Dope decision facing Arcata

[MIke]

unanonymous wrote:

Arcata is already there...

Can we have an, AMEN!

[MIke]

Eurekoid wrote:

Times Standard is nothing more than a Propaganda Hate Fest.
Let the people of Arcata choose its own path. Incase no one realized it Arcata is one of the most expensive places to live in humboldt county and the city is full of tax dollars "thanks clincs" and has one of the best economys in the county. If anything arcata should be an example to the rest of the county as to how to turn your local economy around. As for all the drugs and hippis, does no one remember its a college town, ofcoarse theres gonna be partys and drugs. Doesnt mean if you support MMJ that your community will be overrun by "arcata types". The truth is the majority of this county is MMJ friendly and Times Standard only prints useless propaganda to make it seem elsewise. Theres a reason this newspaper is know as the "Sub-Standard"

I think it's too late for this person! Put down the whacky-tabacky pipe and back away!

[MIke]

In the Know-Oakland-CA wrote:

druggies. bottom line.

Another AMEN!

[MIke]

ms marijuana wrote:

First of all the nomenclature in this article should be changed, but of course it probably doesn't matter to the author. Dope is a very generalized term that covers many different types of drugs and with is carries many negative conotations. I think it would be fair to use the term dope when talking about heroin or other narcotics. I have even heard the term dope be refered to methamphetimines even though it is the opposite of "dope". If the citizens of this town were really concerned about the image I think attacking marijuana is a dumb cause. The real issues is the prevelant use of heroin, crack, and meth that are destroying our community. This is an area of progressive thought, if you're too old or narrow minded to get your head around that than maybe you should leave.

Thank you Nurse Ratchet! Next!

[burrito boy]

Anonymous wrote:

There is a reason it is illegal on a Federal basis. Pot is ruining peoples' lives and users are willing to hurt or kill to get it and destroy homes they rent jut to get high. The Feds should step in and tell California lawmakers that Prop215 is an invalid law. It's caused nothing but trouble for everyone.

I feel sorry for you,I wish we could have stopped the "man" from brainwashing you .And do some research the feds have a mj farm in mississippi and there are people who receive this pot from them .Its not legal because they cant control it,and thats the real deal

[MIke]

Masked Patriot wrote:

feds shouldn't do anything but provide for the defense of the Nation- not going state to state telling them they have no rights but to follow the orders of the gun.
only communists demand strong central government with absolute power.
Abolish federal government!

"feds shouldn't do anything but provide for the defense of the Nation-" Hehehe! Democrats can't even do that! That's the last thing on a Democrat's agenda! Crank-up, no pun intended, the social welfare roles and keep 'em owing! Keep 'em doped up and they will never know any better! Play Book, rule 35, Comrade!

[unknown]

Anonymous wrote:

There is a reason it is illegal on a Federal basis. Pot is ruining peoples' lives and users are willing to hurt or kill to get it and destroy homes they rent jut to get high. The Feds should step in and tell California lawmakers that Prop215 is an invalid law. It's caused nothing but trouble for everyone.

To this idiot, marijuana does not ruining lives, that would be meth, crack or heroin. 215 is a good prop. and needs to be inforced properly. The US government could save themselves a lot of money and trouble by legalizing it and inforcing as alcohol maybe with a tax and age limit. As well as time to go after the people actually ruining lives like meth manufacturers. We here more about pot busts then meth and this area is as well known for meth as pot. What is the average life expectancy for someone on meth about 5 years of steady use. I have not heard of a life expectancy for a person after they start smoking pot. Have you?

[unknown]

perhaps Mike from vallejo needs a job. This news paper is the Sub-Standard. They hardly show any interest in the community. Just give people like you a place to come and behave like a child! Maybe it would be worth paying for if they didn't put every idiot's thoughts with a letter to the editor or an opinion a spot to complain.

[Downtownbrown]

unanonymous wrote:

Arcata is already there...

As a lifelong resident, it's spelled t-o-i-l-e-t.

[Downtownbrown]

Observer wrote:

"recognized prescription drug" ?
Bull. Arcata is on the fast track to becoming a cesspool of drugged out losers in life & the prianha that make money off of them. Phoney doctors, psychologists picking up the pieces of derelict lives, social workers trying to get them more welfare, food bank people making a living feeding them, hydroponic equipment sellers, slum lords and worst of all, the ones making a fortune selling the drug through "dispensaries".

~~Touché~~

[me_too]

Responsible 215 Patient wrote:

<quoted text>
Recent research proves Cannabis actually reduces the chances of lung cancer.
I think you are confusing tobacco with Cannabis.

