Why is Marijuana use still illegal?

[Daedalia]

Don't get me wrong. I am not a pot-head. I experimented exactly twice in college. When I was in Holland, I could have done it but didn't feel like it. I didn't want to get the smell in my clothes.

But, I am curious as to why marijuana does not have the same status as alcohol. I mean you can be just as irresponsible and abusive of your body with alcohol as you can with marijuana, right? If people want to enjoy it in the privacy of their homes, let them.

What do you all think? Is the illegality of MJ more of a moral issue in this country than a public health and safety thing?

[hankrearden2000]

It defies rational explanation.

[SHERIFF]

Why is Marijuana use still illegal?


Because possession of marijuana is still a crime.

To use it...... you have to possess it. Right? :D

[Daedalia]

Because possession of marijuana is still a crime.

To use it...... you have to possess it. Right? :D*In my best school teacher voice* Okay, Mr. Smarty pants. Let me revise my question. Why is the manufacture, possession, and use of marijuana still illegal? :rolleyes: :D

[SHERIFF]

*In my best school teacher voice* Okay, Mr. Smarty pants. Let me revise my question. Why is the manufacture, possession, and use of marijuana still illegal? :rolleyes: :D

Well, I was telling why the use is still illegal. :eek: :)

Your amended question is much harder to answer. There's political answers. There's medical answers. There's moral answers. I don't think it will ever be legalized in our lifetime.

[chucker]

I think that they should either legalize marijuana ( I HOPE NOT!), or illegalize alcohol as well as cigarettes. They all kill people because of their use. Innocent people fall victim to alcohol and marijuana abuse through car wrecks and plain out insanity.

[John McClane]

i hope they dont legalize it in CA. If they did then it would probably be legal to transport, therefore we would lose the "plain-smell" doctrine, which is a great tool.....i really dont care if pot carrys no penalty as long as it is technically illegal and gets me into cars.

[mainedawg]

There are so many reasons it's not legal. The number one reason that I know is that the people have not come fourth and wanted thier elected body in Washington to do that. Until that time you go to jail. Legal or illegal .And my other reason is that my dawg said no.

[SHERIFF]

Until that time you go to jail. Legal or illegal.

I think you need to reword that a tad.

People aren't suppose to go to jail for legal things. :D

Interesting enough though, whay kind of mariquana laws do you have in Florida? One can go to jail for simple possession? :eek:

[OFK]

I think you need to reword that a tad.

People aren't suppose to go to jail for legal things. :D

Interesting enough though, whay kind of mariquana laws do you have in Florida? One can go to jail for simple possession? :eek:

Possession of 20 grams or less of marijuana is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a fine of up to $1,000. Possession of greater than 20 grams of marijuana is a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000.

The delivery of 20 grams or less of marijuana for no consideration is a misdemeanor and is punishable by up to one year in jail and a fine of up to $1,000. Sale, delivery or cultivation of any other amount up to 25 pounds is a felony and punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000.

Sale, delivery or cultivation of greater than 25 pounds is considered trafficking, and all trafficking offenses have mandatory minimum sentences. For less than 2,000 pounds or less than 2,000 plants, there is a mandatory minimum sentence of three years and a fine of $25,000. For less than 10,000 pounds or less than 10,000 plants there is a mandatory minimum sentence of seven years and a fine of $50,000. For 10,000 pounds or 10,000 plants or greater, the mandatory minimum sentence is 15 years in prison and a fine of $200,000.

Any sale or delivery occurring within 1,000 feet of a school, college, public park, public housing, daycare center, or church is punishable by up to 15 years in prison and a fine of $10,000.

The possession of paraphernalia is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a fine of up to $1,000.

Conviction of a drug related offense also requires suspension of the offender's driver's license for at least six months but not longer than two years.

[jordeneaux]

Taxes, if they legalize it, they could not tax it like booze, because everyone would grow it in there back yard

[mainedawg]

OFK :)

And my main reason is, MY DAWG SAID NO TO DOPERS. :D

[sureshot015]

You cannot even compare marijuana to alcohol. While the destructive effects it has on habitual users may be similiar, the orgin of the products are completely opposite. Alcohol manufacturers are for the most part legitimate operations. Marijuana growers, and smugglers however are quite the opposite. The drug industry is 100% unregulated. It is not uncommon to find marijuana laced with LSC and arsnec---defenitally not susbstances the users are planning to come into contact with. Now you may raise the argument---legalize it, have big tobacco grow it, tax the hell out of it, and hope the illigitimate operations go out of business. Now think about the news paper headline. The US would be the laughing stock of the world.

[ProWriter]

i hope they dont legalize it in CA. If they did then it would probably be legal to transport, therefore we would lose the "plain-smell" doctrine, which is a great tool.....i really dont care if pot carrys no penalty as long as it is technically illegal and gets me into cars.Not necessarily, at all: it's perfectly legal to drink alcohol and smoke tobacco, but you can't distill your own whiskey or sell cigarettes without the appropriate licenses, etc.

Those are all issues of regulation, not absolute prohibition. Frankly, there is no logical justification for why alcohol, (which is perfectly legal for adults to drink but not to manufacture or drive under the influence of); tobacco, (which is perfectly legal for adults to smoke and chew, but not to sell privately); and MJ, (which is certainly no worse medically than cigarettes, and which could be regulated in the exact same manner as alcohol in connection with driving), should be treated differently.

If MJ were regulated, taxed, and licensed (just like tobacco and alcohol), drug dealers could still be prosecuted, the government would earn revenue, and it could be manufactured in a uniform potency and purity. Alcohol prohibition is what originally empowered the organized crime families that still plague this country today, because all that accomplished at the time was to push its use underground where criminals controlled it. As one result, thousands of Americans went blind or died from drinking bad moonshine and underworld wars for its control took the lives of hundreds of innocent people, not to mention LEOs whose job it was to combat its illegal manufacture and trade. Ultimately Prohibition was repealed, but by that time, OC was already too powerful to wipe out, by virtue of all the profit earned during Prohibition.

Without expressing any opinion on MJ, specifically, what I can't understand is how anybody distinguishes alcohol and tobacco use from MJ use either morally, or in relation to whether MJ should be treated differently under the law than the other two. The "gateway" argument, in particular, has always struck me as ridiculous, because almost all users of either MJ or any harder drugs start off with tobacco and alcohol before they ever experiment with MJ.
I would be more sympathetic to the argument that all three must be eliminated, under the exercise of governmental paternalism, for the good of society and the health of the individual than I am to any argument distinguishing them from each other in how they should be treated by law.

[chucker]

Not necessarily, at all: it's perfectly legal to drink alcohol and smoke tobacco, but you can't distill your own whiskey or sell cigarettes without the appropriate licenses, etc.

Those are all issues of regulation, not absolute prohibition. Frankly, there is no logical justification for why alcohol, (which is perfectly legal for adults to drink but not to manufacture or drive under the influence of); tobacco, (which is perfectly legal for adults to smoke and chew, but not to sell privately); and MJ, (which is certainly no worse medically than cigarettes, and which could be regulated in the exact same manner as alcohol in connection with driving), should be treated differently.

If MJ were regulated, taxed, and licensed (just like tobacco and alcohol), drug dealers could still be prosecuted, the government would earn revenue, and it could be manufactured in a uniform potency and purity. Alcohol prohibition is what originally empowered the organized crime families that still plague this country today, because all that accomplished at the time was to push its use underground where criminals controlled it. As one result, thousands of Americans went blind or died from drinking bad moonshine and underworld wars for its control took the lives of hundreds of innocent people, not to mention LEOs whose job it was to combat its illegal manufacture and trade. Ultimately Prohibition was repealed, but by that time, OC was already too powerful to wipe out, by virtue of all the profit earned during Prohibition.

Without expressing any opinion on MJ, specifically, what I can't understand is how anybody distinguishes alcohol and tobacco use from MJ use either morally, or in relation to whether MJ should be treated differently under the law than the other two. The "gateway" argument, in particular, has always struck me as ridiculous, because almost all users of either MJ or any harder drugs start off with tobacco and alcohol before they ever experiment with MJ.
I would be more sympathetic to the argument that all three must be eliminated, under the exercise of governmental paternalism, for the good of society and the health of the individual than I am to any argument distinguishing them from each other in how they should be treated by law.

Well said, and in 100% agreement.

[Soon2Be]

I can't comment on the reasons, but I'm not at all happy with my government's stance on marijuana possession.

People who buy marijuana support organized crime.

[mainedawg]

It's not the government,it's the people. :D

[vicmackey]

i hope they dont legalize it in CA. If they did then it would probably be legal to transport, therefore we would lose the "plain-smell" doctrine, which is a great tool.....i really dont care if pot carrys no penalty as long as it is technically illegal and gets me into cars.


:D :D DITTO :D :D

[Bing_Oh]

Not necessarily, at all: it's perfectly legal to drink alcohol and smoke tobacco, but you can't distill your own whiskey or sell cigarettes without the appropriate licenses, etc.
Show me the laws that say you can't make your own alcoholic beverages for personal consumption. Beer making is a popular hobby across the country. It's illegal to SELL of DISTRIBUTE alcoholic beverages without paying the proper taxes (bootlegging), but that's a totally different issue.

The issues regarding marijuana legalization are numerous and far-reaching. They've been debated more times than I can count on this forum, and countless more times in the popular media. In my humble opinion, the people of this nation cannot use the one legal mind-altering drug already approved by consumption by the government (alcohol) with care and common sense, why should we legalize another?

[chucker]

I have never done them, and I don't ever want to try them other than the one time in my life when I was on meds. The only time I have been on meds is when a 1200 lb horse rolled over me and almost crushed me to death. Punctured lungs, broken ribs, broken hips, broken shoulder, broken pelvis, and nerve damage...it was not fun. But I am as healthy as can be now!

[OFK]

People who buy marijuana support organized crime.

Yes and I understand the prohibition assessment and connection to terrorism and organized crime as it relates to drugs, however if it were not drugs, it WILL be something else. Human trafficking is taking off and moving further underground. No matter what, something that is illegal will always be more valuable. You just have to decide what is more important to you.

[willowdared]

I think you need to separate how you use recreational inebriants and the actual chemical affect is has on your system.

I think there have been some compelling studies that have linked MJ use with permanent reduction of cognitive/memory function of the brain.

It has also been shown to stunt development of adolescent nervous systems, as well as fetal neuro-systems if the mother uses during pregnancy.

Of course the biggest reason it's still illegal is it's so darned hard to get
pot-heads out of the basement! ;)

[mikeinchitown]

Don't get me wrong. I am not a pot-head. I experimented exactly twice in college. When I was in Holland, I could have done it but didn't feel like it. I didn't want to get the smell in my clothes.

But, I am curious as to why marijuana does not have the same status as alcohol. I mean you can be just as irresponsible and abusive of your body with alcohol as you can with marijuana, right? If people want to enjoy it in the privacy of their homes, let them.

What do you all think? Is the illegality of MJ more of a moral issue in this country than a public health and safety thing?

Oh Lord. That is all I can say to this one. If you're even asking this question then...oh never mind.

[OFK]

Oh Lord. That is all I can say to this one. If you're even asking this question then...oh never mind.


Yeah I was ALMOST tempted to post a picture. :D

[mikeinchitown]

Yeah I was ALMOST tempted to post a picture. :D

I hear ya, stinky people walking around in Birkenstocks asking "Why is pot illegal"

[RabbitMPD]

What would the advertising slogans be like?

"Smooth, bold, fresh,.....HA! Fresh! What a funny word! Say it really, really fast. FRESH! HAHAHAHA!......wait.......what are we talking about? --Marlboro Greens"

http://thompson699.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/marijuana2.jpg.w300h176.jpg

[mikeinchitown]

They would get so high when it became legal that they would wake up the next day and forget what happened.


Whoa, dooooode what happened? They finally legalized it? Do I have to move out of my mom's basement now?

[ProWriter]

Show me the laws that say you can't make your own alcoholic beverages for personal consumption. Beer making is a popular hobby across the country. It's illegal to SELL of DISTRIBUTE alcoholic beverages without paying the proper taxes (bootlegging), but that's a totally different issue.You're absolutely right, and I stand corrected. Thank GOD you pointed out the oversight that has absolutely no impact whatsoever on the actual topic of discussion on this thread before I realized it and edited it myself. (The point is simply that MJ could be regulated, and its irresponsible use punished, exactly the same as alcohol, that's all.)

[jerrymaccauley]

It's hard enough to get people to put in a full days work as it is.

[Bing_Oh]

You're absolutely right, and I stand corrected. Thank GOD you pointed out the oversight that has absolutely no impact whatsoever on the actual topic of discussion on this thread before I realized it and edited it myself. (The point is simply that MJ could be regulated, and its irresponsible use punished, exactly the same as alcohol, that's all.)
If it didn't have a point in the conversation, why did you bring it up?

I notice that the people who say that marijuana could be legalized and its irresponsible use punished are, usually, not LEO's. They're people who don't have to deal with the logistical issues of regulation, control, and punishment of people under the influence of yet another perception-altering drug. When you can give me realistic guidelines regarding the legalalities and logistics of enforcement for the legalization of marijuana (including testing criteria for DUI/OVI/OWI, where, when, and by whom marijuana can be possessed and used, issues regarding public marijuana intoxication, and a plethora of other issues), then I'll support its legalization.

[gotthblues]

i know this will offend you bill clinton followers, but another reason why mj cant be legalized, is that even if it was legal, you would automatically violate another law, you take a puff and yes, you are under the influence of an intoxicating substance, unlike alcohol, you can take one, two, even three drinks before becoming intoxicated, *by the way i am not an advocate of alcohol either*

[ProWriter]

If it didn't have a point in the conversation, why did you bring it up?I'm not saying it's completely irrelevant, but it wasn't THE point we were discussing. It's no big deal, but I just think phrases like "show me the law saying you can't make alcohol..." (etc.) are more appropriate for when that's the actual topic being argued, and are unnecessarily argumentative when it isn't. To me, something like "Actually, making your own alcohol isn't illegal..." (etc.), is much more appropriate in tone to correct a mistake that isn't the point being argued, especially, when the mistake has absolutely no bearing on the integrity of the position it was made to support, that's all.

Anyway, the point is that alcohol is a profitable consumable substance that alters perception so much in the quantities in which it's typically consumed, that it's regulated, both in terms of who can sell it or manufacture it for sale, as well as who can drink it, and how much, before it becomes a crime to combine it with certain other activities, like driving. Cigarettes are also heavily regulated and taxed and prohibited for use by minors. Chronic MJ use is associated with some of the same medical issues as cigarettes, and similar in its short-term perceptual effects to alcohol. But there's absolutely nothing so different about the medical risks of MJ (compared to cigarettes), or about its perception altering effects (compared to alcohol), that it should be treated any differently from those other two "vices."

If your philosophy is that government should prohibit MJ because it is associated with long term medical issues like lung cancer, then how do you justify that without also expressing the exact same argument for criminalizing tobacco use, when smoking accounts for more annual deaths than ALL illegal drug use, ALL vehicular accident deaths, ALL other types of accidental deaths, and ALL cancer and heart disease-related deaths, COMBINED?

How can anybody argue, in good faith, for MJ criminalization based on the position that MJ is a "gateway" drug leading to harder drug use when the vast majority of MJ users AND the vast majority of all harder drug users started with cigarettes and alcohol first, especially when cigarettes alone kill so many more people than all illegal drugs combined?

If your philosophy is that any substance that alters your perception so much that people shouldn't be allowed to consume it, how do you justify that without expressing the exact same argument for criminalizing alcohol use? How do you justify supporting laws prohibiting smoking MJ in the privacy of one's home when every weekend thousands of people are out getting loaded, being loud and obnoxious in public, instigating drunken brawls, ****ing in the street, passing out, and driving under the influence in such high numbers that it's absolutely impossible to apprehend them all before some of them kill innocent people on the road? (Nobody's arguing your obligation to enforce existing law, because what we're discussing here is only our respective beliefs about what legal approaches we support, in principle.)

I notice that the people who say that marijuana could be legalized and its irresponsible use punished are, usually, not LEO's. They're people who don't have to deal with the logistical issues of regulation, control, and punishment of people under the influence of yet another perception-altering drug.

First, one could have made the EXACT same argument about alcohol 80 years ago, when there was absolutely no technology for roadside determination of BAC, whatsoever: "Who's to say what's criminal about drinking and driving, when some people can drink a lot and still function and drive responsibly while other people become intoxicated after one or two drinks?" LE technology and laws evolve to address the needs of society, as demonstrated in the case of alcohol regulation.

Second, THC levels are just as ascertainable in blood and urine, and FSTs are an objective way of determining whether one is able to drive responsibly, regardless of the specific intoxicating substance.

Third, if it turns out that the nature and method of MJ consumption makes it too difficult or expensive to test precisely in the field, that justifies a no tolerance policy for driving under its influence; it does not justify prohibiting it for private use at home when not combined with driving. Personally, I think driving after ANY amount of MJ or alcohol consumption should BOTH be illegal, because, as any DUI expert, actuary, or insurance agent will confirm, driving with ANY amount of alcohol in your system dramatically increases your chances of having a wreck. If an innocent family is wiped out by a driver whose BAC was "only" half the legal limit, (or "only" 0.08 in a state with a 0.10 limit), it's hardly much consolation that the driver wasn't "technically" DUI.

