosis would eventually manifest with or without mj. Most of us "potheads" have serious illnesses or have family members with serious illnesses that have been helped by mj and we have done our research.

[RainDog]

110. Roger Pertwee - the leading pharmacologist in the UK recommended decriminalization

at the big British Science convention in the UK, Pertwee, who has studied cannabis for years, recommended cannabis be made available and regulated.

He said cannabis is not a danger to the general population - but there is a subset of people, those already at risk of schizophrenia, who may be at risk from use - those people should not use cannabis.

Pertwee said pharmaceutical synthetics may be more dangerous than the plant - and the plant is no more dangerous (and really, less so) than alcohol and cigarettes, which, while some people don't like them, are available to adults.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/issue-licences-for-cannabis-urges-expert-professor-roger-pertwee-2078648.html

If you legalize and regulate, you make it more difficult for teenagers to access something - as in the case with alcohol. Ask around and I'd bet you'd find it much easier for a teenager to get cannabis now than to get alcohol - that's because alcohol is off the streets.

We do not make drugs illegal that have value for others just because a subset has a problem with them - in the case of alcohol, or in the case of things like penicillin. Both are dangerous to some people - but not all.

[The Wizard]

164. Once after smoking 10 pounds

of Tralfamadore gold I had an erection that lasted for 18 hours. Who can I sue? My nads got to the size of softballs.

[RainDog]

229. LOL

did Eliot Rosewater introduce you to Kilgore Trout?

[The Wizard]

233. No,

Marty Kellman did, and I have been forever wiser and grateful.

[fascisthunter]

239. LOL

ok that.... that's funny shit right there!!!!!:rofl:

[AtheistCrusader]

117. Correlation/causation.

You're lacking it.

[Xithras]

207. Yes, and alcohol use is linked to brain shrinkage in teens.

Solution: We ban alsohol sales to teens, punish those who provide it to teens, and punish the teens when they're caught with it.

We don't let kids vote, drive, drink alcohol, have sex, or do all sorts of other things that can harm or kill them. Why would pot be any different? Just because it's LEGAL for adults doesn't mean that we're all going to start spoon feeding pot pudding to toddlers. Sheesh...a little common sense would be nice.

[kestrel91316]

55. That was ridiculous claptrap way back in 1974 when I started college,

and it's ridiculous claptrap now.

For the record, I DID smoke MJ in college. It didn't interfere with my getting a BS in Microbiology and then promptly getting accepted into the best veterinary school in the country, and then getting my DVM 4 years later. And yeah, I smoked MJ all the while - some really nice stuff, and some strictly mediocre.

All it ever did for the BF and me is lead to some binge eating and late night quantum physics discussions (and other esoterica).

In recent years I have also smoked some again. You know what the ONLY difference is that I can tell? You can get quite high on far less, so the higher prices don't actually matter, lol.

Marijuana, used judiciously, is not one whit more dangerous to man or society than alcohol, and probably far less.

[SammyWinstonJack]

126. ...

:silly:

[frylock]

157. upgrade to 2.2.1 and reboot

[RainDog]

266. amazing, really, considering the aftermath

Carter told a lot of truths - and the American people just don't like the truth too often.

or, rather, it's not in the interests of big money to tell the truth.

[Nye Bevan]

34. Full legalization and full general amnesty for all non-violent pot offenders.

Perhaps Obama will be braver in his second term when he does not have to worry about re-election?

[fadedrose]

48. Oh 'Goodie!! I never even saw marijuana, but would love to try it..

for aches and pains....better than habit-forming drugs...

[kestrel91316]

56. Works GREAT on aches and pains. Period cramps, arthritis, migraines, etc.

Helped me get through a little period of insomnia due to back/neck pain (ancient skiing injury) - stopped it in its tracks.

[Le Taz Hot]

106. It's great for arthritis

There is a BIG difference in my joint :eyes: pain and movement when I don't smoke it (when I go visiting out of state I leave the demon weed behind) and when I have access to it.

[piratefish08]

176. it's great for my shitty disposition!

:P

[XOKCowboy]

52. Once again Jimmy Carter showed vision ahead of his time...

I hope Lee Atwater is spinning like a top in his grave.

[RainDog]

263. he had faith in the american people

to do the right thing

the American people said: sorry, we want a fake cowboy to tell us we're special while he busts unions and invades other countries and calls the taliban the equal to the founding fathers of this nation.

