Marijuana-legalization push gets voic...

Marijuana-legalization push gets voice on Capitol Hill

There are 288 comments on the TwinCities.com story from Dec 25, 2010, titled Marijuana-legalization push gets voice on Capitol Hill. In it, TwinCities.com reports that:

The cannabis industry has flexed its muscles in 15 states where it's legal to smoke marijuana for medical purposes.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at TwinCities.com.

jim

Houston, TX

#67 Jan 6, 2011
Robbie wrote:
Just legalize it completely the same way they repealed probition. Bottom line is that everyone who wants to smoke pot is smoking it now and by legalizing it they would buy from the government and be taxed just like alcohol. This eleminates the criminal element and puts $$$ back in the tax payers pocket because they wouldn't have to pay for minor offenders in jail and prison. It's common sense and as shown for years this is something that has been lacking in legislators minds for decades..........
Yes let the Government handle the drug's most of the politicians are smoking the stuff anyways. And they can split the profit.
jim

Houston, TX

#68 Jan 6, 2011
Storm Crow wrote:
Unfortunately, most folks know very little about medical cannabis use! First off, smoking is rapidly becoming passe' among medical users. Tinctures, edibles and using little machines called "vaporizers" that gently heats, but does not burn the cannabis, are replacing smoking in the medical community.
Secondly, cannabis is good for far more than "just" pain and nausea! Go over to WebMD and read these articles-
"Marijuana's Active Ingredient Targets Deadly Brain Cancer"
"Marijuana Ingredients Slow Invasion by Cervical and Lung Cancer Cells"
"Marijuana Unlikely to Cause Head, Neck, or Lung Cancer"
"Marijuana May Fight Lung Tumors"
"Marijuana Ingredient May Cut Fibromyalgia Pain"
"Marijuana Chemical Fights Hardened Arteries"
"Chemicals in Marijuana May Fight MRSA"
"Pot-Based Drug Promising for Arthritis"
"Cannabis May Help Multiple Sclerosis"
"Marijuana May Slow Alzheimer's"
"Marijuana Smoking Doesn't Kill"
"Teen Pot Smoking Won't Lead to Other Drugs as Adults"
If you think those are interesting, run a search for "Granny Storm Crow's MMJ Reference List" for 100s of articles like those. Learn the facts about cannabis. Educate yourself!
Well hell what are waiting for this stuff sounds like a cure all. My wifes a pain in the @#% maybe this stuff will let me tune her out..I'm all for it.
jim

Houston, TX

#69 Jan 6, 2011
Archie wrote:
Real Drug Cartel
I have to admit that a country like the USA that consumes 65 billion of illicit drugs a year has political pull from somewhere to keep operating without interruption..
The Press just likes to talk about people that want wacky weed legalized or how great smoking bans are. As usual the children listen to them.
Our good ole boys in WASHINGTON are the very ones protecting illegal drugs. There's to much money to be made for the good ole politicians dirty hands to keep out of..

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#70 Jan 7, 2011
Ronald wrote:
<quoted text>
Bruno24.
Well, perhaps I have misjudged you. Answer me this, though. If mind rotting pot is so good for us, why do you make comparison with those things you believe to be bad for us?(alcohol, heroin, crack, tobacco, etc.)
Ronald
Because pot and alcohol are both inebriant, even social or party inebriant. They have their role in the struggle of life. The problem is that:

1) alcohol is mind (well brain) rotting, liver rotting, artery rotting, heart rotting, but also socially violent. The alcohol inebriation is known to lead to violence (ask any cops). And then alcohol is legal.

2) cannabis is not rotting anything, as far as we take the available evidences, and its inebriation does not lead to violence. It leads to a "peace, gentle and cool" atmosphere. And then cannabis is illegal.

I don't ask for coming back to the prohibition of alcohol, because we have already tried that, and we know it augments *considerably* the danger of alcohol (individual and social). So the only way to diminish the consumption of alcohol is by providing alternatives. And I do think that cannabis is a safer, if not safe, alternative to alcohol.
Also, once cannabis is legal we can explain the real big danger of the joint: it is the (legal) tobacco.

Of course, the sellers of tobacco and alcohol don't like this. It is not a coincidence that 'A Partnership for a Drug Free America" are funded by the alcohol and tobacco industries.
And the drug cartels are not happy too. because cannabis is intrinsically cheap. Only its illegality gives to it an economical big profit.