When you can give me realistic guidelines regarding the legalities and logistics of enforcement for the legalization of marijuana (including testing criteria for DUI/OVI/OWI, where, when, and by whom marijuana can be possessed and used, issues regarding public marijuana intoxication, and a plethora of other issues), then I'll support its legalization.No problem, here you go:

Same exact restriction as currently in place with respect to alcohol, to start with. Prohibit possession by minors; prohibit public intoxication and outdoor use, exactly the same as current alcohol restrictions; and (pending the development of suitable technologies with available funds for more precise roadside testing), continue with a zero tolerance policy for driving under the influence of MJ and with the same FSTs and other objective observational tests currently used within LE to enforce zero tolerance DUI/OVI/OWI with respect to MJ use in conjunction with driving; completely decriminalize simple possession by adults and private use by adults on their own property.

Doesn't that make more sense than treating someone like a criminal for smoking a little MJ quietly in his own home while watching TV, when entire neighborhoods are allowed to become filled with rowdy drunken crowds every weekend night with only the most out of control in the bunch ever being subject to any enforcement action more extreme than being told to "move along or go back inside if you don't want to get locked up tonight"? For the record, I'm not an "advocate" or "supporter" of ANYTHING besides logical consistency in criminal legislation and in ethical moral values, in general.

[RBrodowski]

Its funny you bring up DUI Alcohol. You can be DUI Drugs just as easily and its harder for us to measure it. If you just got done smoking a joint and change your clothes, chances are we won't know. There is no "alco-sensor" for marijuana for us to tell how much marijuana smoked. Also there is really no gauge to find out how much marijuana is needed to be "DUI".

Personally I don't care if someone sits in their living room watching TV, smokes some weed, then goes to bed. Call me a libertarian, but what you do in your own time as long as you don't hurt anyone else is fine by me. You notice I said I personally don't care, but my career does. My job is to enforce the laws, not change it. Will I arrest the guy sitting at home smoking a joint if I have a reason to be in his home? Yup. Its my job.

[AverageJoe]

***NOT A COP***
Making MJ legal is taking a step toward more easily and definitively separating the winners from the losers. Upon hearing it is legal the losers will rejoice, continue to be high as often as possible and accomplish nothing noteworthy for the rest of their lifetime 'cause it's so fun and now legal to be high. The winners will respond by separating the losers from what money they can each payday before it's blown on drugs and live in relative separation, meeting only when Cheech Jr. takes their order at the drive through.

Seriously, people already have enough "reality crutches", alcohol abuse being a major one. That's how I see MJ use, just another crutch for the mentally weak. Try being "tough enough" to enjoy life sober, it can be done and you'll have enough money for a Corvette too!

AvgJoe

[ProWriter]

Its funny you bring up DUI Alcohol. You can be DUI Drugs just as easily and its harder for us to measure it. If you just got done smoking a joint and change your clothes, chances are we won't know. There is no "alco-sensor" for marijuana for us to tell how much marijuana smoked. Also there is really no gauge to find out how much marijuana is needed to be "DUI".That's exactly why I suggested a zero tolerance policy for ANY MJ use in conjunction with driving: if you can determine that a driver is under the influence of MJ, lock 'em up. I have no problem erring on the safe side when it comes to impaired driving, and I think there should be a zero tolerance policy on driving with alcohol in your system, instead of some "permissible" amount of impairment just because alcohol consumption is so ingrained in our culture.

Personally I don't care if someone sits in their living room watching TV, smokes some weed, then goes to bed. Call me a libertarian, but what you do in your own time as long as you don't hurt anyone else is fine by me. You notice I said I personally don't care, but my career does. My job is to enforce the laws, not change it. Will I arrest the guy sitting at home smoking a joint if I have a reason to be in his home? Yup. Its my job.
Agreed, but that's all we're discussing here: your personal opinion as to what you think the law on MJ SHOULD be (and why); nobody's even suggesting anybody refrain from enforcing whatever laws you've sworn to uphold on the job.

[ProWriter]

...Making MJ legal is taking a step toward more easily and definitively separating the winners from the losers. Upon hearing it is legal the losers will rejoice, continue to be high as often as possible and accomplish nothing noteworthy for the rest of their lifetime 'cause it's so fun and now legal to be high. The winners will respond by separating the losers from what money they can each payday before it's blown on drugs and live in relative separation, meeting only when Cheech Jr. takes their order at the drive through.According to your logic, everybody who rejoiced after Prohibition was repealed, making it "legal" to get drunk, is also a "loser," as is everybody who drinks any alcohol, today.

[Contact]

It has been my personal observation that potheads are not typically the most motivated people in the world. :D

They just like to complain, but no action on said complaint.

The people that don't do it could care less if it's illegal, so why would they work to change anything? :confused:

[1sgkelly]

Why is Marijuana use still illegal?

Because as soon as it was legalized; some goddamned smartass would jump up and say “why isn’t ecstasy or coke or meth legal".

:mad:

[21blue28]

Sorry, Pro ..... MJ IS a gateway drug. Legalized "drugs" (alc/tob) are legal - there is a certain socialized acceptance of their use. A kid who uses those underage - while illegal - is "cheating the system" due to their age. A few more years and no repercussions. Now MJ, on the other hand is legal nowhere (that I police in, at least). So when a kid steps over THAT line, that has major social implications. Not just cheating the age bit - but this tis not legal to anyone.

As for the potheads that are lazy and do nothing in a basement somewhere ..... I could care less. I NEVER deal with them cause they tend to not do other worse things that are more obvios. I deal with the gangbangers that always tend to have a bag or 2 on them. The crime that is associated with these guys tends to be a little more ..... rough.

[ProWriter]

Sorry, Pro ..... MJ IS a gateway drug. Legalized "drugs" (alc/tob) are legal - there is a certain socialized acceptance of their use. A kid who uses those underage - while illegal - is "cheating the system" due to their age. A few more years and no repercussions. Now MJ, on the other hand is legal nowhere (that I police in, at least). So when a kid steps over THAT line, that has major social implications. Not just cheating the age bit - but this tis not legal to anyone...

Again, we're discussing our views on whether or not MJ SHOULD be illegal, so, it's really not helpful to that discussion at all to say that MJ already IS illegal, because that's circular reasoning. Can we suppose, hypothetically, and purely for the sake of having a discussion about the topic, that BOTH alcohol and MJ are presently illegal, or that they're both presently legal, (either way, it doesn't matter)? I understand that you have to enforce whatever laws are on the books. Now, can you explain (if you want to have this discussion, that is), what your argument would be to treat them differently under the law if they were both treated identically, right now?

Does anybody doubt that the VAST majority of MJ users tried cigarettes and/or alcohol, first? If not, how can you possibly consider MJ a gateway drug, but not the other two. I'd suggest it makes absolutely no difference for that issue what their respective legal status is, if your point is that using one leads to using other worse things. In any case, if you're a minor, alcohol is illegal for YOU, just the same as MJ is illegal for everybody. It makes no difference with respect to a minor that adults can drink legally any more than it matters to everybody else that a FEW people in this country still get their MJ legally, provided directly by the Federal government, pursuant to a now-discontinued Federal program whose former participants are exempt from laws proscribing its use for everybody ELSE.

Please also keep in mind that I neither drink alcohol nor smoke (anything), I couldn't stand Clinton, and that my only interest in this particular topic is the logical consistency of ethical beliefs, moral values, and law. Thanks.

[nypdauxsgt]

I still don't understand why the pharmaceutical industry is not pushing to legalize MJ. After all, once it became legal, they they could start marketing drugs for MJ addiction. In fact, they could take the ones the have now for alcohol dependence (antabuse, campral, naltrexone), get an indication for MJ addiction and BAM! $$$ for big pharma.

If people want to get MJ legalized, they should just ask big pharma to do for them.

While they're at it, they could see if big pharma is willing to lobby for legalizing meth, heroin, and cocaine...cause they all have trials investigating drugs to reduce addiction to these substances.

[narc]

You're absolutely right, and I stand corrected. Thank GOD you pointed out the oversight that has absolutely no impact whatsoever on the actual topic of discussion on this thread before I realized it and edited it myself. (The point is simply that MJ could be regulated, and its irresponsible use punished, exactly the same as alcohol, that's all.)


regulated that's BS....if you legalize one then do it for all :rolleyes:

[Bing_Oh]

Anyway, the point is that alcohol is a profitable consumable substance that alters perception so much in the quantities in which it's typically consumed, that it's regulated, both in terms of who can sell it or manufacture it for sale, as well as who can drink it, and how much, before it becomes a crime to combine it with certain other activities, like driving. Cigarettes are also heavily regulated and taxed and prohibited for use by minors. Chronic MJ use is associated with some of the same medical issues as cigarettes, and similar in its short-term perceptual effects to alcohol. But there's absolutely nothing so different about the medical risks of MJ (compared to cigarettes), or about its perception altering effects (compared to alcohol), that it should be treated any differently from those other two "vices."

If your philosophy is that government should prohibit MJ because it is associated with long term medical issues like lung cancer, then how do you justify that without also expressing the exact same argument for criminalizing tobacco use, when smoking accounts for more annual deaths than ALL illegal drug use, ALL vehicular accident deaths, ALL other types of accidental deaths, and ALL cancer and heart disease-related deaths, COMBINED?
Um...ok. Criminalize tobacco. No objection here. My father died from tobacco-related lung cancer, so that's not an argument which you'll be able to use against me.

How can anybody argue, in good faith, for MJ criminalization based on the position that MJ is a "gateway" drug leading to harder drug use when the vast majority of MJ users AND the vast majority of all harder drug users started with cigarettes and alcohol first, especially when cigarettes alone kill so many more people than all illegal drugs combined?

If your philosophy is that any substance that alters your perception so much that people shouldn't be allowed to consume it, how do you justify that without expressing the exact same argument for criminalizing alcohol use? How do you justify supporting laws prohibiting smoking MJ in the privacy of one's home when every weekend thousands of people are out getting loaded, being loud and obnoxious in public, instigating drunken brawls, ****ing in the street, passing out, and driving under the influence in such high numbers that it's absolutely impossible to apprehend them all before some of them kill innocent people on the road? (Nobody's arguing your obligation to enforce existing law, because what we're discussing here is only our respective beliefs about what legal approaches we support, in principle.)
Once again, you're assuming that nobody on here will support the criminalization or stricter enforcement of tobacco and alcohol laws. You're incorrect. I strongly believe that laws regarding tobacco and alcohol should be more strictly enforced. Tobacco is still a major killer in this nation. Likewise for alcohol-related offenses. Again, logistics prevent total criminalization. Both substances have been a legal part of our society for too long for them to be arbitrarily removed. So, arguing about the criminalization of tobacco or alcohol is a moot point.

First, one could have made the EXACT same argument about alcohol 80 years ago, when there was absolutely no technology for roadside determination of BAC, whatsoever: "Who's to say what's criminal about drinking and driving, when some people can drink a lot and still function and drive responsibly while other people become intoxicated after one or two drinks?" LE technology and laws evolve to address the needs of society, as demonstrated in the case of alcohol regulation.
Guess what...they were wrong. The lawmakers 80 years ago didn't understand the ramification of thier decision, and law enforcement was forced to adapt and overcome for decades after until medical and technological testing techniques could be established. Just because our lewmakes made a mistake in the past and it, eventually, turned out ok (in your opinion), doesn't mean that we have to repeat that mistake.

Second, THC levels are just as ascertainable in blood and urine, and FSTs are an objective way of determining whether one is able to drive responsibly, regardless of the specific intoxicating substance.

Third, if it turns out that the nature and method of MJ consumption makes it too difficult or expensive to test precisely in the field, that justifies a no tolerance policy for driving under its influence; it does not justify prohibiting it for private use at home when not combined with driving. Personally, I think driving after ANY amount of MJ or alcohol consumption should BOTH be illegal, because, as any DUI expert, actuary, or insurance agent will confirm, driving with ANY amount of alcohol in your system dramatically increases your chances of having a wreck. If an innocent family is wiped out by a driver whose BAC was "only" half the legal limit, (or "only" 0.08 in a state with a 0.10 limit), it's hardly much consolation that the driver wasn't "technically" DUI.
Once again, you've shown that the public has little grasp on the logistical difficulties associated with marijuana enforcement. FST's are NOT specifically designed to test for marijuana impairment. One FST, the HGN, has a section which tests for possible drug usage and requires that you discontinue further testing if it's indicated! Also, current drug tests do NOT show levels of marijuana intoxication as they do BAC for alcohol. They show the presence of THC in the bloodstream...period.

No problem, here you go:

Same exact restriction as currently in place with respect to alcohol, to start with. Prohibit possession by minors; prohibit public intoxication and outdoor use, exactly the same as current alcohol restrictions; and (pending the development of suitable technologies with available funds for more precise roadside testing), continue with a zero tolerance policy for driving under the influence of MJ and with the same FSTs and other objective observational tests currently used within LE to enforce zero tolerance DUI/OVI/OWI with respect to MJ use in conjunction with driving; completely decriminalize simple possession by adults and private use by adults on their own property.
Most states have overturned "public intoxication" laws as unconstitutional. Ohio has no "public intoxication" law...a person intoxicated in public must show that they are a risk to themselves or be causing inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm to be arrested for Disorderly Conduct.

Again, you're taking the irresponsible "I wanna smoke a little ganja, let society deal with the problems" in regards to "suitable technologies with available funds for more precise roadside testing." Until that technology is developed, it would be socially irresponsible to even consider legalizing marijuana. We've already covered the inherent difficulty in immediate detection and the inherent uselessness of the FST's as used to detect drug intoxication.

As for your idea of "zero tolerance" for DUI/OVI for marijuana, nice try. We don't have anything even coming close to a really approprate punishment schedule for ALCOHOL DUI, something that we've been dealing with since Ford released the Model T! You really expect our lawmakers to be able to create a solution to a NEW drug on the first, second, or tenth try? We have yet to correct our current mistakes with the legal drugs currently in existance in the US...why in the heck you we make the problem even worse by adding new drugs to the list?

Doesn't that make more sense than treating someone like a criminal for smoking a little MJ quietly in his own home while watching TV, when entire neighborhoods are allowed to become filled with rowdy drunken crowds every weekend night with only the most out of control in the bunch ever being subject to any enforcement action more extreme than being told to "move along or go back inside if you don't want to get locked up tonight"? For the record, I'm not an "advocate" or "supporter" of ANYTHING besides logical consistency in criminal legislation and in ethical moral values, in general.
Everybody I've ever talked to about marijuana legalization paints the picture of the nice, low-key, private marijuana user, sitting at home mezmerized by the TV with a bag of Cheeto's in hand, never bothering anybody. It's a false picture. Legalized drugs are used most SOCIALLY. If marijuana is ever legalized, it will be used as socially as alcohol is now. Until you can realistically deal with the consequences of public, social marijuana usage, than legalization is irresponsible.

[1042 Trooper]

Anybody got a box of twinkies?

[Zipcreature]

Anybody got a box of twinkies?
;-)

Honestly good fences make for good neighboros. If someone is going to smoke Bud, they already are. There are people who offere it around every weekend, and i just say "no thanks".
Do I have a solid bulletproof reason, complete with testimony and facts, figures and diagrams? Nope. I just dont smoke Grass.

So what would legalizing it do? Maybe people still think its "The Devil Weed!" that the "Negros" smoke and make them rape white women. I dont really understand that mentality, but all of that stuff happened way before I was born.

Does it lead to other drugs? Maybe it IS a gateway drug; but anyone who starts with Ganja is probably going to head into other drugs anyways, I cant see blaming Mary J for it.

Same argument goes with guns, doenst it? If we take guns away from the law abiding citizens the criminals will still have them.

Just some thoughts about that sticky icky.

- Zipcreature

[rohlarin]

MJ is a drug(period)

Legalizing the use of any drug for recreation puts a government stamp of approval on it just like alcohol.

Legalize MJ and it's use will grow exponentially until eventually MJ related deaths/injuries/crimes will rivale that of alcohol.

[Operator13]

IMHO, one of the problems is proving current intoxication.

From my understanding of the blood-screens it may be difficult to differentiate a chronic user vs. a recent user.

It won't be legal in our lifetime and probably rightfully so.

[Centurion44]

Your asking the wrong bunch of people. I'm not getting into this arguement again. Everyone who's spent more than 2 months on these forums knows my opinion on the matter.

But it's pointless to bring it up here. The fact is this: It is illegal. Regardless whether we believe it should be or not.

You, as a voting citizen, have the ability to let your voice be heard through your local, state, and federal politicians. If you believe it should be legalized, direct your energy to political offices- not to the people that are paid to uphold the law, wether we believe it's "wrong" or not.

[2209]

Don't get me wrong. I am not a pot-head.

Am I the only one that has a bad habit of not even reading the rest of the post as soon as I read the above?

This is like the fine upstanding citizens that tell me "listen officer, I'm telling you the truth, I swear!"

[SgtScott31]

God not this discussion again.

There's nothing any of us LEO's can do about it. We enforce the laws, not write them. Go make the gripes to http://www.senate.gov/

[21blue28]

Again, we're discussing our views on whether or not MJ SHOULD be illegal, so, it's really not helpful to that discussion at all to say that MJ already IS illegal, because that's circular reasoning. Can we suppose, hypothetically, and purely for the sake of having a discussion about the topic, that BOTH alcohol and MJ are presently illegal, or that they're both presently legal, (either way, it doesn't matter)? I understand that you have to enforce whatever laws are on the books. Now, can you explain (if you want to have this discussion, that is), what your argument would be to treat them differently under the law if they were both treated identically, right now?