[blackspade]

53. Tragically it won't happen

Obama is not half the progressive that Carter was and is.

[on point]

54. It is scientific fact that alcohol is FAR FAR worse than pot

The French a few years backed commissioned a study to figure out the relative dangers of the various drugs so they could make the penalties conform. To their horror, pot came in as by far the least harmful, while alcohol came in as one of the worst. Study was quickly shelved because that would mean pot would be legal in France, while win would not be!!

Pot does not cause physical addiction like alcohol

People on pot do not start fights like alcohol

People on pot do not 'go crazy' or loose their minds, or become 'another person' like they do on alcohol


No the real reason it is not legal is based on myth and propaganda, partly generated by old tyme protestant world view that the act of inebriation itself is to be forbidden. Alcohol gets a pass because it is a 'beverage' with 'taste'.

[slay]

57. Carter was right - and it should have been done 30 years ago! So Obama - do it NOW!

you've got my vote if you do.

[pnwmom]

60. The marijuana people didn't help Carter to get re-elected.

I doubt that this issue would be a great one for Obama.

[slay]

61. I'm talking about the Right Thing To Do

too much this country has become about doing what will get people elected and not doing what's right. well look at where we are now and tell me how well that shit has worked out for us.

i've about had it will ALL politicians and their bullshit. there are real people - like DU's own Fly By Night - who have been very, very harmed by this bullshit. if Obama would do things that are RIGHT, people would see it, and respect it I think. but no - he would rather bail out his bank buddies and start more wars for his pals in the pentagon. ugh. i vote for Carter!!! (or wish i could.. sigh...)

[pnwmom]

62. I'll fully support that immediately

after he's re-elected.

Before then, I want his full effort to be involved with actions that will help him stay in office. Pushing for legal marijuana wouldn't help.

[WheelWalker]

64. +1

[liberation]

65. ... and when he is re-elected, he will have to wait until the '14 midterms

and then he won't be able to do anything about XX because it would be a burden for the upcoming Dem candidate in '16. Which will not be able to do anything until the '18 midterms are over, after which he or she will have to wait until their re-election in '20. But then we will have the '22 midterms to deal with... etc, etc, etc, etc.

XX being whatever policy that even though it is the right thing to do may conflict with some very entrenched and moneyed interests (i.e. pot legalization vs. prison/drug enforcement complexes, ending the wars vs. the military industrial complex, financial reform vs. WallStreet, health care reform vs. private insurance lobby, etc, etc, etc).

Funny, a movie so played over and over with such a reused plot, and some still pay attention to it as if the script was original.

LOL.

[mackerel]

67. Interesting thing is that there is big money in illegal drugs.

Big money will be put up to keep it illegal.

[Dutchmaster]

71. Marijuana is the least profitable . . .

. . . drug you can sell. The MJ market is kept propped up by the relatively lax penalties for being caught. Don't get me wrong, there is money in it, but not the kind of money that buys off politicians at the highest level.

[U4ikLefty]

73. The illegality of MJ is very profitable for some.

They are the real criminals.

[Le Taz Hot]

109. LOL!

OMG! No, marijuana is grown. All you pay for is the seeds which are about $10.00 each (if you don't know anyone with readily available seeds) but you can get maybe $1,000 to $2,000 per plant, depending on a lot of different factors. Turning $10.00 to $2,000 is pretty profitable in my book. Having said that I don't sell mine. I grow it for my own use and I donate to those who depend on it for medical reasons but can't afford to buy it and aren't in a position to grow it.

The kind of money you're talking about would be big pharma -- the ones who are trying their level best to keep it illegal -- and their interest is in the TRILLIONS.

You know, you haven't been right once. Most people would back off at this point and maybe start questioning the veracity of their position by actual research. :shrug:

[Dutchmaster]

152. If you're a drug dealer . . .

. . . you must be really terrible at it. You also need land to grow it on and places to store it while you are selling it. Here's a hint, pot takes up a LOT of space compared to heroin, cocaine, meth etc . . . which also have ridiculous profit levels, and the added benefit of being significantly more addictive. When we talk about the powerful and dangerous South American drug cartels, and the French Connection, we aren't talking about pot dealers my friend.