What research? Smoking is smoking!

[me_too]

Where is the smoking zone? It seems that all those 215 card holders think they can smoke that crap anywhere they want.

[phil]

According to a case-control study by Dr. Donald Tashkin and his colleagues of the University of California in Los Angeles even heavy and longterm smoking of cannabis is not associated with lung cancer and other types of upper aerodigestive tract cancers. The results were presented on 26 June at the annual conference of the International Cannabinoid Research Society (ICRS).

The study included 1,209 residents of Los Angeles aged 18-59 with cancer (611 lung, 403 oral/pharyngeal, 90 laryngeal, and 108 esophageal). Interviewers collected lifetime histories of cannabis, tobacco, alcohol and other drug use, and data on other factors that may influence cancer risk, including diet, occupational exposures, and family history of cancer. Exposure to cannabis was measured in joint years (1 joint year = 365 joints). The cancer patients were compared to 1,040 cancer- free controls. Among the controls 46 per cent had never used cannabis, 31 per cent had used it for less than one joint year, 12 per cent for 10-30 joint years, 2 per cent for 30-60 joint years, and 3 per cent for more than 60 joint years.

Compared with subjects who had used less than one joint year, the risk for lung cancer was 0.78 for 1-10 joint years, 0.74 for 10-30 joint years, 0.85 for 30-60 joint years, and 0.81 for more than 60 joint years. A risk below 1.0 means that the risk for cannabis users was slightly lower than for non-users. Similar results were obtained for the other cancer sites. There was no dose-response relationship of cancer risk, which means that there was no increased risks for more intensive users. The data on tobacco use, as expected, revealed a very potent effect and a clear dose-response relationship.

[unanonymous]

Is not this study akin to studies released by tobacco companies? Why is research by pot advocates exceptable but not other "corporate" research. I think any smoke is bad for the lungs. That's why heavy pot smokers spend the morning hacking their lungs up.

[JGRIZZ]

"That's why heavy pot smokers spend the morning hacking their lungs up." and you know this because???

(not everyone hacks up thier lungs every morning, unanonymous guy) and obviously corporate is corporate and you can't ever trust them!

[phil]

this study was not done by pot advocates. Look up the details. There are other studies also that hold the same information that were not done by pot advocates what so ever.

Of course your not going to take a study seriously that was done by someone that probably has a lot of bias. Would you let a murderer write his own sentencing?

There's a big difference with a study done by an entity with a big agenda, then a study done independently.

Even the us government has done studies to try to show how bad cannabis is, but when the results came out and they didn't favor the political point that was trying to be made they were buried until released under the freedom of information act.

Now they just pull sentences out of context from other studies to make their case. Some of these studies actually completely contradicting the point when taken in context and entirety that John Walters is trying to make.

It's just sad that so many news organizations just repeat whats handed to them from the whitehouse rather than actually do some investigative work.

[unanonymous]

not everyone is a heavy pot smoker-- jizz

experience.

[Fools Gold]

215 is a total scam. I have never seen so many 215 "patients" that were such winnies. Show me the bed ridden cancer patient that benefits from marijuana. All I see is young people proclaiming to be deathly ill while they skate around town to score their bud.

Arcata can do what it likes. I think time will tell if marijauna is the god send like all these fools beleive. If marijauna creates a utopia were no one suffers from pain or illness I will buy you all a joint.

[unanonymous]

I think if you read the results of the study, it also indicates that the data evaluated does not support their hypothesis that pot smoking increases lung cancer rates, but also says that more data is needed to make a finding within statistical confidence levels.

Early studies of smoking did not show increased cancer rates within statistical confidence levels. The findings that most advocates use to support their assertions of biased "tobacco" science. thier refusal to acknowledge updated studies is what really screwed them in the end.

regardless, putting any smoke in your lungs is not good for you, or is pot good for you if smoked?

[phil]

One thing that makes studies more confusing also is that they might appear to be independent, but when you follow the funding for the studies you tend to sometimes find that they were being funded by some entity with an agenda, which always makes the studies very questionable. It's never hard to figure out though if you invest 30 minutes of research, rather than just reading the headlines and nodding your head if it's something that you just want to believe.

Unfortunately it seems that a lot of people are like that, they don't want to really know the truth if what they're reading or hearing goes along with what they want to believe. A lot of people for reasons i just don't understand are terrified of challenging their belief system, when that's the only way you can really know if your belief system is accurate.

I'm guessing it has something to do with the unfortunate human need to just feel like "I'm right and your wrong" when it always seems things seem to fall somewhere in the middle.

Ego's are such a driving force though, and they really don't ever accomplish anything positive.