Does anybody doubt that the VAST majority of MJ users tried cigarettes and/or alcohol, first? If not, how can you possibly consider MJ a gateway drug, but not the other two. I'd suggest it makes absolutely no difference for that issue what their respective legal status is, if your point is that using one leads to using other worse things. In any case, if you're a minor, alcohol is illegal for YOU, just the same as MJ is illegal for everybody. It makes no difference with respect to a minor that adults can drink legally any more than it matters to everybody else that a FEW people in this country still get their MJ legally, provided directly by the Federal government, pursuant to a now-discontinued Federal program whose former participants are exempt from laws proscribing its use for everybody ELSE.

Please also keep in mind that I neither drink alcohol nor smoke (anything), I couldn't stand Clinton, and that my only interest in this particular topic is the logical consistency of ethical beliefs, moral values, and law. Thanks.

Do you just sit there everyday, trying to think of ways not to be logical. The discussion is about the legality of MJ. Should we or shouldn't we. I stated that MJ is a gateway drug to much harder drugs, as in "here is the line." When people partake in MJ, they have crossed a BIG line. Bigger than alcohol - much bigger. Alcohol IS socially accepted. When someone is 21 years old MINUS one day and they drink - that is illegal, but would we view that the same as a 17 year old drinking? I wouldn't (in terms of morals). Likewise a soldier coming back from Iraq who is 19 - I would look at that differently from a 16 year old drinking.

Now put those 2 in a buy bust on the street. They would be taking a ride from me. My point about MJ is that because a more blatant legal line is crossed, it makes it easier to try the next biggest thing.

Also, going to bust up a party where underaged drinking is involved and cans are everywhere is and should be handled a WHOLE lot differently than a party where drugs are all over. I also bet that you would find a different crowd involved, also.

[mainedawg]

The subject of this thread is: Why is marijuana use still illegal? :confused:

Well I stated this FACT on an earlier post on this thread. The people make the laws thru thier elected bodies of government. It is illegal because the people don't want it used . It's had studies for years that it is a gateway drug. Ask any heroin or meth freak"if they still can remember anything" and they will tell you,They started with Marijuana.
No debate needed. :mad: The $hit is not as good as some think. I think I got my side of what I think out. I will go to my grave fighting the legalization of any issues for this DRUG.

Yes, I lived the 60's .Not near by,but right there. :eek: Free love pot every other thing going. I live it,saw it ,had a first hand look at it. Thank you for this thread and a chance to vent. :D

[chineseservant]

The real reason it is still illegal is because there is too much money on both sides for it to be legal. To much money invested by the government to keep it illegal; paying almost 1 million LEOs to enforce the laws, cost of buying/training drug dogs, monitoring the borders, etc. and on the other side the dealers who make profit. They can't have it being legal because they wouldn't make as much money (illegality drives up the price). ;)

[Bing_Oh]

Chineseservant, you do realize that the money being put into marijuana enforcement is inconsequential compaired to the money being put into the enforcement of pretty much any other drug (including alcohol, a LEGAL drug), right?

[1042 Trooper]

God not this discussion again.

There's nothing any of us LEO's can do about it. We enforce the laws, not write them. Go make the gripes to http://www.senate.gov/

Yeah, I can dig it, :D but can we still have the Twinkies?

[Zipcreature]

Why is it still illegal?
It might still be illegal because people believe the "slippery slope" argument that 'if we legalize the sticky-icky, then next people will want to legalize cocain, and then who knows what might happen? People will be crazy, they might stop going to church, they will listen to reggae music all day, they might even vote democratic!'.

As baby boomers age, and cancer rises, pot will be used to ease the horrible pains of chemo. Remember that many, many people over the age of 50 smoke; its not just this harmful stereotype of the college student. Thus, the laws converning Ganja will relax. Remember, baby boomers are different from any other generation of people; and the boomers kids are also. We vote.

But, I do realize that MJ can be harmful, more so than even cigs...or is it? Sure the amount of toxins in a jay are higher than cigs, but no one is likely to chain smoke Camel Turkish Greens all day.

After all how many people die each year from drunk driving (16,694 http://www.madd.org/stats/1298), or cig smoking related deaths (3,942,000 http://www.thetruth.com/index.cfm?Found=Facts) or hunger (7,300,000 http://www.thp.org/) as opposed to smoking the herb (1 http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/death/cannabis-yr.htm) ?

War against drugs? Or political puppet? I know which I feel is correct. Instead of speding the money fighting Bob Marley lets fight for health care, or S.S. or the Nat'l debt.

Thoughts? My mind is open to any thoughtful suggestions. If, however someone feels the urge to speak from their ***** just do us the favor and keep it in.

- Zipcreautre

[SIG-fan]

Show me the laws that say you can't make your own alcoholic beverages for personal consumption. Beer making is a popular hobby across the country. It's illegal to SELL of DISTRIBUTE alcoholic beverages without paying the proper taxes (bootlegging), but that's a totally different issue.
He said that you can't distill your own spirits (or maybe he said Whisky) which is true. To distill your own liquor, you need some sort of near-impossible-to-obtain BATFE licensure.

The issues regarding marijuana legalization are numerous and far-reaching. They've been debated more times than I can count on this forum, and countless more times in the popular media. In my humble opinion, the people of this nation cannot use the one legal mind-altering drug already approved by consumption by the government (alcohol) with care and common sense, why should we legalize another?
The question that I'd pose to you would be twofold; first, where in the Constitution is the Federal government given the power to regulate what citizens put into their own body and;
second, Do you think that a government that was founded on personal freedom should have to have people explain "why" they want something to be legal? If we arbitrarily make alcohol legal and marijuana illegal, something is wrong with the system.

I personally say legalize marijuana. I've never tried it before, I don't smoke anything, but I've seen people that had smoked some and they seemed less prone to violence as a group than people who drink frequently. I don't want to tell my neighbor what plant he can smoke anymore than I want him to tell me what guns I can own, or whatever.

[SIG-fan]

Now put those 2 in a buy bust on the street. They would be taking a ride from me. My point about MJ is that because a more blatant legal line is crossed, it makes it easier to try the next biggest thing.

If someone asked me that, I'd say "Well then, do you support Nazi executions of families that hid Jews?" It demonstrates how, simply because something is illegal, doesn't mean that the law is morally right. If someone wants to try marijuana, I feel bad that they have to be treated like a criminal to do it. I couldn't care less if someone smokes pot, I've even caught youngsters (15 or so to maybe 18 years old) smoking pot on the back of my property. I was out looking for coyotes so I was armed, but I could tell that these kids weren't out there destroying property or leaving beer bottles, so I told them that as long as they didn't start fires or damage my property, it wasn't a big deal. I'm not even sure I said that, as I didn't want to condone their behavior, I just said that if I never saw litter or damage, how would I ever know that they were there? I just don't care if someone wants to smoke a joint, we have such massive issues to deal with, real issues of our time, why would some government in a country based on freedom desire to control what their subjects smoked?

Also, going to bust up a party where underaged drinking is involved and cans are everywhere is and should be handled a WHOLE lot differently than a party where drugs are all over. I also bet that you would find a different crowd involved, also.
Why is it better if the youth are drinking ethanol, a poisonous substance, than smoking a plant? I think that the drinking age statutes should be removed, it's a PARENTs job to decide when a kid drinks, not some government offical in Washington, DC. The age to purchase alcohol should be 16 and DUI penalties would be much harsher and would have lower 'legal limits', but if my son ever wants to drink a few beers with his friends when he is 15-21 years old, how the hell can I say no? I know that I Was doing it, I know that most of my friends were doing it and I know that we all turned out reasonably well. I have been drinking beer with a group of friends that all turned out to be doctors since we were 13 years old. Pot should be the same way, at least for 'adults' over the age of 18.

[winq]

Legalizing marijuana is the easy way out. It could make LE easier in that it is one less item to enforce. Or would it? You have the driving while stoned aspect on the increase, along with an increase in medical care. Who's to say that an illegal market still won't exist. Quanity and potancy will now become the new issue. Everyone always wants bigger and better.

IMHO...marijuana is not as dangerous as cocaine,crack or heroin, but it is still ILLEGAL and it should remain so. The risks of legalization far out way keeping the status quo.

and yes, it is a gateway drug.

[Bing_Oh]

The question that I'd pose to you would be twofold; first, where in the Constitution is the Federal government given the power to regulate what citizens put into their own body and;
second, Do you think that a government that was founded on personal freedom should have to have people explain "why" they want something to be legal? If we arbitrarily make alcohol legal and marijuana illegal, something is wrong with the system.

I personally say legalize marijuana. I've never tried it before, I don't smoke anything, but I've seen people that had smoked some and they seemed less prone to violence as a group than people who drink frequently. I don't want to tell my neighbor what plant he can smoke anymore than I want him to tell me what guns I can own, or whatever.
For the most part, the states (or, more specifically, the voters within the states) still have decided that marijuana is illegal. To my knowledge, only two states have legalized marijuana in any form. The debate regarding whether the federal government has the right to deem marijuana illegal under the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution is not a marijuana debate but a states' vs. federal rights debate. That, in and of itself, is overly complicated and has been debated in courtrooms since the foundation of this nation. I don't think we're going to solve it here.

Remember that we already have a word for total freedom. That word is anarchy. The government...and the laws it creates...are in place to safeguard both society and the individual. It's a balancing act to make sure that the rights of society don't destroy the rights of the individual and vice versa. You say that it's about individual rights. I say it's about socital protection.

If someone asked me that, I'd say "Well then, do you support Nazi executions of families that hid Jews?" It demonstrates how, simply because something is illegal, doesn't mean that the law is morally right. If someone wants to try marijuana, I feel bad that they have to be treated like a criminal to do it.
Marijuana criminalization and the intentional extermination of a group of people because of religious beliefs. Kinda compairing apples and oranges, here, aren't we?

I just don't care if someone wants to smoke a joint, we have such massive issues to deal with, real issues of our time, why would some government in a country based on freedom desire to control what their subjects smoked?
So, because it's not a "big" problem, we should just let it slide? Take it from a person who deals with the "little" problems every day...the longer you ignore them, the bigger they get.

Why is it better if the youth are drinking ethanol, a poisonous substance, than smoking a plant? I think that the drinking age statutes should be removed, it's a PARENTs job to decide when a kid drinks, not some government offical in Washington, DC. The age to purchase alcohol should be 16 and DUI penalties would be much harsher and would have lower 'legal limits', but if my son ever wants to drink a few beers with his friends when he is 15-21 years old, how the hell can I say no? I know that I Was doing it, I know that most of my friends were doing it and I know that we all turned out reasonably well. I have been drinking beer with a group of friends that all turned out to be doctors since we were 13 years old. Pot should be the same way, at least for 'adults' over the age of 18.
I've never said that alcohol is "better" than marijuana. In fact, I've stated several times that I think alcohol and its side effects justify a stregnthening of the enforcement of liquor laws. I've also said that, realistically, alcohol cannot be criminalized because of its long-term inclusion into our current society. The legalization of one drug (alcohol) does not justify the legalization of another drug (marijuana), however. The argument does not hold water.

As for the idea od eliminating the drinking age and permitting parents to regulate alcoholic beverage consumption in their kids...wow, bad idea! Even if we disregard the fact that there are alot of parents out there who have no control over their kids and no concept of discipline, it's a scientifically-proven fact that teenagers have a less-developed sense of responsability and understanding of the consequences of their actions because of brain development. The last thing that we need to do is combine that lack of development with a mood-altering drug which causes a lessening of inhibitions and an impairment of reasoning skills. Kids already do stupid and dangerous things. Drunk kids do things that can (and sometimes do) put their lives in immediate danger. Remember, one of the government's primary jobs is individual protection.

[SIG-fan]

For the most part, the states (or, more specifically, the voters within the states) still have decided that marijuana is illegal. To my knowledge, only two states have legalized marijuana in any form. The debate regarding whether the federal government has the right to deem marijuana illegal under the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution is not a marijuana debate but a states' vs. federal rights debate. That, in and of itself, is overly complicated and has been debated in courtrooms since the foundation of this nation. I don't think we're going to solve it here.
If the federal government decriminalized marijuana, I'm sure that state governments would follow suit. If your department makes lots of big drug arrests, do you get more funding from the DEA? Do you seize more 'drug property' and sell it?

Remember that we already have a word for total freedom. That word is anarchy.

I've never advocated what you call "total freedom". I advocate every adult being able to do as they please, facing the full consequences, as long as their actions don't hurt another person.

The government...and the laws it creates...are in place to safeguard both society and the individual. It's a balancing act to make sure that the rights of society don't destroy the rights of the individual and vice versa. You say that it's about individual rights. I say it's about socital protection.
Then lets ban McDonalds, Pizza Hut, Doritos, beer and cigarettes. If you want to protect society, I"d say that preventing all crimes against persons and property would be the way to do it. How is a guy smoking a joint in his living room hurting society? If he breaks any person/property law while he is smoking pot then, of course, he should be punished, but he shouldn't be punished for taking in a substance other than the ones that he is "allowed" to.

Marijuana criminalization and the intentional extermination of a group of people because of religious beliefs. Kinda compairing apples and oranges, here, aren't we?
No, it's demonstrating the falliability of the government. Just because the government says something is illegal doesn't mean that it's morally right to make that thing illegal. The Constitution was designed to limit government involvement in our lives. You said that state constitutions prohibit drug use, well, the Constitution says that the lack of a specfic clause in the Constitution protecting a certain right doesn't mean that the right doesn't exist. people need to realize that the government is totally wrong about drug criminilization.

It does NOT stop people from doing drugs.
It DOES turn otherwise law-abiding citizens into "criminals".


So, because it's not a "big" problem, we should just let it slide? Take it from a person who deals with the "little" problems every day...the longer you ignore them, the bigger they get.
OK then, lets clear the jails out! Anyone in jail who hasn't commited a person/property crime should be let free. Then, anyone who DOES commit a person/property crime in the future should be imprisoned. If you don't hurt anyone or damaage their property, you shouldn't be in jail and the police shouldn't be wasting valuable man-hours to pursue you.

I've never said that alcohol is "better" than marijuana. In fact, I've stated several times that I think alcohol and its side effects justify a stregnthening of the enforcement of liquor laws. I've also said that, realistically, alcohol cannot be criminalized because of its long-term inclusion into our current society. The legalization of one drug (alcohol) does not justify the legalization of another drug (marijuana), however. The argument does not hold water.

The argument most certainly does! If you think that the government should ban substances based on arbitrary events, such as how "immersed" in our culture the substance is, thats really absurd. If you can't think of any critereon other than "well, people have used substance X longer than substance Y", then how can you possibly see that as a just decision?

As for the idea od eliminating the drinking age and permitting parents to regulate alcoholic beverage consumption in their kids...wow, bad idea! Even if we disregard the fact that there are alot of parents out there who have no control over their kids and no concept of discipline, it's a scientifically-proven fact that teenagers have a less-developed sense of responsability and understanding of the consequences of their actions because of brain development.
Did you drink any alcohol before 21? Or, a better question, were you over 18 but under 21 when the federal law was enacted? Did you feel some magical knowledge creep into your body at your 21st birthday? OF course not. My father allowed me to drink when I was "underage" just as my country allowed me to put a Eagle, Globe and Anchor on my shirt when I was under 21. If the USMC can trust me with a M249 and hand grenades, why can't I be trusted to drink a beer? If I can die for my country or kill for my country, why can't I drink in a bar?

The last thing that we need to do is combine that lack of development with a mood-altering drug which causes a lessening of inhibitions and an impairment of reasoning skills. Kids already do stupid and dangerous things. Drunk kids do things that can (and sometimes do) put their lives in immediate danger.
"kids" in Europe don't develop into alcoholics either. Do you know why that is? Because their isn't the societial pressure to AVOID drinking when you areyoung, they don't have any desire to go out and get ****y drunk all of the time when they are "legal" because they've been able to drink for years.

Remember, one of the government's primary jobs is individual protection.

No, it's not. It's protection of individuals RIGHTS. Lets look at how those are different.

A government concerned with individual protection could ban all vehicles, all firearms, all steps over 5 feet in height, all buildings over 10 feet in height, all alcohol, tobacco, red meat and force it's citizens to live in government approved buildings made of styrofoam so that they'd never get hurt. For each subject, three armed guards would be appointed so that they could walk around and be monitored every second of every day.

Thats what a government that cares about PROTECTION could do, and still be doing it's job.

A government concerned with protection of an individuals rights would say...

"Well, certain bad elements are using guns to commit crimes, but I'm not going to punish the general population for that and it's a natural right of people to own firearms, so we won't ban guns."

Thats the difference.

[wpowe008]

On a far shorter and way less important note--

I think the House would govern something like pot-- it's a domestic issue.
not the Senate. I could easily be wrong though.

but that was just one tiny thing I wanted to point out.

[Bing_Oh]

If the federal government decriminalized marijuana, I'm sure that state governments would follow suit. If your department makes lots of big drug arrests, do you get more funding from the DEA? Do you seize more 'drug property' and sell it?
No, not really. How much do you really think your local PD makes from marijuana confiscations? "Wow, we can sell this cool glass pipe, this half-eaten bag of Doritos, and this roach clip and fund the hiring of a new officer!" There's no financial benefit to enforcing marijuana laws, dispite what the pot advocates claim.

I've never advocated what you call "total freedom". I advocate every adult being able to do as they please, facing the full consequences, as long as their actions don't hurt another person.
Easier said than done. I've always told those who support marijuana legalization, "Outline the logistics of marijuana legalization...along with the enforcement for the new DUI/OVI's, public intoxication, etc that goes with it...and I'll consider changing my stance on the subject."