And call me out for being wrong all you want. To anyone reading who has half a brain and an opinion not jaded by a reality they WANT to exist, it is pretty clear who is and is not wrong in this thread.

Enjoy your opinions.

[Le Taz Hot]

161. If I was a drug dealer I'd be a hell of a lot richer, however,

since I'm not profiting a penny (other than not having to purchase it) that doesn't really make me a "dealer" in the literal sense, now does it?

The reality is that I have a postage-stamp sized back yard and grow lots of things in square foot gardens and containers. One of those things happen to be pot. Conversely, heroin comes from poppies and you need LOTS of acreage to grow enough to be profitable. Additionally, heroin must be processed in order to be able to ingest it so both the growing and the processing requires lots of space. Same applies with the cocoa plant. Meth? Yep. You're right. From what I understand you don't need a lot of space to manufacture that poison. I'm not sure what all this has to do with growing pot, which was, if you recall, the subject of the OP.

You're new to DU and most of us have been pretty soft on you. Allow me to educate you so you won't further embarrass yourself. On DU we require assertions, especially fantastic ones, to be backed up by some type of data. As of yet you've supplied no legitimate sources for your OPINION.

See, the problem is that my opinion IS "jaded by reality." :wtf:

On one point we agree, it IS very clear who is and who is not wrong on this thread. :evilgrin: :smoke:

[Occulus]

248. "You also need land to grow it on"

No. You don't.

[SammyWinstonJack]

128. LOL!

:silly:

[RainDog]

234. I know this is not the most important issue facing this nation

but it would impact the jobs issue, for instance - something better than nothing - and Obama has stated there will be no jobs programs from his admin - even jobs that work toward energy independence.

it would be nice if Obama did ONE THING that wasn't in favor of corporate interests - as in pharmaceuticals, for-profit prisons - and did something that demonstrated he actually gave a shit about someone other than a banker or an insurance exec.

If a republican or third party candidate comes forward with this as part of his or her agenda - that person will pull votes away from both parties because people want some REAL change, not the facade of change.

Obama has done many things that people find horrid - FISA, continuing the war on terror invasions of privacy, not holding anyone in the Bush administration responsible for an illegal war - and, for him to laugh off this issue as he did when it was the one that generated the most interest online - demonstrates to me that Obama is somewhat tone deaf about people whose lives matter beyond corporate offices or the DC beltway.

Obama is not going to get the votes of the talibornagains anyway - he might as well do something that would please 70% of the American population for a change.

[RainDog]

232. really?

actually, the history of that time is more complicated than your claim.

the Carter administration itself got itself into trouble because of drug use on the part of someone in the admin. - the drug library online has an entire book available about this.

also, NORML didn't act with the sort of professionalism one should expect of a national organization.

however, I know of NO information that states that people who supported decriminalization voted against Carter - and no information that they did not support his presidency.

and, as far as that time in history goes - the illegal actions of Reagan and Bush Sr. (aka The October Surprise, which both democrats and republicans wrote about and admitted was true - including an administrative person in Reagan's office) relative to the Iran hostage situation should have landed them both in jail - but, just as now - some people in this nation can commit treason (or war crimes) and get away with it while some people simply grow a plant for the medical benefit of others and go to jail.

don't try to blame Carter's election results on people who supported decriminalization - the reality is that the hostage crisis and the dirty tricks from republicans undid Carter's presidency.

[Warren DeMontague]

77. Legalize It, Regulate It, Tax It. Fucking Enough Already.

Like marriage equality for GLBT Citizens. What time is it? WAY PAST TIME.

[Dutchmaster]

154. What is your moral arguement?

If you are going to compare legalizing a harmful drug to allowing human beings to marry, please add a moral equivalency.

[RaleighNCDUer]

173. OK. Then ban alcohol, which is PROVEN to be FAR more harmful.

There's some direct equivalency.

OTOH, the poster is right - pot is no more harmful than gay marriage.

[Dutchmaster]

Alcohol is far too ingrained . . .

. . . in western civilization to be banned. Not that I think that is a solution. However, I would like to see alcohol abuse cease to be glorified and rationalized as being normal behavior. I would like to see alcohol advertising go the way of cigarette advertising. I would like to see drunk people have the same social stigmatization that we have for smokers now. I think it is possible, maybe even in my lifetime. It wasn't that long ago that we were smoking on airplanes.