Then lets ban McDonalds, Pizza Hut, Doritos, beer and cigarettes. If you want to protect society, I"d say that preventing all crimes against persons and property would be the way to do it. How is a guy smoking a joint in his living room hurting society? If he breaks any person/property law while he is smoking pot then, of course, he should be punished, but he shouldn't be punished for taking in a substance other than the ones that he is "allowed" to.
As I said earlier, the pot advocates always paint the picture of the nice, calm little stoner alone in his living room toking up and munching on his Cheetos. The reality is, legalized drugs are social drugs. That means that, if you legalize marijuana, you have to deal with the consequences of its use and abuse in a public setting...along with all the side-effects like OVI/DUI and whatever version of "public intoxication" you would like to apply. As I said above, deal with the logistics of enforcement and we'll talk.

No, it's demonstrating the falliability of the government. Just because the government says something is illegal doesn't mean that it's morally right to make that thing illegal. The Constitution was designed to limit government involvement in our lives. You said that state constitutions prohibit drug use, well, the Constitution says that the lack of a specfic clause in the Constitution protecting a certain right doesn't mean that the right doesn't exist. people need to realize that the government is totally wrong about drug criminilization.

It does NOT stop people from doing drugs.
It DOES turn otherwise law-abiding citizens into "criminals".
I can't win a "morality" argument with you. Morality is a very specific and individual thing. What YOU consider moral, I might consider immoral. Neither of us will change the other's mind. Your opinion of right and wrong on this subject is different from mine. It's a personal opinion...that cannot be debated, only yelled about back and forth.

OK then, lets clear the jails out! Anyone in jail who hasn't commited a person/property crime should be let free. Then, anyone who DOES commit a person/property crime in the future should be imprisoned. If you don't hurt anyone or damaage their property, you shouldn't be in jail and the police shouldn't be wasting valuable man-hours to pursue you.
Gotcha. No more traffic enforcement unless there's a crash resulting in property damage or personal injury. Let the DUI/OVI's go until they run somebody over...after all, they're not hurting anybody until they actually get into a crash. No more speed limits...same as above.

Doesn't make alot of sense, does it?

The argument most certainly does! If you think that the government should ban substances based on arbitrary events, such as how "immersed" in our culture the substance is, thats really absurd. If you can't think of any critereon other than "well, people have used substance X longer than substance Y", then how can you possibly see that as a just decision?
No, I'm saying that it's not possible in our current social climate to criminalize alcohol. Whether I think it shoudl be criminalized or not is not the issue in debate. Again, it's logistics. CAN it be criminalized and can the criminalization be enforced? It's a realistic look at drug criminalization/decriminalization from the working end of it. You talk about the morality and the freedom issues, while I look at the real-world nuts and bolts of how it will (or will not) work.

Did you drink any alcohol before 21? Or, a better question, were you over 18 but under 21 when the federal law was enacted? Did you feel some magical knowledge creep into your body at your 21st birthday? OF course not. My father allowed me to drink when I was "underage" just as my country allowed me to put a Eagle, Globe and Anchor on my shirt when I was under 21. If the USMC can trust me with a M249 and hand grenades, why can't I be trusted to drink a beer? If I can die for my country or kill for my country, why can't I drink in a bar?
I was not between 18 and 21 when the law was enacted (by the way, there's no federal law against a person under the age of 21 consuming alcoholic beverage...it's all state and local laws. The only federal provision was the declaration that the federal government would withhold highway funding for states that did not make their legal drinking age 21). It's always been 21 for me. And, I drank only very rarely underage. looking back on it and my behavior when I did, I think it was rather foolish.

I've heard the military/drinking age analogy too many times. Nobody's even been able to associate the two for me in a sufficient way for me to even consider it. How does military service have anything to do with alcoholic beverage consumption?

"kids" in Europe don't develop into alcoholics either. Do you know why that is? Because their isn't the societial pressure to AVOID drinking when you areyoung, they don't have any desire to go out and get ****y drunk all of the time when they are "legal" because they've been able to drink for years.
Europe also has MUCH stricter laws and penalites regarding behavior while intoxicated...things which would never be accepted in the US.

No, it's not. It's protection of individuals RIGHTS. Lets look at how those are different.

A government concerned with individual protection could ban all vehicles, all firearms, all steps over 5 feet in height, all buildings over 10 feet in height, all alcohol, tobacco, red meat and force it's citizens to live in government approved buildings made of styrofoam so that they'd never get hurt. For each subject, three armed guards would be appointed so that they could walk around and be monitored every second of every day.

Thats what a government that cares about PROTECTION could do, and still be doing it's job.

A government concerned with protection of an individuals rights would say...

"Well, certain bad elements are using guns to commit crimes, but I'm not going to punish the general population for that and it's a natural right of people to own firearms, so we won't ban guns."

Thats the difference.
Let's avoid the extremist arguments, shall we? No theory. No outlandish scenarios. Let's stick to the real world and realistic application of the law.

[Zipcreature]

What would a person "abusing" mj in public look / behave like, anyways?

- Zipcreature

[RabbitMPD]

What would a person "abusing" mj in public look / behave like, anyways?

- Zipcreature
Walking around laughing at everything they see while stealing sack lunches from the kids. Oh please won't somebody think of the children!!!

I have the answer to this problem. Now listen closely...The answer is 42. Think about it.

[SIG-fan]

No, not really. How much do you really think your local PD makes from marijuana confiscations? "Wow, we can sell this cool glass pipe, this half-eaten bag of Doritos, and this roach clip and fund the hiring of a new officer!" There's no financial benefit to enforcing marijuana laws, dispite what the pot advocates claim.
Hah, well, in that instance, of course not. How much of your time do you think is spent on those issues, however? How much manpower could be used for other things?

Easier said than done. I've always told those who support marijuana legalization, "Outline the logistics of marijuana legalization...along with the enforcement for the new DUI/OVI's, public intoxication, etc that goes with it...and I'll consider changing my stance on the subject."
I'll try to do that briefly. I think that marijuana should be treated in a manner that 'mixes' the current alcohol and tobacco regulations. For example, you must be 18 to purchase marijuana. You would not be able to smoke it in public, private events that allow marijuana smoking would be like those events that allow alcohol consumption, it's totally up to the private owner. Smoking it while driving would be a crime, driving under the influence of anything will be a crime. I think that marijuana 'intoxication' has much less of an effect on a person's consciousness than being drunk does. I've never seen someone smoke pot and stagger around or become violent. As with most people in public, if an officer doesnt' see them behaving out of the 'norm', then that person won't be questioned. People would be able to purchase marijuana at stores that were specially licensed and a tax would be placed on marijuana purchases.

As I said earlier, the pot advocates always paint the picture of the nice, calm little stoner alone in his living room toking up and munching on his Cheetos. The reality is, legalized drugs are social drugs. That means that, if you legalize marijuana, you have to deal with the consequences of its use and abuse in a public setting...along with all the side-effects like OVI/DUI and whatever version of "public intoxication" you would like to apply. As I said above, deal with the logistics of enforcement and we'll talk.
The same as alcohol. A guy can drink three beers, feel a little buzz and walk home from the bar without staggering or acting 'odd', so too should a guy be able to take a few puffs of a joint and be in public, as long as he isn't breaking any other laws or acting 'odd'. Alcohol is much more inhibitory on a persons driving ability and the officers seem to do a great job with enforcement on that issue.

I can't win a "morality" argument with you. Morality is a very specific and individual thing. What YOU consider moral, I might consider immoral. Neither of us will change the other's mind. Your opinion of right and wrong on this subject is different from mine. It's a personal opinion...that cannot be debated, only yelled about back and forth.

If people think that way, a law could never change. I personally don't see why the government should care what a guy does in his own home. I don't see how something can be a "crime" unless a person/property was damaged.

Gotcha. No more traffic enforcement unless there's a crash resulting in property damage or personal injury. Let the DUI/OVI's go until they run somebody over...after all, they're not hurting anybody until they actually get into a crash.
Someone driving under the influence of any substance could be charged with a crime.

No more speed limits...same as above.
I'd agree with that one.

Doesn't make alot of sense, does it?

Yes, it does. This isn't Communist Russia. We aren't trying to bring about some false measure of security by taking rights away. I don't think that if pot was legal, all of the doctors and lawyers would say "Finally!", start smoking pot and let society be destroyed.

No, I'm saying that it's not possible in our current social climate to criminalize alcohol. Whether I think it shoudl be criminalized or not is not the issue in debate. Again, it's logistics. CAN it be criminalized and can the criminalization be enforced? It's a realistic look at drug criminalization/decriminalization from the working end of it. You talk about the morality and the freedom issues, while I look at the real-world nuts and bolts of how it will (or will not) work.
Ah yes! I see what you mean! The nuts and bolts of making something illegal. I must tell you, although I deal with cops daily, I am not one. Maybe you could tell us, on a nuts and bolts side, how you've never found any marijuana, cocaine or heroin in the US where they are illegal? As unrealistic as you see to make alcohol illegal, as unenforceable as that would be, I see all drug prohibition! What happened when alcohol was made illegal? The same things that are happening now that drugs are illegal! Gangs control the supply, no government regulation exists to ensure that a product is free from defects (such as improperly distilled alcohol with high percentages of methanol), gangs make a FORTUNE, people STILL do the substance and police, citizens and politicans are baffled! Thats what happens when you make something illegal! The only way to enforce it is to enact more and more draconian standards until you've got people taking a pee test every 5 minutes and cops walking their dogs all through private citizens homes. Then we'll be drug free! Hell, they find drugs in PRISON. If a PRISON can't be kept drug free, what society possibly can be?

I've heard the military/drinking age analogy too many times. Nobody's even been able to associate the two for me in a sufficient way for me to even consider it. How does military service have anything to do with alcoholic beverage consumption?
If you didn't understand it above, then you won't understand it now. I'll try again though. Lets say that someone put a M16 with a M203 in front of you, fully loaded, bunch of extra mags and HEAT grenades, then they set down a shot of jack daniels next to it. They say "OK buddy, you can have the automatic machine gun, you can have the grenade launcher, you can have the grenades. I'll respect your desicion to go out and kill people with them and possibly to die yourself. But if you think that you are mature enough to drink alcohol, boy we'll lock you in a cell for breaking the law!" Now do you see it? How can you say that a person is mature enough to give their concent to go to war, but not mature enough to drink some beer?

Europe also has MUCH stricter laws and penalites regarding behavior while intoxicated...things which would never be accepted in the US.
Not really. When I was in Europe, most drunk drivers were given a ride home by the local constabulary. Europe is pretty lax on lots of drug/alcohol laws. I'm not even sure if Germany outlawed drinking alcohol in your vehicle as you drive.

Let's avoid the extremist arguments, shall we? No theory. No outlandish scenarios. Let's stick to the real world and realistic application of the law.

Thats exactly what I'm doing. A government should exist to protect the rights of the people. The document that I swore an oath to protect says that. It doesn't say that the government shall make all people into sheep so that they may be controlled at every move by the government in order to make them "safer".

Alcohol was made illegal in order to curb drinking. As this happened, people still demanded alcohol. Since their was no legal method for obtaining alcohol, gangs began to smuggle and produce alcohol themselves, for sale in illegal clubs. As the turf wars began to see who controlled what, gun violence skyrockted. Gang-land murders were commonplace in Americas big cities. People still drank. The police and federal law enforcement agencies were spending lots of time looking for bootleggers, smugglers and speakeasies. Some men made their fortunes by running rum (Joe Kennedy, for example), and those fortunes last till this day. The Five Families of the "Mafia" in NYC all got a strong hold on the city during prohibition. After years of this, the American people finally said "The hell with it! Just make alcohol legal again!" and the goverment did. After this happened, did America descend into a drunken stupor? Did we fail as a nation? Of course not! WWII occured and America defended herself and destroyed a number of tyrants in the process.

Now...
Drugs were made illegal in order to curb their usages, as well as racially motivated reasons. As this happened, demand for drugs grew. Since their was nowhere to obtain drugs legally, gangs stepped in and started smuggling, producing and distributing drugs. This brought a beginning to gang-land violence, murders, drive-by shootings killing kids, the removal of large amounts of cash from the American economy.

Do you see a connection here? Do you think that legalizing soft drugs will have the same effect that repealing prohibition did? What other possible analogy through history could you rely on to so succintly demonstrate this point?

[SgtScott31]

This thread could go on for years.

SIG....get over it, the drug is illegal, you will be arrested, case closed.

MODS, I suggest closing this one as it is getting no where!!

[1042 Trooper]

This thread could go on for years.

SIG....get over it, the drug is illegal, you will be arrested, case closed.

MODS, I suggest closing this one as it is getting no where!!

And still no Twinkies. All this dope smokin', munchie moodin' mumbo jumbo has got to stop.

Smoking dope is stupid, unhealthy, expensive, illegal and un-American.

Case closed. End it. I'll buy my own friggin' Twinkies. :mad:

[Bing_Oh]

This thread could go on for years.

SIG....get over it, the drug is illegal, you will be arrested, case closed.

MODS, I suggest closing this one as it is getting no where!!
I'm afraid I've gotta agree with SgtScott. I'm repeating myself and dealing with arguments that I've already delt with earlier in this very thread.

[chineseservant]

No, it's demonstrating the falliability of the government. Just because the government says something is illegal doesn't mean that it's morally right to make that thing illegal. The Constitution was designed to limit government involvement in our lives. You said that state constitutions prohibit drug use, well, the Constitution says that the lack of a specfic clause in the Constitution protecting a certain right doesn't mean that the right doesn't exist. people need to realize that the government is totally wrong about drug criminilization.

With this I have to agree. Looking at the history, "Marijuana" was made illegal in the 1930s because of a disdain toward mexicans, so in effect the ban was born from racism. (It is always called by the spanish term "Marijuana"), but we are in America :confused:

I hate both, but obvious alchohol is much worst.

[SIG-fan]

This thread could go on for years.

SIG....get over it, the drug is illegal, you will be arrested, case closed.

MODS, I suggest closing this one as it is getting no where!!


I don't do drugs. If you just blindly follow "The Law" without regards for the process of changing the law, well, thats a sad existance, imo.

[Mitchell_in_CT]

The question that I'd pose to you would be twofold; first, where in the Constitution is the Federal government given the power to regulate what citizens put into their own body and; second, Do you think that a government that was founded on personal freedom should have to have people explain "why" they want something to be legal? If we arbitrarily make alcohol legal and marijuana illegal, something is wrong with the system.


United States Federal Constitution, Article I, Section 8, See "Interstate Commerse Clause" Allowing the United States Congress to regulate all commerse across State lines, and allowing the Federal Government to regulate intrastate actions that have a "Substantial Effect" on interstate commerse.

Law is not a rational beast, and neither is Government. Like fire, it is a fearsome creation, and a dreadful servant.

As to why MJ is Illegal, it was not Illegal until the United States in the late 19th century/ early 20th had problems with Illegal Mexican Imigrants. They wanted a law to harass them and get them to leave. They took away their relaxation drug and deamonized it.

The same thing happened with opium/heroin. It came over with the Chinese imigrants on workingthe railroads in CA and the west. As long as it was just a "slant eye" drug, who cares? When white people, especialy white women started getting addicted, then it became a problem.

Drug laws are steeped in history, economics, racism...but I can find no dispute to the constitutionality of them.

[ftlaudcop]

do we really need more dopes ....???????

[Dolmen]

Can anyone explain exactly what they mean by a "gateway drug" ?

[SIG-fan]

Can anyone explain exactly what they mean by a "gateway drug" ?

A gateway drug is the first drug that you take and, allegedly, it encourages you to try more drugs. I think the logic goes something like this...

"Hey, this marijuana sure is fun! I sure wish I could score a kilo of black tar heroin, prostitute my sister out to pay for my habit and shoot people!" or something....

[SIG-fan]

United States Federal Constitution, Article I, Section 8, See "Interstate Commerse Clause" Allowing the United States Congress to regulate all commerse across State lines, and allowing the Federal Government to regulate intrastate actions that have a "Substantial Effect" on interstate commerse.
Marijuana isn't a tradable asset, so I see no need for regulation. The SCOTUS disagreed with me, but oh well. The interstate commerse clause could apply to anything, but you don't see them being banned! lol, it applies to cars, should they be banned ;)

As to why MJ is Illegal, it was not Illegal until the United States in the late 19th century/ early 20th had problems with Illegal Mexican Imigrants. They wanted a law to harass them and get them to leave. They took away their relaxation drug and deamonized it.

Exactly. The racism of the time plus morons like Anslinger...

The same thing happened with opium/heroin. It came over with the Chinese imigrants on workingthe railroads in CA and the west. As long as it was just a "slant eye" drug, who cares? When white people, especialy white women started getting addicted, then it became a problem.
Exactly. Whoever claimed that smoking dope was un-american would have cried like a girl when they saw how much opium Lewis and Clark took with them for 'medicinal purposes'

Drug laws are steeped in history, economics, racism...but I can find no dispute to the constitutionality of them.
COngress was (Wrongly) given the power to regulate trade, not to make things illegal.

[narc]

marijuana is illegal an it's gonna stay that way....quit yer whining, and holding your breath till you turn blue. it is illegal...... life is a beyoch ......get over it. :rolleyes: BTW you ain't changing my mind so don't even waste yer breath.

[SIG-fan]

I don't care if I change your mind, I care if the laws are changed. Once the laws are changed, the cops will have to do what we say. Then I can pull up to a cop and say "Hey, my tax dollars pay your salary and now you have to stop enforcing a law that you agreed with! ha-ha!"

:)

[Dale Parker]

The real reason it is still illegal is because there is too much money on both sides for it to be legal. To much money invested by the government to keep it illegal; paying almost 1 million LEOs to enforce the laws, cost of buying/training drug dogs, monitoring the borders, etc. and on the other side the dealers who make profit. They can't have it being legal because they wouldn't make as much money (illegality drives up the price). ;)

Money is the main reason it is illegal. Some of the money financing mj comes from people on high and goes to others in high places to keep it illegal. A black market is more profitable than honest trade. If it were legal the government would regulate and tax it and get most of the profits. Thus not so much to finance terrorism and corruption. For my part keeping it illegal is job security and makes the job more fun.

[SHERIFF]

Then I can pull up to a cop and say "Hey, my tax dollars pay your salary and now you have to stop enforcing a law that you agreed with! ha-ha!" :)

That works both ways though. The cop can let his driver's window with extremely dark tint down and tell you, "Do you like my tint? Too bad I am exempt from the tint laws and you aren't!" :D

[Mitchell_in_CT]

Marijuana isn't a tradable asset,

B U L L S H I T

Any cops in the house can tell me if marajauana is something that is shipped through interstate commerce?

Is it sold or traded in your area?

[narc]

I don't care if I change your mind, I care if the laws are changed. Once the laws are changed, the cops will have to do what we say. Then I can pull up to a cop and say "Hey, my tax dollars pay your salary and now you have to stop enforcing a law that you agreed with! ha-ha!"

:)


ha ha funny.....until then life a beyoch and i lock potheads....up ha pot still illegal an will probably stay that way

[metcopuk]

I'm thrilled that cannabis is still illegal in the UK. It gives us the power to stop and search people we suspect have been smoking it. That's not saying that cannabis is a big deal, but a lot of drug users have other interesting items on them, which you might find during the drug search.

Long may it stay illegal, I say. :D

[SIG-fan]

That works both ways though. The cop can let his driver's window with extremely dark tint down and tell you, "Do you like my tint? Too bad I am exempt from the tint laws and you aren't!" :D


My windows are pretty dark, actually. And cops have to catch you before they can write you... if a cop wanted to pull me over for a tint violation, I'd speed away and he'd be forced to call off the non-felonious chase :) Of course, the local PD, Sheriffs Deputies and some of the State boys around here are my friends and most have been students of mine, so I get a clear ride for most things. The cops that I'm not friends with or that I didn't teach to shoot recognize me from doing EMT calls and it takes a stupid cop, imo, to write an EMT. It's like the thing with writing cops, you shouldn't write a guy that could be your backup. Well, you shouldn't be writing a guy that could be the first responder when some scumbag gets the jump on you with his gun or knife.

[SIG-fan]

B U L L S H I T

Any cops in the house can tell me if marajauana is something that is shipped through interstate commerce?

Is it sold or traded in your area?

I'm quite sure that it is, however, it's illegal to trade, sell or posess. How can the law regulate a commerce that is illegal? "I'm sorry sir! Your heroin operation is in violation of the interstate trade laws!". Hah, hardly.

[Mitchell_in_CT]

I'm quite sure that it is, however, it's illegal to trade, sell or posess. How can the law regulate a commerce that is illegal? "I'm sorry sir! Your heroin operation is in violation of the interstate trade laws!". Hah, hardly.

I see you went to lawschool...Boston College?...no, wait...you carry a Sig220 cocked and unlocked...B.C. people are more practical than that...

I know.

You are a Yale grad...must be with your self proclaimed gun handling skills... :D

I shall indulge you, because you probably used your Constitutional Law textbook as kindling for the candle light vigls you were participating in, protesting when the State of Connecticut executed convicted serial killer Michael Ross...or were you at the Stanley Tookie Williams event protesting...

Oh well. Regardless of where you actualy burned that book, you obviously didn't read it all that well.

I know, its a borring class...however the boring classes usualy are the helpful ones when you get into an 'net debate with someone over the Constitutionality of certain laws...

Go look up United States Constitution Article I, Sec 8. See the Interstate Commerse Clause.

Now, see:

Wickard v. Filburn
317 U.S. 111 (1942)
Docket Number: 59
Abstract

Argued:


October 13, 1942

Decided:


November 9, 1942
Facts of the Case

Filburn was a small farmer in Ohio. He was given a wheat acreage allotment of 11.1 acres under a Department of Agriculture directive which authorized the government to set production quotas for wheat. Filburn harvested nearly 12 acres of wheat above his allotment. He claimed that he wanted thewheat for use on his farm, including feed for his poultry and livestock. Fiburn was penalized. He argued that the excess wheat was unrelated to commerce since he grew it for his own use.

Question Presented

Is the amendment subjecting Filburn to acreage restrictions in violation of the Constitution because Congress has no power to regulate activities local in nature?

Conclusion
According to Filburn, the act regulated production and consumption, which are local in character. The rule laid down by Justice Jackson is that even if an activity is local and not regarded as commerce, "it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'"

_____________________

That is the basis of the doctrine of the Commerse Clause's power.

The legality of whatever is having an effect on interstate commerse is not relavant to the power of congress to regulate it.

Congress can regulate interstate commerse and anything that effect it.
The States have the implied power to set criminal laws.

Everyone understand?

Good.

[SIG-fan]

I see you went to lawschool...Boston College?...no, wait...you carry a Sig220 cocked and unlocked...B.C. people are more practical than that...
It's a 229 there Einstein, but we won't let a little thing like you being factually wrong deter me from tearing your 'arguments' apart.

I know.

You are a Yale grad...must be with your self proclaimed gun handling skills... :D
[/quote
Nope, Penn State, chemistry and biology.
[quote]
I shall indulge you, because you probably used your Constitutional Law textbook as kindling for the candle light vigls you were participating in, protesting when the State of Connecticut executed convicted serial killer Michael Ross...or were you at the Stanley Tookie Williams event protesting...

Did some LSD seep into your skin at work? I'm pro-death penalty. I'm pro-law enforcement, I'm pro Constitution. I hope that it's not true that most police are so ignorant that they see "their side" as the only side to be on and if someone disagrees slightly then that person is some gang-banging liberal coward.

Oh well. Regardless of where you actualy burned that book, you obviously didn't read it all that well.

If you want to insinuate that I'm not pro-Constitution, I have to tell you that you are a complete moron. Maybe some quotes from Jefferson about how the government should be a MINIMAL force, or maybe a quote from Washingtons diary about his hemp growing would convince you. OR maybe you are just an arrogant cop who thinks that you can't be wrong. Obviously, you must have a quality education. Not anyone can be a policeman!

Oh, hah, my bad on that last one. "It takes a special someone, someone who can pass a civil servants exam, but not score TOO high, and someone with a high school education". Kudos, Stephen Hawking.


That is the basis of the doctrine of the Commerse Clause's power.

Jesus christ! I'm glad that you finally stopped insulting me and got to the issue. Maybe you could show me another case law thats actually pertinent to the discussion, or didn't they do that at Baahston College? Show me a case where the US Government decided that "Hey, since this can be traded, I can regulate it's legality".

The legality of whatever is having an effect on interstate commerse is not relavant to the power of congress to regulate it.

Is wheat illegal? Did you post the wrong article?

Congress can regulate interstate commerse and anything that effect it.
The States have the implied power to set criminal laws.

So what else did Congress ban using the Interstate Commerce law?

Maybe when your high-school educated police friends give you laws to post next, you could check out some more of the Constitution...


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
So, where does the "Constitution" "delegate the power to the United States" to criminalize certain substances?

Maybe you could tell me how Jefferson and Washington were thinking "Boy, I sure hope that people ban this plant that I'm personally growing and writing the Constitution on. I also hope that they ban the plant that Ole Betsy is making our flag out of"

President George Washington: "Make the most of the Indian Hemp Seed"
(Library of USA Congress 1794 vol. 33 p.270)


President Abraham Lincoln: (December 1840)
"Prohibition... goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control mans' appetite through legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not even crimes...
A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our Government was founded"


And a quote that sums it up the best, by the man that invented cooking your own drugs..


Alexander Shulgin,
PhD, Chemist and author, at the DPF Conference, November 1996: "I, as a responsible adult human being, will never concede the power to anyone to regulate my choice of what I put into my body, or where I go with my mind. From the skin inwards is my jurisdiction, is it not? I choose what may or may not cross that border. Here I am the Customs Agent. I am the Coast guard. I am the sole legal and spiritual government of this territory, and only the laws I choose to enact within myself are applicable"


Maybe we could switch gears here and discuss medicinal marijuana. Explain to me how you think that the US Government can trust doctors to prescribe near-heroin like opiates but not to prescribe marijuana?

Why not round this discussion off, appropriately enough, in discussing alcohol prohibition? For those that aren't "in-the-know", today is the anniversary of the end of Prohibition. Here are some questions I'd like you to answer

1) Do you believe that banning a substance made it harder for people to obtain?

2) Do you think that Prohibition accomplished it's goal of fewer drunks, less money being spent on alcohol and less crime?

Well, start with those and we'll see how things go from there... Don't forget to call your professors at State University and get some answers!

[SIG-fan]

I guess I'll add one question here...

Do you think that po-leece arresting pot smokers left and right has had any influence on the amount of people smoking pot? To be honest, if I were an anti-drug cop, I'd feel like the biggest failure in the universe. It's like being an anti-water fish, your failure and inadaquecies are displayed all around you.

[Bing_Oh]

Oh, hah, my bad on that last one. "It takes a special someone, someone who can pass a civil servants exam, but not score TOO high, and someone with a high school education". Kudos, Stephen Hawking.
Careful, SIG-fan...you're on a law enforcement website. Insulting the intelligence of police officers...even second-hand through quotes...will not endear you to the resident population.

[SgtScott31]

The cops that I'm not friends with or that I didn't teach to shoot recognize me from doing EMT calls and it takes a stupid cop, imo, to write an EMT.

You have to earn respect in order to receive it. If you think I catch you drunk driving, just because you're an EMT, I'm going to cut you a break?

And cops have to catch you before they can write you...

You're starting to sound more like a troll trying to get a rise out of cops than someone coming here to debate.

I have already posted twice on here about how lengthy the marijuana issue can go, but you obviously like to stir the pot. I am PM'ing the MODS to request this thread closed because obviously you're not getting the picture. Regardless of our opinions of marijuana, if I catch you with it, you're going to jail. It's not that hard to comprehend.

[SIG-fan]

Careful, SIG-fan...you're on a law enforcement website. Insulting the intelligence of police officers...even second-hand through quotes...will not endear you to the resident population.


I don't directly insult a GROUP of people in debates, however, if someone is a policeman and I call him a moron, it's not intended to be a reflection of all policemen or my opinion there-towards. Mitchell isn't even a cop yet, so I have no idea where hes coming from on this issue.

[SIG-fan]

You have to earn respect in order to receive it. If you think I catch you drunk driving, just because you're an EMT, I'm going to cut you a break?
No, of course not. If a cop catches me speeding, which I do sometimes, most of them won't write me because they know me or have seen me before. I've had a state trooper pull me over and, as he was issuing me the ticket, a local PD pull up, talk to him (out of earshot of me, of course) and the state guy came up with a verbal warning instead.

You're starting to sound more like a troll trying to get a rise out of cops than someone coming here to debate.

If I wanted to get a rise out of cops, I'd insult the 10-15 I instruct each week.

I have already posted twice on here about how lengthy the marijuana issue can go, but you obviously like to stir the pot. I am PM'ing the MODS to request this thread closed because obviously you're not getting the picture. Regardless of our opinions of marijuana, if I catch you with it, you're going to jail. It's not that hard to comprehend.
For the fifteen thousandth time, I don't smoke pot, I don't buy pot, I wouldn't even know where to buy it at. I'm just a person who is from the "old school", believeing in America as a free country, not as a police state. If you can post some reason why you think that the plant that the draft of the Constitution was written on should be banned, if you can say that you'd have arrested Jefferson and Washington for their multi-acre cannabis farms and claim that would have been the 'right move', then I'm all about hearing it. If you can't, well, ask yourself why you can't.

[Mitchell_in_CT]

I shall address your points in order:

#1 The Zero and the Nine key are close on the keyboard. OOPS. And for the record, you are still nutts for the way you carry.

#2 Penn State? Really? I'm shocked. I would have expected more. Pitty.

#3 Regardless of your stance on the constitution, you know little of how it works in regards to Article I, Section 8

#4 It was Western New England...not Baahston. Apparantly, WNEC teaches more about Con Law than Penn State does. Pitty that, as I always thought Penn State was a good school. Dam shame, that...

#5 Wickard was not about wheat, it was about the power of congress to regulate anything that is involved in or effects interstate commerse. Then again, I don't expect you to have understood the case, however vain my hope of your reading & reasoning ability was...

#6 Congress bans many things from interstate commerse such as the interstate transport of women for imoral purposes, the Mann Act, IIRC... regulates many more and uses the interstate commerse clause to establish a Federal Police power.

If you will note, the original federal agents were established under the treasury department, using the federal Taxing and Spending power of Article I, Section 8 to enforce laws related to taxes and revenue supposed to be collected on various goods. The FBI's power almost entirely comes from the commerse clause in that they investigate crimes with an interstate component.

They get involved with kidnaping because it is "assumed" that the victim will be transported in interstate commerse across state lines, the ransom will be delivered by mail or telephone (FCC...federal....FBI can get involved)

#7 I don't know any solely highschool educated police officers. Most of the cops I know have Masters degrees. Sorry. Don't know anyone in LE with less.

#8 The constitution delegates to Congress the power to regulate interstate commerse. Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 gives congress the power to pass any necessary and proper legislation to carryout its duties under Article I, Sec 8.


#9 Washington's , Jefferson's and other's thoughts on hemp and other drugs are not relavant to a discussion on the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerse. Nice try.

#10 Medical Marijuana, its prospective uses and the live is still not relavant the the power of the United States Congress to regulate interstate commerse. Switch gears if you like, it doesn't change what is legal or not.

#11 Alcohol...I need some. I just did 7 hours of Kali :D (for those of you that missed Leo Gaje, and I belive all of you did...Shame on you...) and I'm more sore than you can possibly imagine...but alcohol was prohibited by Consitutional amendment and then permited again by constitutional amendment. The comparisin is not valid.

#12 I don't call my professors for advice. I do my own research.

[JeffroPoPo]

I smoked weed in high school instead of drinking because I didn't like getting sick from drinking. I gave it up after graduation though.

I think it will become legalized, just not in this country in our lifetime. I don't care either way because I don't plan to use it ever again in my life anyways, legal or not. If you really want to go be a bump on a log and laugh at cartoons while eating 3 bags of Doritos, then I guess that's your decision.

[JeffroPoPo]

I don't know any solely highschool educated police officers. Most of the cops I know have Masters degrees. Sorry. Don't know anyone in LE with less.
Damn, here in Ohio its considered more than enough to have a BA. The only "cops" I know of that have Masters degrees are Lts and chiefs. Most cops I know have AASs if anything, maybe a few per dept. have a BA.

Where do you work, Brainiac, USA? :eek:

[Bing_Oh]

I don't directly insult a GROUP of people in debates, however, if someone is a policeman and I call him a moron, it's not intended to be a reflection of all policemen or my opinion there-towards. Mitchell isn't even a cop yet, so I have no idea where hes coming from on this issue.
While your debate and the resulting quote from Mr. Hawking may have been directed toward Mitchell and a specific comment of his, its underlying tone and message was definitely NOT restricted to just his comments.

"It takes a special someone, someone who can pass a civil servants exam, but not score TOO high, and someone with a high school education". Kudos, Stephen Hawking.
Looks like a pretty direct insult to the intelligence of all of us who passed civil service tests and have dedicated our professional lives to law enforcement. While Mr. Hawking my be a genius and know more about physics than I'll even hope to know, this quite seems to indicate that he has only an academic's grasp of the real world...ie, none.

[SIG-fan]

I shall address your points in order:

#1 The Zero and the Nine key are close on the keyboard. OOPS. And for the record, you are still nutts for the way you carry.
Thats just like, your opinion man.

#2 Penn State? Really? I'm shocked. I would have expected more. Pitty.

It might not be Harvard, but we learned to spell "Pity" correctly.

#3 Regardless of your stance on the constitution, you know little of how it works in regards to Article I, Section 8

So you are using the "Nope, you are wrong" defense and not backing it up? nice.

#4 It was Western New England...not Baahston. Apparantly, WNEC teaches more about Con Law than Penn State does. Pitty that, as I always thought Penn State was a good school. Dam shame, that...

Thats twice with the "pitty" misspell, by the way, so don't claim that you finger-farted like you did with the 220/229 issue. Must be a great school :) Also, "dam" is what holds back water, "damn" is the explicitive you meant to use.

If you will note, the original federal agents were established under the treasury department, using the federal Taxing and Spending power of Article I, Section 8 to enforce laws related to taxes and revenue supposed to be collected on various goods. The FBI's power almost entirely comes from the commerse clause in that they investigate crimes with an interstate component.
Maybe you could explain why Prohibition had a Constitutional Amendment and marijuana (And other drugs) don't? Did Congress err in thinking that they needed to amend the Constitution to regulate what substances were legal? I'd love to hear your opinion on this professor, pittttttty that I probably won't get one.

#9 Washington's , Jefferson's and other's thoughts on hemp and other drugs are not relavant to a discussion on the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerse. Nice try.
Oh? Congress banned marijuana? Gosh, if you'd have just said that, you could have cited where they amended the constitution and saved us a lot of trouble. Show me where Congress, CONGRESS, decided that the ISC was the thing to ban marijuana. Man, you just solved the whole thing! I never knew that Congress decided that the ISC was what banned marijuana.

#10 Medical Marijuana, its prospective uses and the live is still not relavant the the power of the United States Congress to regulate interstate commerse. Switch gears if you like, it doesn't change what is legal or not.