[Warren DeMontague]

243. define 'harmful'. I'm talking about a substance described by DEA Judge Francis Young as

"one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man" --- that's a quote.

What's my MORAL argument? It's very simple; that as a baseline philosophical point, it's not the government's fucking business what consenting adults do with their own bodies, insofar as they're not directly harming or endangering anyone else. In the case that they are, the harming/endangering should be the crime, not the use of one's own nervous system in a non-gov't approved fashion.

The EXACT SAME dumb-ass, slippery slope, what-about-the-children, society will collapse & all hell break loose authoritarian arguments used to justify continued pot criminalization have been used against consenting adult gay (and even interracial) relationships.

At the end of the day, it's about what it's always been about; people wanting to run other peoples' lives.

[davidthegnome]

82. Wise man, that Carter

Sadly, I suspect his wisdom will be ignored until long after he passes away. In decades and centuries to come (provided humanity, let alone our Nations, last that long..) he will be remembered, I suspect, perhaps even honored for his wisdom and his nobility. As for the present though.... we have a Nation with thousands, if not millions of people who idolize those like Sara Palin, Huckabee, Romney, Rand Paul - occasionally even Ann Coulter and/or Rush Limbaugh.

If only we all could recognize (and act upon) good advice when we received it.

[mdmc]

84. The DLC are the new drug warriors

we are winning!

[RainDog]

237. public opinion most definitely favors legal mmj

the other is not as clear - but if all the disinformation campaigns would stop with their lies - I think the majority of Americans would support complete legalization.

The majority of the democrats most certainly do.

[mdmc]

252. but the DLC does not - that is all that matters

The GOP and the DLC support the drug war.
imho it will be the GOP that comes out and calls for change. And we will be there like, "but soft on crime." And the GOP will show how regulation reduces crime. And we will be like, "duh".

[Never Stop Dancin]

85. panic attacks, paranoia--whats not to love?

http://www.medhelp.org/posts/Anxiety/MarijuanaPanic-attacks-and-Anxiety/show/716528

[Fumesucker]

90. Drowning in your own vomit- - what's not to love?

http://safety.lovetoknow.com/Signs_of_Alcohol_Poisoning

People who are severely impaired after drinking too much alcohol may be at risk for potentially fatal complications. People who throw up while drunk may choke on and inhale the vomit into their lungs. When this happens, they may die of asphyxiation.

[Never Stop Dancin]

91. it takes many drinks to do that

it only takes one hit to cause a paranoia attack

[Fumesucker]

92. Depends entirely on the person..

I've known people who get falling down drunk on one drink..

Strangely enough it's the same way with pot, some people get paranoia attacks on one toke others can bong all night and just laugh their asses off.

[Never Stop Dancin]

93. they choke to death on vomit, after 1 drink

[Fumesucker]

95. Unconscious plus puking = very good chance of choking..

Never said it happens every time but there's definitely a non-zero chance of it happening.

Just like there's a non-zero chance of having a panic attack from a single toke.

Personally I know which I would rather have happen to me or to someone I care about.

[Never Stop Dancin]

98. prove it-maek your case

I bet there is no such case where someone had 1 drink, passed out and died, unless it was a child

[Fumesucker]

105. You don't know much about the human body and drugs apparently..

Idiosyncratic reactions to drugs are common, Ritalin for instance is used to calm down people with ADHD, it's a stimulant that has the opposite effect on most people.

Indeed, your case is based entirely around an idiosyncratic reaction to a drug, most people don't have panic attacks when they smoke pot exactly the opposite in fact.

Most people, the great majority, don't pass out drunk from a single drink but some do.

[AtheistCrusader]

119. You haven't cited any credible evidence in this thread.

Where do you get off demanding it from others while making absurd claims?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

96. Your sister's boyfriend can't handle smoke, so you think everyone else should go to prison?

That's pretty fucked up. Your extreme ignorance of the subject is pretty fucked up too.

And yes, if you want people to listen to your line of "reasoning", a basic command of grammar is helpful in getting people to listen to what you have to say.

[meow mix]

131. +rec they have sick oppressive ways of thinking

which is what caused the prohibition in the first place

[fascisthunter]

240. lol....smoke it

before talking about it. Actually those with issues, will feel those symptoms because they have shit on their minds. Pot doesn't make you forget your problems, in fact it does the opposite. You know nothing about this topic.