I'm not "Switching gears", I'm just not harping on one thing. Their are numerous reasons that marijuana shouldn't be illegal and I've never had one person be able to tell me why a doctor that can prescribe oxycodone can't prescribe marijuana.

#11 Alcohol...I need some. I just did 7 hours of Kali :D (for those of you that missed Leo Gaje, and I belive all of you did...Shame on you...) and I'm more sore than you can possibly imagine...but alcohol was prohibited by Consitutional amendment and then permited again by constitutional amendment. The comparisin is not valid.
Er, yes, it's entirely valid. Re-read what I asked, then start from there.

#12 I don't call my professors for advice. I do my own research.
www.dictionary.com <-- I'd use that a little bit more.

You didn't answer any of my questions about how prohibition was so sucessful in cutting down crime, or how it stopped the alcohol trade dead in it's tracks.

[m_artist200]

I think that the main argument for keeping marujania illegal is the fact that many psychologist/studies/whatever state that marujianua is a "gateway drug" for other illegal, potentially more harmful drugs.

[chineseservant]

I think there have been some compelling studies that have linked MJ use with permanent reduction of cognitive/memory function of the brain.

Strange thing is modern medical research shows its actually good for you and has no damaging effects on cognition......

Cannabis & Cognition

But what about claims of cannabis' damaging effect of cognition? A review of the scientific literature indicates that rumors regarding the "stoner stupid" stereotype are unfounded. According to clinical trial data published this past spring in the American Journal of Addictions, cannabis use -- including heavy, long-term use of the drug -- has, at most, only a negligible impact on cognition and memory. Researchers at Harvard Medical School performed magnetic resonance imaging on the brains of 22 long-term cannabis users (reporting a mean of 20,100 lifetime episodes of smoking) and 26 controls (subjects with no history of cannabis use). Imaging displayed "no significant differences" between heavy cannabis smokers compared to controls, the study found.

Previous trials tell a similar tale. An October 2004 study published in the journal Psychological Medicine examining the potential long-term residual effects of cannabis on cognition in monozygotic male twins reported "an absence of marked long-term residual effects of marijuana use on cognitive abilities." A 2003 meta-analysis published in the Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society also "failed to reveal a substantial, systematic effect of long-term, regular cannabis consumption on the neurocognitive functioning of users who were not acutely intoxicated," and a 2002 clinical trial published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal determined, "Marijuana does not have a long-term negative impact on global intelligence."

Finally, a 2001 study published in the journal Archives of General Psychiatry found that long-term cannabis smokers who abstained from the drug for one week "showed virtually no significant differences from control subjects (those who had smoked marijuana less than 50 times in their lives) on a battery of 10 neuropsychological tests." Investigators further added, "Former heavy users, who had consumed little or no cannabis in the three months before testing, [also] showed no significant differences from control subjects on any of these tests on any of the testing days."

(References: Lack of hippocampal volume change in long-term heavy cannabis users. American Journal of Addictions. 2005 | Neuropsychological consequences of regular marijuana use: a twin study. Psychological Medicine. 2004 | Non-acute (residual) neurocognitive effects of cannabis use: A meta-analytic study. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society. 2003 | Current and former marijuana use: preliminary findings of a longitudinal study of effects on IQ in young adults. Canadian Medical Association Journal. 2002 | Neuropsychological Performance in Long-term Cannabis Users. Archives of General Psychiatry. 2001)

[cst.sb]

The harmful effects of marijuana on the Brain and Central Nervous System
-Impaired thinking, mood, memory, and coordination

Marijuana (THC) is an extremely powerful and pleasurable intoxicant. It affects, alters, and damages brain cells controlling thinking, emotion, pleasure, coordination, mood and memory. The pituitary gland is also damaged which regulates hunger, thirst, blood pressure, sexual behavior, and release of sex hormones.

- Clogged synapses, brain damage and addiction
-Marijuana accumulates in the microscopic spaces between nerve cells in the brain called "synapses." This clogging interferes by slowing and impairing transfer critical information.
- Long term use causes the brain to stop production of brain chemicals necessary to "feel good" - a negative feedback condition. And, the user becomes chemically addicted to marijuana.

The harmful effects of marijuana on the Heart

- Speeds up heartbeat as much as 50%, increases blood pressure, and poses great risk to those with hypertension and heart disease.
- The harmful effects of marijuana on the Endocrine System
- Marijuana damages the network of glands, organs, and hormones involved in growth and development, energy levels, and reproduction.

Organs and glands affected:

- pituitary gland
- thyroid gland
- stomach
- duodenum
- pancreas
- adrenal glands
- testis

The harmful effects of marijuana on the Reproductive System males and females

-Marijuana use can decrease and degenerate sperm, sperm count, movement, and cause lowered sex drive. Females can have egg damage, suppression of ovulation, disrupt menstrual cycles, and alteration of hormone levels.
- Regular use during pregnancy can lower birth weight and cause abnormalities similar to Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (small head, irritability, poor growth and development.
- Can destroy the number of chromosomes, resulting in cell abnormalities and impaired function.

Other affects on the central nervous system

- distortions of perceptions, thinking and reality
- Difficulty in forming concepts and thoughts
- Poor concentration
- Mental confusion

Dear CS, for every study that says that MJ is not harmful there are a hundred that say otherwise. You pick which ones to believe.

[chineseservant]

The harmful effects of marijuana on the Brain
Marijuana (THC) is an extremely powerful and pleasurable intoxicant. It affects, alters, and damages brain cells controlling thinking, emotion, pleasure, coordination, mood and memory. The pituitary gland is also damaged which regulates hunger, thirst, blood pressure, sexual behavior, and release of sex hormones.

Preclinical data recently published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation demonstrating that cannabinoids may spur brain cell growth has reignited the international debate regarding the impact of marijuana on the brain. However, unlike previous pseudo-scientific campaigns that attempted to link pot smoking with a litany of cognitive abnormalities, modern research suggests what many cannabis enthusiasts have speculated all along: ganja is good for you.

Cannabinoids & Neurogenesis

"Study turns pot wisdom on its head," pronounced the Globe and Mail in October. News wires throughout North America and the world touted similar headlines -- all of which were met with a monumental silence from federal officials and law enforcement. Why all the fuss? Researchers at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon found that the administration of synthetic cannabinoids in rats stimulated the proliferation of newborn neurons (nerve cells) in the hippocampus region of the brain and significantly reduced measures of anxiety and depression-like behavior. The results shocked researchers -- who noted that almost all other so-called "drugs of abuse," including alcohol and tobacco, decrease neurogenesis in adults -- and left the "pot kills brain cells" crowd with a platter of long-overdue egg on their faces.

While it would be premature to extrapolate the study's findings to humans, at a minimum, the data reinforce the notion that cannabinoids are unusually non-toxic to the brain and that even long-term use of marijuana likely represents little risk to brain function. The findings also offer further evidence that cannabinoids can play a role in the alleviation of depression and anxiety, and that cannabis-based medicines may one day offer a safer alternative to conventional anti-depressant pharmaceuticals such as Paxil and Prozac.

(Reference: Cannabinoids promote embryonic and adult hippocampus neurogenesis and produce anxiolytic and depressant-like effects. The Journal of Clinical Investigation. 2005)

Cannabis & Neuroprotection

Not only has modern science refuted the notion that marijuana is neurotoxic, recent scientific discoveries have indicated that cannabinoids are, in fact, neuroprotective, particularly against alcohol-induced brain damage. In a recent preclinical study -- the irony of which is obvious to anyone who reads it -- researchers at the US National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH) reported that the administration of the non-psychoactive cannabinoid cannabidiol (CBD) reduced ethanol-induced cell death in the brain by up to 60 percent. "This study provides the first demonstration of CBD as an in vivo neuroprotectant ... in preventing binge ethanol-induced brain injury," the study's authors wrote in the May 2005 issue of the Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics. Alcohol poisoning is linked to hundreds of preventable deaths each year in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control, while cannabis cannot cause death by overdose.

Of course, many US neurologists have known about cannabis' neuroprotective prowess for years. NIMH scientists in 1998 first touted the ability of natural cannabinoids to stave off the brain-damaging effects of stroke and acute head trauma. Similar findings were then replicated by investigators in the Netherlands and Italy and, most recently, by a Japanese research in 2005. However, attempts to measure the potential neuroprotective effects of synthetic cannabinoid-derived medications in humans have so far been inconclusive.

(References: Comparison of cannabidiol, antioxidants and diuretics in reversing binge ethanol-induced neurotoxicity. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics. 2005 | Cannabidiol prevents cerebral infarction. Stroke. 2005 | Post-ischemic treatment with cannabidiol prevents electroencephalographic flattening, hyperlocomotion and neuronal injury in gerbils. Neuroscience Letters. 2003 | Neuroprotection by Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol, the main active compound in marijuana, against ouabain-induced in vivo excitotoxicity. Journal of Neuroscience. 2001 | Cannabidiol and Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol are neuroprotective antioxidants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 1998)

Cannabinoids & Glioma

Of all cancers, few are as aggressive and deadly as glioma. Glioma tumors quickly invade healthy brain tissue and are typically unresponsive to surgery and standard medical treatments. One agent they do respond to is cannabis.

Writing in the August 2005 issue of the Journal of Neurooncology, investigators at the California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute reported that the administration of THC on human glioblastoma multiforme cell lines decreased the proliferation of malignant cells and induced apoptosis (programmed cell death) more rapidly than did the administration of the synthetic cannabis receptor agonist, WIN-55,212-2. Researchers also noted that THC selectively targeted malignant cells while ignoring healthy ones in a more profound manner than the synthetic alternative. Patients diagnosed with glioblastoma multiforme typically die within three months without therapy.

Previous research conducted in Italy has also demonstrated the capacity of CBD to inhibit the growth of glioma cells both in vitro (e.g., a petri dish) and in animals in a dose dependent manner. As a result, a Spanish research team is currently investigating whether the intracranial administration of cannabinoids can prolong the lives of patients diagnosed with inoperable brain cancer.

Most recently, a scientific analysis in the October issue of the journal Mini-Reviews in Medicinal Chemistry noted that, in addition to THC and CBD's brain cancer-fighting ability, studies have also shown cannabinoids to halt the progression of lung carcinoma, leukemia, skin carcinoma, colectoral cancer, prostate cancer and breast cancer.

(References: Cannabinoids selectively inhibit proliferation and induce cell death of cultured human glioblastoma multiforme cells. Journal of Neurooncology. 2005 | Cannabinoids and cancer. Mini-Reviews in Medicinal Chemistry. 2005 | Anti-tumor effects of cannabidiol, a non-psychotropic cannabinoid, on human glioma cell lines. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics. 2003)

Cannabinoids & Neurodegeneration

Emerging evidence also indicates that cannabinoids may play a role in slowing the progression of certain neurodegenerative diseases, such as Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, and Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (a.k.a. Lou Gehrig's Disease). Recent animal studies have shown cannabinoids to delay disease progression and inhibit neurodegeneration in mouse models of ALS, Parkinson's, and MS. As a result, the Journal of Neurological Sciences recently pronounced, "There is accumulating evidence ... to support the hypothesis that the cannabinoid system can limit the neurodegenerative processes that drive progressive disease," and patient trials investigating whether the use of oral THC and cannabis extracts may slow the progression of MS are now underway in the United Kingdom.

(References: Cannabinoids and neuroprotection in CNS inflammatory disease. Journal of the Neurological Sciences. 2005. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: delayed disease progression in mice by treatment with a cannabinoid. Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis and Other Motor Neuron Disorders. 2004 | Cannabinoids inhibit neurodegeneration in models of multiple sclerosis. Brain. 2003)


Dear CS, for every study that says that MJ is not harmful there are a hundred that say otherwise. You pick which ones to believe.

What are your sources?

[cst.sb]

What are your sources?

Well, depending on the spelling of marihuana, a google seach will reveal between 75,000 and 1,200,000 hits (not of the bong kind).

An excellent source of info is the Health Canada website, which is very liberal and supportive of marihuana for medical uses. (and governing party for the last 12 years was about to decriminalize it)

Here is the link to my post (http://www.marijuanaaddiction.info/harmful-effects-of-marijuana.htm)

[tommyinnn]

1. This is a free country, isn't it. Shouldn't it be a individuals choice to smoke or not, as long as it doesn't hurt or affect anyone else.

2. Just cause the law says it's wrong, doesn't mean it is. Stealing is wrong, abuse is wrong...it says so in the bible, it also says all seed bearing plants & herbs are there to use. The law has been wrong before & it is today. This country used to make blacks slaves, & discriminated against them...that was so very wrong, but it was the law. People back then just assumed it was right because "they" said so.

3. Drinking & Driving kills, smoking a blunt while driving keeps you calm, cautious, alert, with no threat of road rage. Not saying it's good to smoke & drive, but isn't it better than drinking & driving? If someone can't find a bag, there's a good chance their gonna grab a beer or two....their gonna do something, no matter how many laws they make. M.J. being against the law IS killing people, the one's who get hit by the drunk driver who couldn't find a bag!!

4. Yes, to some people, M.J. can be a gateway drug, mostly the young. Hard drugs are bad, they do cause problems, they should be against the law. M.J. grows in the dirt, is picked & smoked, not manufactured like coke, or herion. Cigarettes kill, alcohol kills, why are they legal? M.J. doesn't cause any health problems, it can make life worth living for some people, it makes them happy..is that why it's against the law?

5. Half of the people in this forum may claim their police officers, don't belive everything you read!!

My point...just cause "they" say it's bad, doesn't mean it is...who are "they" to tell us what to do with our own lives....REGULATE IT, LEAGLIZE IT!!

Now to all real police officers reading this, I do respect you & am not saying your wrong, you inforce the law, you didn't write it. If it wasn't for cops doing their job, this country would be hell. Thank you all for the work you do.

There's is a discussion about this subject here that I started http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46072

[TXLEO]

Don't get me wrong. What do you all think?


Because society still believes it should be illegal.

[ford123]

If they ever make it legal, I am gonna try it :p

[Zipcreature]

2. Just cause the law says it's wrong, doesn't mean it is.

Cultural Relativism - some tribes used to chew the leaves for stimulation. If you were on a desert island, killing someone would still be morally wrong I personally believe. However smoking pot would not be wrong.

WHY is it still illegal? Because laws take time to get changed. Its only been illegal for a relatively short time; it probably will not be illegal much longer - reguardless of the stern "you will be caught, you WILL go to jail, blah blah blah" :mad: of some people.

Maybe it scares them? :rolleyes:

- Zipcreature

[SR-25]

Why are we STILL on this topic? Its illegal, bottom line. Get over it.

[The Legend]

Marijuana in my opinion should not be legal. Many Police Officers were killed because of marijuana. Besides the health risks people should keep in mind the altering effects it has on the body. I don't want a Marijuana user driving a school bus, flying a airplane or even performing surgery. I was severely injured in my police car when a group of teenagers rear ended my Police cruiser. I was hospitalized and on light duty for two mohths. The teenagers were smoiking marijuana when the accident occurred and tested positive. They couldnt even remember what happened or where they ever were at the time of the accident. Alcohol is already bad enough when you drive lets not add to the problem already.


Thanks

stay safe


PS- Remember to put your blood type inside your bullet proof vest in case

your knocked out

[tommyinnn]

Nobody has ever been killed cause of M.J., because of a M.J. deal, yea. Because their trying to stuff their bag cause that cop is on their *** while their trying to drive, yea. The only reason alcohol is legal is because they can tell & dectect when someone is drunk. M.J. stays in your system for up to 30 days, they can't prove if someone is stoned or not, they can suspect, but can't prove. They can test all they want but even a court appointed lawyer can get that thrown out. It doesn't really matter though, being stoned doesn't affect driving, if you think it does, how would you know...do u smoke?? They lock people up for weed, but the child preadtors run free, twisted beyond belief!!
Everyone is different, some do abuse other drugs, but most do not. Just like police, most are good, but some are bad...don't the bad ones mess things up for the good ones? I'd much rather have someone driving behind me smoking a blunt rather than one drinking a beer. I think alcohol should be against the law, it kills, Mj itself has never killed a sole!

[tommyinnn]

and if you think it has...google it, copy it, post it!!

[RedRaider911]

Nobody has ever been killed cause of M.J., because of a M.J. deal, yea. Because their trying to stuff their bag cause that cop is on their *** while their trying to drive, yea. The only reason alcohol is legal is because they can tell & dectect when someone is drunk. M.J. stays in your system for up to 30 days, they can't prove if someone is stoned or not, they can suspect, but can't prove. They can test all they want but even a court appointed lawyer can get that thrown out. It doesn't really matter though, being stoned doesn't affect driving, if you think it does, how would you know...do u smoke?? They lock people up for weed, but the child preadtors run free, twisted beyond belief!!
...Mj itself has never killed a sole!

i am for a change in the drug laws in this country...but it is responses like this that drive me nuts. You realize that you are only making a case for MJ being illigal by spouting off uneducated crap like this? It doesn't affect your driving?? I don't smoke it but i know it affects your driving.

You probably think you drive better after a few beers as well.

[chineseservant]

? It doesn't affect your driving?? I don't smoke it but i know it affects your driving.

Nevertheless, concerns regarding doped driving should not be an impediment to marijuana-law reform. Alcohol is legal in America, yet every state maintains tough laws punishing those who choose to drive impaired by it. There is no reason why similar principles should not regulate cannabis consumption.

Moreover, emerging scientific research indicates that cannabis actually has far less impact on the psychomotor skills needed for driving than alcohol does, and is seldom a causal factor in automobile accidents. A pair of international studies released in the spring of 2001 bolsters this argument.