[AtheistCrusader]

111. I fall for your posts every damn time.

[RedCloud]

123. But will the stoners show up in force to vote?

[dotymed]

132. Unfortunately,

America officially gave up all pretense of "being fair", at least a decade ago.

Long before that, it kept up only the appearance of fairness. Now, no one believes that America is fair, quite the contrary.

[Romulox]

137. The War on Drugs is the wedge that they've used to erode the Bill of Rights

In particular, rights to free from arbitrary search and seizure. The government will not give up the right to search one's home, one's bank-account, one's urine stream--all ostensibly in search of evidence of a joint you smoked in the last 30 days?

[Beam Me Up]

189. Exactly. And the "war on terror" takes it to the next level. The erosion of the Constitution itself.

[lonestarnot]

151. Lemme know when it's done! Snort.

I want to go look at the superstore in AZ just for fun. :evilgrin:

[Ichingcarpenter]

165. Top 10 Cannabis Studies the Government Wished it Had Never Funded

Each have the science journal they came from
and the volume and year.

Link: http://breakthematrix.com/alternatives/top-10-cannabis-studies-the-government-wished-it-had-never-funded/

That being said the point of OP was the President needs to
wake up to the 21st century and not the Nixon years

[Major Hogwash]

167. Shit . . I forgot what I was going to say.

Took me so long to get the damned page loaded, well, I guess the page isn't the only thing loaded.
Well, what?
You know what I mean.

[Fly by night]

186. On the safety of marijuana (findings of fact by DEA Administrative Law Judge Francis Young) in 1988.

Excerpts from DEA Administrative Law Judge Francis Young's ruling that cannabis be reclassified from Schedule I in 1988. (I posted much of his opinion here yesterday but it got deleted in the flame-fest with one of the "drug worriers" here)

"The first team of researchers to perform a Federal Government-authorized study into the effects of marijuana on human subjects ... determined that marijuana could be used safely under medical supervision.... Nearly all medicines have a toxic, potentially lethal effect, but marijuana is not such a substance. There is no known record in the extensive medical literature describing a proven, documented cannabis-induced fatality.... This is a remarkable statement. First, the record on marijuana encompasses 5,000 years of human experience. Second, marijuana is now used daily by enormous numbers of people throughout the world.... (D)espite this long history of use and the extraordinarily high numbers of social smokers, there are simply no credible reports to suggest that consuming marijuana has caused a single death. By contrast, aspirin, a commonly-used, over-the-counter medicine, causes hundreds of deaths each year.... A number of researchers have attempted to determine marijuana's LD-50 rating in test animals, without success. Simply stated, researchers have been unable to give animals enough marijuana to induce death.... A smoker would theoretically have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within fifteen minutes to induce a lethal response.... Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. By any measure of rational analysis marijuana can be safely used within a supervised routine of medical care."

http://www.mamas.org/fjudge.htm

[meow mix]

217. +rec

[Fly by night]

190. On the addiction potential of marijuana

With regard to addiction potential, every study of this issue has ranked cannabis at or near the bottom of abusable substances for the ease with which its use can be abandoned with few or no noticeable withdrawal symptoms. A report from the National Institue on Drug Abuse (NIDA) (Henningfield and Benowitz) rank-ordered six substances by their addiction potential: nicotine, heroin, cocaine, alcohol, caffeine and (last) cannabis. Another national advisory panel, commissioned by IN HEALTH, ranked cannabis as 14 out of 15 substances for its addiction potential, based on how hard it is for users to become addicted and how easy it is for them to quit. Year in and year out, the National Household Survey on Substance Use reports that the proportion of cannabis ever-users who evidence any dependence on the substance is around 4%. For tobacco, the percentage is more than ten times higher.

In my own study in the late 1990s of over 1,000 childbearing age women in Wyoming who were seen in both public and private health clinics, over 90% of the women who had ever smoked tobacco were still using it, over half who had ever used tobacco had been dependent on tobacco at one time, and slightly under half who had ever used tobacco were currently dependent on it. By contrast, around 40% of the women who had ever used marijuana were still using it (and this is probably because we had enrolled a relatively young study population). However, only 8% of the women who had ever used marijuana said that they had ever been dependent on it, and only 4% stated that they were currently dependent on it.

In this study population, among “ever users” of marijuana and tobacco, current marijuana use declined sharply with age, while current tobacco use did not. This research would suggest that early intervention and treatment would be more beneficial (and necessary) for the young tobacco smoker than for the young marijuana smoker. However, the reverse is true with respect to our current drug control policies.

By the way, over half of our study population was currently pregnant at the time of the study and tobacco use is one of the leading causes of miscarriage and stillbirth. Should we have locked up all of those women who could not stop smoking cigarettes while pregnant, despite their awareness of the health risks to their unborn children, in order to prevent the serious harm that could result from their maintaining their addictions? I certainly would not be in favor of that approach, and would also not be in favor of locking up the current marijuana users in that study population (a risk that all of them faced), though the risks of perinatal marijuana use are not nearly as pronounced.

If anyone here wants a copy of my Wyoming study, PM me with your mailing address and I'd be happy to send it to you.

[Dutchmaster]

192. I don't have enough posts to send private messages.

Hopefully I remember to ask you again when I do. Sounds like a great study.

And having just quit smoking 2 months ago, I can easily concur that that shit is one of the most addictive substances known to man.

[Fly by night]

198. Send me an email with your mailing address and I'll mail it to you.

My email address is [email protected]

Happy to share my research with you and anyone else.

[Fly by night]

258. I'm still waiting for you to email me with your address so I can send the Wyoming report.

In the meantime, I am enjoying the sounds of crickets and cicadas in my deep hollow home.

What's left of it, that is.

[Fly by night]

260. And still waiting ... waiting ... waiting ... (...crickets...)

[Fly by night]

265. It has now been four days since you asked for my Wyoming research.

You have still not emailed me with your mailing address.

The crickets are still lovely out here. It's nice that all they have to do to silence the DEA cicadas is to ask where they live (much less who their daddy is).

Drug worriers. Can't live with 'em, can't get their mailing addresses.

[Fly by night]

191. On the medical efficacy of marijuana

With regard to beneficial medical uses of cannabis, the evidence is literally overwhelming. Humankind has over 5,000 years of recorded history documenting the use of cannabis for medicinal purposes. This plant has been used by a multitude of cultures for a multitude of medical problems, and its continued use speaks loudly to its efficacy. Western medicine recognized the value of cannabis relatively late, but its utility passed muster even within the limitations of our own reductionist world-view.

Prior to its banishment in the late 1930s, "tincture of cannabis" was an important component of many US medicines. When the American Medical Association surveyed 30 pharmaceutical companies in the early 1930s, 29 of them opposed including cannabis in the Narcotics Drugs Act. The AMA's own Dr. Woodward (who was both a physician and an attorney) testified against the federal ban on cannabis in 1937 by stating:" Cannabis has clear potential for many beneficial medical uses. There is no evidence that it is dangerous."

Despite the considerable (and intentional) road-blocks placed before researchers interested in studying cannabis, the peer-reviewed medical literature worldwide has added two scientific research articles on cannabis and cannabinoids EACH AND EVERY DAY for the past two decades. Cannabis and its constituents have been shown to be efficacious as an anti-emetic (nausea reducer), appetite stimulant, analgesic, anti-depressant, anti-spasmodic, anti-inflammatory, anti-bacterial and vasodilator. Cannabis has been shown to slow the progression of multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's and Lou Gehrig's disease; as well as provide symptomatic relief for persons with these diseases. In addition, cannabinoids have been shown to possess potent anti-tumor properties for at least a half dozen cancer cell lines. (The intentional suppression of scientific research on the chemotherapeutic properties of cannabis by our government for the past four decades is particularly inexcusable.)

One physician's experience with medical cannabis reflects this multitude of beneficial uses. Dr. Donald Abrams, Professor of Clinical Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, has said: "I think cannabis is a very good medicine. I'm a cancer doctor. I see patients every day who have loss of appetite, nausea, pain, difficulty sleeping and depression. I have one medicine that can treat all of these symptoms, instead of five medicines to which my patients may become addicted. That one medicine is cannabis and my patients are not going to get addicted to it."

That physician's informed experience is mirrored by the experiences of the well over one million medical cannabis users in the US who can now legally access this medicine in 16 states and the District of Columbia. It is also mirrored by the untold millions in other states who suffer from similar conditions and who are forced to obtain their medicine (of unknown quality, safety and efficacy) illegally, on the streets.