The first, conducted by Britain's Transport Research Laboratory, found that volunteers performed better on a driving simulator under the influence of pot than they did after consuming alcohol. According to the study, marijuana only adversely impacted subjects' ability to maintain a constant speed and control while driving around a figure-eight loop. Reaction time and all other measures of driving performance remained unaffected. Researchers also noted that the subjects who had smoked marijuana - unlike alcohol users - were aware of their impairment and attempted to compensate for it by driving more cautiously.

Similar results were also reported in March by a South Australian team at the Department of Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology at the University of Adelaide. Their epidemiological review of automobile accidents found that alcohol "overwhelmingly plays the greatest role in road crashes ... [and] conversely, ... marijuana has a negligible impact on culpability." The study was a follow up to a 1998 analysis of 2,500 injured drivers that previously determined cannabis to have "no significant effect" on drivers' culpability in motor vehicle accidents.

In fact, most marijuana and driving experiments give pot a relatively clean bill of health, particularly when compared to alcohol. A review of two-decades worth of driving simulator and on-road studies by Alison Smiley for Toronto's Centre for Addiction and Mental Health concluded that although marijuana temporarily impairs driving behavior, "this impairment is mitigated in that subjects under marijuana treatment appear to perceive that they are indeed impaired [and] where they can compensate, they do."

With respect to comparisons between the effects of alcohol versus marijuana, the author asserted, "In contrast to the compensatory behavior exhibited by subjects under marijuana treatment, subjects who have received alcohol tend to drive in a more risky manner." Smiley's assessment concludes, "The more cautious behavior of subjects who have received marijuana decreases the impact of the drug on performance, whereas the opposite holds true for alcohol."

Transportation data says likewise. A 1997 examination of motor vehicle injuries by the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute concluded that alcohol is "the major drug associated with injury," and found no evidence to support the accusation that illicit drugs are a major factor in auto crashes. An earlier analysis published by the U.S. National Highway Transportation Safety Administration of 1,882 drivers killed in motor vehicle accidents also determined that alcohol, not pot, was the "dominant problem" in drug-related traffic accidents.

That said, are we to believe that it's ever safe to get high and drive? Not at all. However, what is apparent is that marijuana's slight impairment on psychomotor skills generally falls within the range of safety Americans accept for prescription medications and other legal, potentially debilitating factors such as fatigue or cell phones. As such, the question of marijuana and driving should remain a public policy concern for drug law reformers, but not a serious political obstacle to marijuana-law reform.

[SR-25]

W T F is with the colors?

[chineseservant]

W T F is with the colors?

Helping you see the light....

On road cannabis tests, results; no breach of safety

CRASH CULPABILITY STUDIES

“For each of 2,500 injured drivers presenting to a hospital, a blood sample was collected for later analysis.

There was a clear relationship between alcohol and culpability. … In contrast, there was no significant increase in culpability for cannabinoids alone. While a relatively large number of injured drivers tested positive for cannabinoids, culpability rates were no higher than those for the drug free group. This is consistent with other findings.”

REFERENCE:

Logan, M.C., Hunter, C.E., Lokan, R.J., White, J.M., & White, M.A. (2000). The Prevalence of Alcohol, Cannabinoids, Benzodiazepines and Stimulants Amongst Injured Drivers and Their Role in Driver Culpability: Part II: The Relationship Between Drug Prevalence and Drug Concentration, and Driver Culpability. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 32, 623-32.


“Blood samples from 894 patients presenting to two Emergency Departments for treatment of motor vehicle injur … were tested for alcohol and other drugs.

… Based on alcohol and drug testing of the full range of patients … alcohol is clearly the major drug associated with serious crashes and greater injury. Patients testing positive for illicit drugs (marijuana, opiates, and cocaine), in the absence of alcohol, were in crashes very similar to those of patients with neither alcohol nor drugs. When other relevant variables were considered, these drugs were not associated with more severe crashes or greater injury.”

REFERENCE: P. Waller et al. 1997. Crash characteristics and injuries of victims impaired by alcohol versus illicit drugs. Accident Analysis and Prevention 29: 817-827.


“Blood specimens were collected from a sample of 1,882 drivers from 7 states, during 14 months in the years 1990 and 1991. The sample comprised operators of passenger cars, trucks, and motorcycles who died within 4 hours of their crash.

… While cannabinoids were detected in 7 percent of the drivers, the psychoactive agent THC was found in only 4 percent. … The THC-only drivers had a responsibility rate below that of the drugfree drivers. … While the difference was not statistically significant, there was no indication that cannabis by itself was a cause of fatal crashes.”

[I]REFERENCE: K. Terhune. 1992. The incidence and role of drugs in fatally injured drivers. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Report No. DOT HS 808 065.



ON-ROAD PERFORMANCE STUDIES

“Marijuana's effects on actual driving performance were assessed in a series of three studies wherein dose-effect relationships were measured in actual driving situations that progressively approached reality.

… THC's effects on road-tracking after doses up to 300 µg/kg never exceeded alcohol's at bacs of 0.08%; and, were in no way unusual compared to many medicinal drugs. Yet, THC's effects differ qualitatively from many other drugs, especially alcohol. Evidence from the present and previous studies strongly suggests that alcohol encourages risky driving whereas THC encourages greater caution, at least in experiments. Another way THC seems to differ qualitatively from many other drugs is that the formers users seem better able to compensate for its adverse effects while driving under the influence.”

REFERENCE: H. Robbe. 1995. Marijuana’s effects on actual driving performance. In: C. Kloeden and A. McLean (Eds) Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety T-95. Adelaide: Australia: HHMRC Road Research Unit, University of Adelaide. Pp. 11-20.


“This report concerns the effects of marijuana smoking on actual driving performance. … This program of research has shown that marijuana, when taken alone, produces a moderate degree of driving impairment which is related to consumed THC dose. The impairment manifests itself mainly in the ability to maintain a lateral position on the road, but its magnitude is not exceptional in comparison with changes produced by many medicinal drugs and alcohol. Drivers under the influence of marijuana retain insight in their performance and will compensate when they can, for example, by slowing down or increasing effort. As a consequence, THC’s adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small.”

REFERENCE: W. Hindrik and J. Robbe and J. O’Hanlon. 1993. Marijuana and actual driving performance. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Report No. DOT HS 808 078.

[cst.sb]

. As a consequence, THC’s adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small.”

REFERENCE: W. Hindrik and J. Robbe and J. O’Hanlon. 1993. Marijuana and actual driving performance. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Report No. DOT HS 808 078.

Good enough for me. Talking on a cell phone while sober is be outlawed because of the relatively small adverse effects it has on driving. So, just another reason to keep MJ illegal..

[chineseservant]

Talking on a cell phone while sober is be outlawed because of the relatively small adverse effects it has on driving. So, just another reason to keep MJ illegal..

Thank you, you prove my point. :) .
So if pot is illegal, so should alchohol be. Let pot stay illegal (it smells so bad), and make alchohol illegal too (because of its adverse affect on driving).

[tommyinnn]

So you KNOW it affects your driving hu? Did someone tell you this? Do you know what it feels like to give birth?, no, you just go by what a female told you, but you don't know, so if you've never smoked you don't know. I don't drink & I no longer smoke to answer your question. I just moved to Florida from VA., where they only give a ticket if your caught. I found out that Florida was harder, so I decided it wasn't worth it. So at least for me, 1. It's not addicting, 2. It's not a gateway drug. It's mostly the young that cause problems, not us hard working tax paying citizens that live in this great country.
Thank you chineseservant for the post, that article written by a proven college edcuated man makes my point, people are gonna
get some kind of buzz, M.J. is safer, more lives would be saved, more family's would stay together. I'm not at all saying
people should smoke & drive, & I'm not saying alcohol should be against the law, well, I guess I did, but that will never happen. I'm only saying they should lighten up on the law for possession, a person who smokes weed should not be labled a criminal & locked up, & should not have their car stolen from them, as the do in Florida. It just seems like it's all about the money, if the country needs more money, i'd be glad to pay more in taxes, I already give up about 30% of my check each week, what's another few hundred!!

P.S. To RedRaider...Crap like this?? I've read your posts & it seems you suck at comming up with edcuated responses, this is a discussion & i've never offended anyone, so please start showing some respect!! Also, I do hope everything went well for your niece, i'm sorry you & your family had to go through all that.

[fair witness]

Personally I think the most dangerous driiving situation might be small children arguing in the back seat, or so I tell my little beasties :D

[cst.sb]

Thank you, you prove my point. :) .
So if pot is illegal, so should alchohol be. Let pot stay illegal (it smells so bad), and make alchohol illegal too (because of its adverse affect on driving).

If it were my world alcohol would be illegal, as would smoking. But sadly it's not my world and 1sgkelly won't be my chief of defence staff.

[cst.sb]

The following scientists tend to disagree with your theories.

Aceto, M.D., States, S.M., Lowe, J.A., and Martin, B.R. (1995). Cannabinoid precipitated withdrawal by the selective cannabinoid re-ceptor antagonist, SR 141716A. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 282, Rl-R2.

American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Press).

Anthony, J.C., Warner, L.A., and Kessler, R.C. (1994). Comparative epidemiology of dependence on tobacco, ethanol, controlled substances, and inhalants: basic findings from the National Comorbidity
Survey. Exp. Clin. Psychopharmacol. 2, 244-268.

Bailey, C.H., Bartsch, D., and Kandel, E.R. (1996). Toward a molecular definition of long-term memory storage. Proc. Natl. Acad Sci. USA 93, 13445-l 3452.

Caine, S.B., Heinrichs, S.C., Coffin, V.L., and Koob, G.F. (1995). Effects of the dopamine Dl antagonist SCH 23390 microinjected into the accumbens, amygdala or striatum on cocaine self-administration in the rat. Brain Res. 692, 47-56.

Carelli, R.M., and Deadwyler, S.A. (1996). Dual factors controlling activity of nucleus accumbens cell-firing during cocaine self-administration. Synapse 24, 308-311.

Chang, J.Y., Sawyer, S.F., Lee, R.-S., and Woodward, D.J. (1994). Electrophysiological and pharmacological evidence for the role of the nucleus accumbens in cocaine self-administration in freely moving rats. J. Neurosci. 14, 1224-1244.

Chen, J.P., Paredes, W., Lowinson, J.H., and Gardner, E.L. (1991).
Strain-specific facilitation of dopamine efflux by delta g-tetrahydrocannabinol in the nucleus accumbens of rat: an in vivo microdialysis study. Neurosci. Lett. 729, 136-180.

Collins, A.C., Bhat, R.V., Pauly, J.R., and Marks, M.J. (1990). Modulation of nicotine receptors by chronic exposure to nicotinic agonists and antagonists. In The Biology of Nicotine Dependence, G. Bock and J. Marsh, eds. (New York: John Wiley), pp. 87-105.

Corrigall, W.A., Franklin, K.B.J., Coen, K.M., and Clarke, P.B.S. (1992). The mesolimbic dopaminergic system is implicated in the reinforcing effects of nicotine. Psychopharmacology 707, 285-289.

Dani, J.A., and Heinemann, S. (1996). Molecular and cellular aspects of nicotine abuse. Neuron 16, 905-908.

Di Chiara, G., and Imperato, A. (1988). Drugs abused by humans preferentially increase synaptic dopamine concentrations in the mesolimbic system of freely moving rats. Proc. NaU. Acad. Sci. USA 85, 5274-5278.

Di Chiara, G., and North, R.A. (1992). Neurobiology of opiate abuse. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 13, 185-193. 475

Diana, M., Pistis, M., Carboni, S., Gessa, G.L., and Rossetti, Z.L. (1993). Profound decrement of mesolimbic dopaminergic neuronal activity during ethanol withdrawal syndrome in rats: Electrophysiological and biochemical evidence. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci USA 90, 7966-7969.

Diaz, J., Levesque, D., Lammers, C.H., Griffon, N., Martres, M.-P., Schwartz, J.-C., and Sokoloff, P. (1995). Phenotypical characterization of neurons expressing the dopamine 03 receptor in the rat brain, Neuroscience 65, 731-745.

Engel, J.A., Enerback, C., Fahlke, C., Hulthe, P., Hard, E., Johannessen, K., Svensson, L., and Soderpalm, B. (1992). Serotonergic and dopaminergic involvement in ethanol intake. In Novel Pharmacological Interventions for Alcoholism, C.A. Naranjo and E.M. Sellers, eds. (New York: Springer), pp. 68-82.

Epping-Jordan, M.P., Markou, A., and Koob, G.F. (1998a). The dopamine Dl receptor antagonist SCH 23390 injected into the dorsolatera1 bed nucleus of the stria terminalis decreased cocaine reward in the rat. Brain Res. 784, 105-l 15.

Epping-Jordan, M.P., Watkins, S.S., Koob, G.F., and Markou, A. (1998b). Dramatic decreases in brain reward function during nicotine withdrawal. Nature 392, 869-870.

Everitt, B.J., Morris, K.A., O’Brien, A., and Robbins, T.W. (1991). The basolateral amygdala-ventral striatal system and conditioned place preference: further evidence of limbic-striatal interactions underlying reward-related processes. Neuroscience 42, l-l 8.

Gardner, E.L., and Vorel, S.R. (1998). Cannabinoid transmission and
reward-related events. Semin. Neurosci., in press.

Gardner, E.L., Paredes, W., Smith, D., Donner, A., Milling, C., Cohen, D., and Morrison, D. (1988). Facilitation of brain stimulation reward by delta-9-tetrahydrocamabinol. Psychopharmacology 96, 142-144.

Giros, B., Jaber, M., Jones, S.R., Wightman, R.M., and Caron, M.G. (1996). Hyperlocomotion and indifference to cocaine and amphetamine in mice lacking the dopamine transporter. Nature 379,606-612.

Headlee, C.P., Coppock, H.W., and Nichols, J.R. (1955). Apparatus and technique involved in a laboratory method of detecting the addictiveness of drugs. J. Am. Pharm. Assoc. Sci. Edn. 44,229-231.

Heimer, L., and Alheid, G. (1991). Piecing together the puzzle of basal forebrain anatomy. In The Basal Forebrain: Anatomy to Function, T.C. Napier, P.W. Kalivas, and I. Hanin, eds. (New York: Plenum Press), pp. l-42.

Henry, D.J., and White, F.J. (1991). Repeated cocaine administration causes persistent enhancement of Dl dopamine receptor sensitivity within the rat nucleus accumbens. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 258, 882-890.

Herkenham, M., Lynn, A.B., Little, M.D., Johnson, M.R., Melvin, L.S., de Costa, B. R., and Rice, K.C. (1990). Cannabinoid receptor localization in brain. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 87, 1932-1936.

Hope, B.T., Kelz, M.B., Duman, R.S., and Nestler, E.J. (1994). Chronic electroconvulsive seizure (ECS) treatment results in expression of a long-lasting AP-1 complex in brain with altered composition and characteristics. J. Neurosci. 14, 4318-4328.

Hyman, S.E. (1996). Addiction to cocaine and amphetamine. Neuron
76, 901-904.

Hyttia, P., and Koob, G.F. (1995). GABAA receptor antagonism in the
extended amygdala decreases ethanol self-administration in rats. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 283,151-159.

Koob, G.F. (1992). Drugs of abuse: anatomy, pharmacology, and function of reward pathways. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 13, 177-184.

Koob, G.F. (1995). Animal models of drug addiction. In Psychopharmacology, The Fourth Generation of Progress, F.E. Bloom and D.J. Kupfer, eds. (New York: Raven Press), pp. 759-772.

Koob, G.F. (1996). Drug addiction: the yin and yang of hedonichomeostasis. Neuron 76, 893-896.

Koob, G.F., and Bloom, F.E. (1988). Cellular and molecular mechanisms of drug dependence. Science 242, 715-723.

Koob, G.F., and Le Moal, M. (1997). Drug abuse: hedonic homeostatic dysregulation. Science 278, 52-58.

Koob, G.F., Markou, A., Weiss, F., and Schulteis, G. (1993). Opponent process and drug dependence: neurobiological mechanisms. Semin. Neurosci. 5, 351-358.

Koob, G.F., Heinrichs, S.C., Menzaghi, F., Merlo-Pith, E., and Britton, K.T. (1994a). Corticotropin releasing factor, stress and behavior. Semin. Neurosci. 6, 221-229.

Koob, G.F., Rassnick, S., Heinrichs, S., and Weiss, F. (1994b). Alcohol, the reward system and dependence. In Toward a Molecular Basis of Alcohol Use and Abuse (Series Title: Experientia Supplementum, Volume 71), B. Jansson, H. Jornvall, U. Rydberg, L. Terenius, and B.L. Vallee, eds. (Boston: Birkhauser-Verlag), pp. 103-l 14.

Koob, G.F., Carrera, M.R.A., Gold, L.H., Heyser, C.J., MaldonadoIrizarry, C., Markou, A., Parsons, L.H., Roberts, A.J., Schulteis, G., Stinus, L., et al. (1998). Substance dependence as a compulsive behavior. J. Psychopharmacol. 72, 39-48.

Kreek, M.J. (1987). Multiple drug abuse patterns and medical consequences. In Psychopharmacology: the Third Generation of Progress, H.Y. Meltzer, ed. (New York: Raven Press), pp. 1597-1604.

Lake, J.R., Hebert, K.M., Payza, K., Deshotel, K.D., Hausam, D.D., Witherspoon, W.E., Arcangeli, K.A., and Malin, D.H. (1992). Analog of neuropeptide FF attenuates morphine tolerance. Neurosci. Lett. 746, 203-206.