This accumulation of research and clinical evidence for the beneficial uses of cannabis has led in recent years to major policy shifts within both our national medical organizations and our national medical research agencies. Here are just three examples.

In their 2008 policy statement, "Supporting Research into the Therapeutic Role of Marijuana", the American College of Physicians concluded:

-- "Marijuana has been smoked for its medicinal properties for centuries."
-- "Preclinical, clinical and anecdotal reports suggest numerous medical uses."
-- "The indications for some conditions (e.g., AIDS, cancer) have been well-documented, though less information is available for other medical uses."
-- "Additional research is needed to clarify marijuana's therapeutic properties and determine standard and optimal doses and routes of delivery."
-- "Marijuana's categorization as a Schedule 1 controlled substance raises significant concerns for researchers, physicians and patients."

In the 2009 revision of their medical marijuana policy, the American Medical Association's Council on Science and Public Health concluded: "Smoked cannabis reduces neuropathic pain, improves appetite and caloric intake especially in patients with reduced muscle mass and may relieve spasticity and pain in patients with multiple sclerosis." This finding led the AMA's House of Delegates to call for further "... well-controlled studies of marijuana and related cannabinoids in patients (with conditions) for which preclinical, anecdotal and controlled evidence suggest possible efficacy...." and to urge that "... marijuana's status as a federal Schedule 1 controlled substance be reviewed with the goal of facilitating the conduct of clinical research and development of cannabinoid-based medicines...."

Earlier this year, the National Cancer Institute, the largest and best-funded agency within the federal government's National Institutes of Health, published the following statement on their web-site: "The potential benefits of medicinal cannabis for people living with cancer include antiemetic effects, appetite stimulation, pain relief and improved sleep. In the practice of integrative oncology, the health care provider may recommend medicinal cannabis not only for symptom management but also for its possible direct anti-tumor effect." The decision to publish these statements, in direct contradiction with the government's continued classification of cannabis as a Schedule 1 drug, brought much media attention and engendered some back-tracking by NCI. However, statements supporting the medical efficacy of cannabis are still included on that federal agency's web-site today.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1232695

[Dutchmaster]

196. Unfortunately, the majority of people . . .

. . . who are interested in and advocate for medical marijuana are stoners who just want an easier time of getting their drugs. They aren't interested in a small amount of THC being added to an existing drug to improve it's efficacy. They just want "kind" buds legal and on the cheap. This gives the entire cannabis reform movement significant image problems.

[Uncle Joe]

202. There is no reason as to why 21st century American society shouldn't be able

to walk and chew gum at the same time.

We must overcome the medieval zero tolerance mindset; and let the judges and juries be the judges and juries because the draconian mentality is metastasizing into other aspects of civil society as well.

The nation has far more detrimental, dysfunctional problems than image, chief among them being the substance of the so called War on Drugs, an ever-growing invasive police state and a world record breaking prison population here in the "land of the free."

[Romulox]

203. While the Prohibitionists, by and large, are inarticulate authoritarians

Who look for an excuse to boss others around, and to root around in their pee. :hi:

[Warren DeMontague]

204. More image problems than spending $40 billion a year turning 60 million otherwise law abiding

consenting adults into criminals for smoking a plant you don't like?

Marijuana prohibition is a joke and a farce, and a cruel one at that. PROHIBITION DOESN'T WORK. It's well past time to legalize, regulate, and tax it.

And guess what? Like marriage equality for all citizens, it's coming. It may be well overdue, but it will get here.

[Dutchmaster]

206. I don't agree with legalization and taxation but . . .

. . . I do agree that the time for decriminalization is long overdue.

[Warren DeMontague]

210. it should be legal, regulated, and available for consenting adults IMHO.

People who support this aren't all 'stoners who want easier access to kind buds':

one, many of us- like myself- haven't smoked it in years, and two, it's ALREADY easy enough for anyone who wants pot to get it.

It's about the lunacy of spending $40B/year (not including costs of incarceration and local LE, mind you) on a failed 'drug war' that takes as its core philosophical conceit that free citizens' bodies don't belong to themselves so much as they belong to "The State".

You say you're a treatment professional, eh? How much treatment on demand -including treatment for substances with truly physically addictive properties, like heroin, alcohol, and nicotine- would $40B a year fund?

[Dutchmaster]

228. I don't think I have advocated anywhere in this thread . . .

. . . or anywhere else that I am aware of that I am in favor of the current drug war. It is amusing how many people have made some incredible assumptions about me because i won't sit idly by while people claim marijuana is harmless and/or good for you without raising a voice of dissent. Some have even insinuated that I am some kind of republican plant.

A few have welcomed me, and that is appreciated. The others, maybe you should check your liberal rulebooks a little closer. I think there might be something in there about tolerance.

:)

[Warren DeMontague]

242. "check your liberal rulebooks" - ah, what the fuck is that about?

Look, bub- if people here have insinuated that you're a GOP plant; not that I have, mind you- maybe it's because you put things in your posts like "check your liberal rulebooks" :think: :rofl:

But, uh... if you go back and re-read the post you're responding to, you may note that I haven't claimed or insinuated ANYTHING about you, in fact the only reference to you anywhere in that post was a question asking for confirmation of a data point you, yourself posted.


...got it?

[unapatriciated]

245. But It is ok for you to make "incredible assumptions"

about many of us posting in this thread. Referring to those of us with a different view than yours as "stoners" or "potheads", who are only interested in an easy way to score our bud. Most of us posting in this thread have done our research. I would have agreed with you back in the early 90's before my son became ill and had his first round of chemo. Since then I have done a hell of a lot of research and found that I was very misinformed regarding mj. Fly by night is probably the most informed in this thread on this subject and I would take him up on his offer to share his research with you.

[RainDog]

261. well said

it's reprehensible that a loved one, especially a parent, would have to worry about whether something is legal, with all those implications, than it is to have the best medicine for certain situations available to those who need them.

and I agree, Fly By Night is a great source of information and his willingness to challenge the status quo is admirable.

I hope all is well with your son now.

:pals:

[Fly by night]

214. All national opinion polls over the past four years show 60-80% support for medical marijuana.

To get approval ratings that high, EVERYONE who had ever smoked even one joint for any reason would have to support medical marijuana AND around half of all other people (the never-users) would have to support medical marijuana also. No substance which presents any significant or lasting problems for its users would enjoy that kind of support. None. Nada.

You have admitted that you are in the substance abuse treatment field. So am I, having served as a Congressional advisor on substance abuse under Bush 1 and Clinton, having established the first research unit within any state department of health to focus on substance abuse as a public health problem, having established and run the largest substance abuse treatment center in Wyoming, having established and run drug courts, having consulted on substance abuse research and program development with seven states and seven American Indian tribes (so far), etc, etc.

Jimmy Carter was right 30 years ago. The Global Commission on Drug Policy was right last Thursday. Every commission that has ever studied this issue since the Indian Hemp Commission established by Great Britain in the late 1800s was right. Marijuana is a medicine, an herb and a safer social lubricant than alcohol. The only serious consequences of marijuana use are those imposed by its illegality, not by its use. It does not deserve its Schedule 1 status. More likely, even putting it in Schedule 4 exaggerates its risks and minimizes its benefits.

I'm not sure why you are spending so much time here, but surely you have some more court-ordered sufferers of "illegal smiles" waiting outside your office now whose treatment you can bill the government for. As for me, it's time for the Garden. You are wasting our time, and yours, here. The fact that you've not yet acknowledged that fact makes me wonder just what you're smoking (or whose checks you are cashing besides the ones that pay you to treat marijuana users who don't need treatment).

[Uncle Joe]

197. Thanks for your informative posts, Fly by night.

:thumbsup: :hi:

[malaise]

208. Carter is a good man

I do love him.

[B Calm]

219. It would be a very smart move if Pres Obama did the same. What is it

now, isn't it like 70% of the populatation want it legalized!

[RainDog]

249. did you see this

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/june032011/cannabis-pharma.php

from this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1260288&mesg_id=1260288

[piratefish08]

254. wow. this 'troll-apalooza' thread survived the night.

i'm impressed.

[RainDog]

262. and another day

it's good to see information presented that talks about certain beliefs now being spread as a way to create "new" reasons to oppose decriminalization and rescheduling.

those of us on the legalize side could try to practice a little more patience and kindness - but after so many years of lies, it's easy to understand why people get outdone.