LeMarquand, D., Pihl, R.O., and Benkelfat, C. (1994). Serotonin and ethanol intake, abuse and dependence: findings of animal studies. Biol. Psychiatry 36, 395-421.

Le Novere, N., Zoli, M., and Changeux, J.-P. (1996). Neuronal nicotinic receptor a6 subunit mRNA is selectively concentrated in catecholiminergic nuclei of the rat brain. Eur. J. Neurosci. 8, 2428-2439.

Lepore, M., Vorel, S.R., Lowinson, J., and Gardner, E.L. (1995). Conditioned place preference induced by delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol: comparison with cocaine, morphine, and food reward. Life Sci. 56,2073-2080.

Lepore, M., Liu, X., Savage, V., Matalon, D., and Gardner, E.L. (1996).
Genetic differences in delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol-induced facilitation of brain stimulation reward as measured by a rate-frequency curve-shift electrical brain stimulation paradigm in three different rat strains. Life Sci. 58, PL365-PL372.

Liljequist, S., and Engel, J. (1982). Effects of GABAergic agonists and antagonists on various ethanol-induced behavioral changes. Psychopharmacology 78, 71-75.

Maldonado, R., Blendy, J.A., Tzavara, E., Gass, P., Roques, B.P., Hanoune, J., and Schutz, G. (1996). Reduction of morphine abstinence in mice with a mutation in the gene encoding CREB. Science 273, 657-659.

Malin, D.H., Lake, J.R., Hammond, M.V., Fowler, D.E., Rogillio, R.B., Brown, S.L., Sims, J.L., Leecraft, B.M., and Yang, H.-Y.T. (1990). FMRF-NH2-like mammalian octapeptide: possible role in opiate dependence and abstinence. Peptides 7 7,969-972.

Mansour, A., Watson, S.J., and Akil, H. (1995). Opioid receptors: Past, present and future. Trends Neurosci. 78, 69-70.

Matthes, H.W.D., Maldonado, R., Simonin, F., Valverde, O., Slowe, S., Kitchen, I., Befort, K., Dierich, A., Le Meur, M., Dolle, P., et al. (1996). Loss of morphine-induced analgesia, reward effect and withdrawal symptoms in mice lacking the mu-opioid-receptor gene. Nature 383, 819-823.

Merlo-Pith, E., Lorang, M., Yeganeh, M., Rodriguez de Fonseca, F., Raber, J., Koob, G-F., and Weiss, F. (1995). Increase of extracellular corticotropin-releasing factor-like immunoreactivity levels in the amygdala of awake rats during restraint stress and ethanol withdrawal as measured by microdialysis. J. Neurosci. 75, 5439-5447.

Merle-Pith, E., Pagliusi, S.R., Tessari, M., Talabot-Ayer, D., Hooft van Huijsduijnen, R., and Chiamulera, C. (1997). Common neural substrates for the addictive properties of nicotine and cocaine. Science 275, 83-86.

Merue, G., and Gessa, G.L. (1985). Low doses of ethanol inhibit the
firing of neurons in the substantia nigra, pars reticulata: a GABAergic
effect? Brain Res. 360, 325-330.

Negus, S.S., Henriksen, S.J., Mattox, A., Pasternak, G.W., Portoghese, P.S., Takemori, A.E., Weinger, M.B., and Koob, G.F. (1993). Effect of antagonists selective for mu, delta and K opioid receptors on the reinforcing effects of heroin in rats. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 265, 1245-l 252.

Nestler, E.J. (1994). Molecular neurobiology of drug addiction. Neuropsychopharmacology II, 77-87.

Nestler, E.J. (1996). Under siege: the brain on opiates. Neuron 16,
897-900.

Olale, F., Gerzanich, V., Kuryatov, R., Wang, F., and Lindstrom, J. (1997). Chronic nicotine exposure differentially affects the function of human a3, CK, and (7 neuronal nicotinic receptor subtypes. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 283, 675-683.

Parsons, L.H., Koob, G.F., and Weiss, F. (1995). Serotonin dysfunction in the nucleus accumbens of rats during withdrawal after unlimited access to intravenous cocaine. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 274, 1182-1191.

Peoples, L.L., and West, M.O. (1996). Phasic firing of single neurons
in the rat nucleus accumbens correlated with the timing of intravenous cocaine self-administration. J. Neurosci. 16, 3459-3473.

Peoples, L.L., Uzwiak, A.J., Gee, F., and West, M.O. (1997). Operant
behavior during sessions of intravenous cocaine infusion is necessary and sufficient for phasic firing of single nucleus accumbensneurons. Brain Res. 757, 280-284.

Pettit, H.-O., and Justice, J-B., Jr. (1989). Dopamine in the nucleus
accumbens during cocaine self-administration as studied by in vivo icrodialysis. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 34, 899-904.

Pontieri, F.E., Tanda, G., and Di Chiara, G. (1995). Intravenous cocaine, morphine, and amphetamine preferentially increase extracellular dopamine in the “shell” as compared with the “core” of the rat nucleus accumbens. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 92, 12304-12308.

Roberts, A.J., Cole, M., and Koob, G.F. (1996). Intra-amygdala muscimol decreases operant ethanol self-administration in dependent rats. Alcohol Clin. Exp. Res. 20, 1289-1298.

Roberts, D.C.S., Koob, G.F., Klonoff, P., and Fibiger, H.C. (1980). Extinction and recovery of cocaine self-administration following 6-hydroxydopamine lesions of the nucleus accumbens. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 12, 781-787.

Rocha, B.A., Fumagalli, F., Gainetdinov, R.R., Jones, S.R., Ator, R., Giros, B., Miller, G.W., and Caron, M.G. (1998). Cocaine self-administration in dopamine-transporter knockout mice. Nature Neurosci. 1, 132-137.

[cst.sb]

Rodriguez de Fonseca, F., Carrera, M.R.A., Navarro, M., Koob, G.F., and Weiss, F. (1997). Activation of corticotropin-releasing factor in the limbic system during cannabinoid withdrawal. Science 276, 2050-2054.

Rossetti, Z.L., and Carboni, S. (1995). Ethanol withdrawal is associated with increased extracellular glutamate in the rat striatum. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 283, 177-183.

Russell, M.A.H. (1976). What is dependence? In Drugs and Drug Dependence, G. Edwards, M.A.H. Russell, D. Hawks, and M. MacCafferty, eds. (Lexington: MA, Lexington Books), pp. 182-187.

Samson, H.H., and Harris, R.A. (1992). Neurobiology of ethanol abuse. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 73, 206-211.

Schuster, C.R., and Thompson, T. (1969). Self-administration of and behavioral dependence on drugs. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. 9,
483-502.

Self, D.W., and Nestler, E.J. (1995). Molecular mechanisms of drug reinforcement and addiction. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 18, 463-495.

Self, D.W., Tetwilliger, R.Z., Nestler, E.J., and Stein, L. (1994). Inactivation of G, and Go proteins in nucleus accumbens reduces both cocaine and heroin reinforcement. J. Neurosci. 74, 6239-6247.

Self, D.W., Barnhart, W.J., Lehman, D.A., and Nestler, E.J. (1996).
Opposite modulation of cocaine-seeking behavior by D,- and Dz-like dopamine receptor agonists. Science 271, 1586-1589.

Sellers, E.M., Higgins, G.A., and Sobell, M.B. (1992). 5-HT and ethanol abuse. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 73, 69-75.

Shippenberg, T.S., Herz, A., Spanagel, R., Bals-Kubik, R., and Stein, C. (1992). Conditioning of opioid reinforcement: neuroanatomical and neurochemical substrates. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 654, 347-356.

Stinus, L., Le Moal, M., and Koob, G.F. (1990). Nucleus accumbens and amygdala are possible substrates for the aversive stimulus effects of opiate withdrawal. Neuroscience 37, 767-773.

Sun, N., and Cassell, M.D. (1993). Intrinsic GABAergic neurons in the rat central extended amygdala. J. Comp. Neurol. 330, 381-404.

Ta bakoff, B., and Hoffman, P.L. (1996). Alcohol addiction: an enigma among us. Neuron 76, 909-912.

Tanda, G., Pontieri, F.E., and Di Chiara, G. (1997a). Cannabinoid and heroin activation of mesolimbic dopamine transmission by a common mu1 opioid receptor mechanism. Science 276,2048-2050.


Tanda, G., Pontieri, F.E., Frau, R., and Di Chiara, G. (1997b). Contribution of the noradrenaline carrier to the increase of extracellular dopamine in the rat prefrontal cortex by amphetamine and cocaine. Eur. J. Neurosci. 9, 2077-2085.

Volpicelli, J.R., Alterman, A.I., Hayashida, M., and O’Brien, C.P. (1992). Naltrexone in the treatment of ethanol dependence. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 49, 876-880.

Weiss, F., Markou, A., Lorang, M.T., and Koob, G.F. (1992). Basal extracellular dopamine levels in the nucleus accumbens are decreased during cocaine withdrawal after unlimited-access self-administration. Brain Res. 593, 314-318.

Weiss, F., Parsons, L.H., Schulteis, G., Hyytia, P., Lorang, M.T., Bloom, F.E., and Koob, G.F. (1996). Ethanol self-administration restores withdrawal-associated deficiencies in accumbal dopamine and 5-hydroxytryptamine release in dependent rats. J. Neurosci. IS, 3474-3485.

Widnell, K., Self, D.W., Lane, S-B., Russell, D.S., Vaidya, V., Miserendino, M.J.D., Rubin, C.S., Duman, R.S., and Nestler, E.J. (1996). Regulation of CREB expression: in vivo evidence for a functional role in morphine action in the nucleus accumbens. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 276, 306-315.

Woolverton, W.L., and Johnson, K.M. (1992). Neurobiology of cocaine abuse. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 73, 193-200.

Zadina, J.E., Hackler, L., Ge, L.J., and Kastin, A.J. (1997). A potent and selective endogenous agonist for the p opiate receptor. Nature 386,499-502.[/COLOR]

Just a few nobodies doing a few goofy studies.................. :rolleyes:

[2209]

Darnit guys. Who left the door open. The potheads came in.

Shame on you, whoever you are!

[chineseservant]

Darnit guys. Who left the door open. The potheads came in.


Your empathy for Tommy just oozes from your post. :rolleyes:

Cst.sb, nice that we agree that pot and alchohol should be illegal. :)
PM those physicians research if you like.

[ckinsd]

As a former habitual smoker (from 17-19 years old) I can tell you first hand the effects. It does slow down your reaction time, no I have no Harvard studies to back me up just real life experience. Do you want someone with an altered mind and slow reactions on the road while your driving your kids, I dont. It also leads to lack of ambition and motivation. Do you know where I would be if I was still smoking ? You guessed it on the couch STILL SMOKING. Your body also builds a dependency on it, I dont care who told you it is not addicting it is! I also remember the sudden mood changes and rage I would get commonly when I had none to smoke. There are so many reasons to opose the legalization of it that it is almost a waste to talk about it. Do I think it is the worst drug in the world, no of course not but it is still a Drug none the less.

[chineseservant]

Your body also builds a dependency on it, I dont care who told you it is not addicting it is! I also remember the sudden mood changes and rage I would get commonly when I had none to smoke.

You definatly know more about this then me. I do not have your personal experience. I think that your experience is unique to you. Tommy, for example quit without problems; so in his case he may not have severe dependency to it. If you get that rage from anything you shouldn't take it.

When mj was first criminalize in the 20s and 30s the govt spread many lies about mj. A movie was made called reefer madness. Now, that everyone knows the govt. lie about mj (saying its much worst then it is) no one beleives the govt. when the tell the truth about really bad drugs like meth.

So the problem is lots of people take meth. If only the govt could be consistnent. The worst drug I have ever seen is alchohol.

[RedRaider911]

P.S. To RedRaider...Crap like this?? I've read your posts & it seems you suck at comming up with edcuated responses, this is a discussion & i've never offended anyone, so please start showing some respect!! Also, I do hope everything went well for your niece, i'm sorry you & your family had to go through all that.

You are correct it is a discussion, and I was discussing my views on your post. And I do know the effect, I have smoked it. I didn't like it, or the way it made me feel. I didn't feel as though I could drive when i smoked it. So I didn't. After smoking it one time I didn't do it again, because I didn't like it, or feel it was a smart decision. As I have stated I am in favor of legalizing MJ. I feel that responsible adults should be able to smoke it in the privacy of their homes. If that is what you want to do then feel free. I don't want to do it and don't think it is a smart decision to use it. But I feel it is not my right to tell you what to do with your body. But I draw the line when you get in a car and start driving with it in your system. This is just like Alcohol. Use it all you want, feel free, but don't get in a car and drive after drinking.
And if you do expect to get pulled over and taken to the local County Cement Hotel.

That out of the way, Thank you for your kind words concerning my niece. I do appriciate it.

[tommyinnn]

All the recent posts to this discussion have been great, that's what this is, a discussion, not a name calling contest! In response, I meant I didn't have a problem quiting, not everyone. I'm now 35, now back when I was 20, oh no, I would have never even thought of quiting!! You live & learn, you know. Quiting smoking cigg's, that's a different story all together!! To me, they are a much worst drug, & you don't even get high off of the lol!! If a person is my age or older, they may not want to quit smoking M.J., but if they had to, if it began to cause problems, most would quit. Your right though, the goverment does lie to us about it, & again, if you never smoked, how could you know?? At times, yea, if I got high, I did nothing!! but then again, in Virginia, there was nothing to do anyway so it didn't matter much. I can tell you this though, smoking M.J. has helped me a great deal in designing websites, it gave me ideas & thanks to thoes ideas, I now have 10 sites online that have a google pagerank between 2 & 6, 6 having around 20,000 hits a month. I currently work construction, but I now have a backup career if I get hurt, or can't work for whatever reason. Again though, this is only me, I can't speak for anyone else. Everyone is different, & is entilted to their own opinion. For the ones that run their mouth on this forum, mabey you need to calm down & smoke a blunt or two cause you really need to relax! It's sad to say, but most who act rude, when you check out their profile, they claim to be in law enforcement....for all the cool cops out there, their making your profession look bad!!

[tommyinnn]

Thanks for that reply RedRaider, some of us "potheads" are actually good, hard working people!!

Also, I want to add, I did say I was against drinking, but just cause a person drinks, that doesn't affect the way I look at them, I really could care less, that's their choice. In fact, a lot of the people that do drink do it after work, after they had a long hard day...they deserve to do what ever they want to, they pay just as much taxes as I do, & work just as hard....they are part of what make this country so great. As long as their car is nowhere around mine if their drunk, drink away!!

[Trinium]

It's sad to say, but most who act rude, when you check out their profile, they claim to be in law enforcement....for all the cool cops out there, their making your profession look bad!!

I agree Tommy. And as I told you in my pm, mj only gets me into your car when I suspect other worst stuff. If you just have mj it isn't worth my time citing you.

[chineseservant]

I just realize that today is the pothead holiday. How appropriate for the topic of discussion. Happy 4-20 Tommy. :)

[cst.sb]

Everyone is different, & is entilted to their own opinion.

I absolutely agree with you, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

However, most of us "cops" are frankly tired of the monthly "MJ" thread.

I'm glad you feel the way you do about pot, and I am also glad that you can find evidence to support your claims. Then again, some people believe that because the pentagon didn't have a silhouette of an airplane (wings included) that 9/11 was a hoax.

If you want to quote the standard "cannabis culture" rhetoric, do so somewhere else.

Remember, this is a public POLICE forum and if you want debate pot this isn't the place to do it.

[RabbitMPD]

I just realize that today is the pothead holiday. How appropriate for the topic of discussion. Happy 4-20 Tommy. :)
RATS! You beat me to it! :D I came to the last page of this rediculous thread just to see if anybody said anything. Happy 4/20 potheads. Do you know what today is? Today is the day when you can illegally smoke pot! Wait. How is that different from any other day? :confused:

Eh, who cares! Have a blast!

[grumpyirishman]

But, I am curious as to why marijuana does not have the same status as alcohol.


Wrong Forum: This should be posted in "Ask a Legislator"

They make the laws, we only enforce them... :confused:

[Jack Price]

[QUOTE=ProWriter]
and MJ, (which is certainly no worse medically than cigarettes, and which could be regulated in the exact same manner as alcohol in connection with driving)QUOTE]

No worse medically than cigarettes? You been smokin some of them Mex cigarettes that are 1/2 horse hockey? Everything I've seen says more tars, more carcinogens. Not to mention THC (the sole reason MJ is smoked or eaten in the first place). Ever hallucinate from a Camel? Marlboros make you think time is going two or three times as fast as normal?

Regulated in the exact same manner as alcohol in connection with driving.
It doesn't have the same effect as alcohol. Alcohol is a depressant. Tetrahydracannibinal is a hallucinogenic. While both can make you unfit to drive, it is much harder to judge when you've "had enough" of MJ than Bud.
Finally, you got a PBT that detects THC? You get a portable breath tester that will give me a positive on THC and a hammer-slammer law on driving under the influence of drugs, and I will withdraw my objections to you doping out and driving.

__________________________________________________ ____________

The tree of life is self-pruning. ;)

[The Legend]

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/377/mounties.shtml

For the IDIOT who said police dont get killed by people who use marijuana need to get EDUCATED. This is one of many articles. If you want more i can give them to you. You should also read the investigation report as to why a Trooper in the Carolinas (Trooper Coates) was killed during a traffic stop by the driver who had a Little pot on his possesion. :mad:

"Get your target in range before you fire wild shots like that!"