Which raises an important question. Are we doing economy for having a rich life, or are we living for having a rich economy?
It is part of the strategy of the bandits, and those addicted to *black* money to make us confuse on this.
Ronald

Long Beach, CA

#72 Jan 7, 2011
Bruno24 wrote:
<quoted text>
Because pot and alcohol are both inebriant, even social or party inebriant. They have their role in the struggle of life. The problem is that:
1) alcohol is mind (well brain) rotting, liver rotting, artery rotting, heart rotting, but also socially violent. The alcohol inebriation is known to lead to violence (ask any cops). And then alcohol is legal.
2) cannabis is not rotting anything, as far as we take the available evidences, and its inebriation does not lead to violence. It leads to a "peace, gentle and cool" atmosphere. And then cannabis is illegal.
I don't ask for coming back to the prohibition of alcohol, because we have already tried that, and we know it augments *considerably* the danger of alcohol (individual and social). So the only way to diminish the consumption of alcohol is by providing alternatives. And I do think that cannabis is a safer, if not safe, alternative to alcohol.
Also, once cannabis is legal we can explain the real big danger of the joint: it is the (legal) tobacco.
Of course, the sellers of tobacco and alcohol don't like this. It is not a coincidence that 'A Partnership for a Drug Free America" are funded by the alcohol and tobacco industries.
And the drug cartels are not happy too. because cannabis is intrinsically cheap. Only its illegality gives to it an economical big profit.
Which raises an important question. Are we doing economy for having a rich life, or are we living for having a rich economy?
It is part of the strategy of the bandits, and those addicted to *black* money to make us confuse on this.
Bruno24.

So to sum it up, although you have backtracked on your claim to be a 60s person, you fully embrace their underlying philosophy of wallering about among the lower, rather than aspiring to the higher?(AKA "slumming")

Incidentally, prohibition worked. It is current myth that prohibition caused the increase of alcoholic beverage consumption among Americans as well as causing an increase of criminal activity. This wrongful historical memory is primarily the result of sensationalist 20's era silver screen fiction.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/debate/my...

Prohibition was ended because of well organized political activism, not because it failed. The situation is not unlike that of today when brain damaged self focused elderly 60s 70s people want to give the finger to the society they so hate one last time before they (thankfully) depart to receive their well-deserved judgment and the everlasting contempt of those victimized generations who follow.

Although tobacco has never been proven to have any adverse health effects whatsoever - other than to serve as a "foot-in-the-door bogeyman to promote increased taxation and Governmental control only - the literature is filled with proof of damage done not only to the brain by pot, but to the pot addict's DNA as well.*(note how tobacco is cleverly interjected into this article written in response to one taxpayer funded Government "study")

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/...

The marijuana-schizophrenia link is well established. The most vocal proponents of pot legalization are the potheads themselves. One should ask how they can be sure "the voices" are telling them the truth about pot.

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/special_eds/20...

http://www.schizophrenia.com/prevention/canna...

http://www.schizophrenia.com/prevention/canna...

Ronald

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#73 Jan 7, 2011
Ronald wrote:
<quoted text>
Bruno24.
So to sum it up, although you have backtracked on your claim to be a 60s person, you fully embrace their underlying philosophy of wallering about among the lower, rather than aspiring to the higher?(AKA "slumming")
Incidentally, prohibition worked. It is current myth that prohibition caused the increase of alcoholic beverage consumption among Americans as well as causing an increase of criminal activity. This wrongful historical memory is primarily the result of sensationalist 20's era silver screen fiction.
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/debate/my...
Prohibition was ended because of well organized political activism, not because it failed. The situation is not unlike that of today when brain damaged self focused elderly 60s 70s people want to give the finger to the society they so hate one last time before they (thankfully) depart to receive their well-deserved judgment and the everlasting contempt of those victimized generations who follow.
Although tobacco has never been proven to have any adverse health effects whatsoever - other than to serve as a "foot-in-the-door bogeyman to promote increased taxation and Governmental control only - the literature is filled with proof of damage done not only to the brain by pot, but to the pot addict's DNA as well.*(note how tobacco is cleverly interjected into this article written in response to one taxpayer funded Government "study")
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/...
The marijuana-schizophrenia link is well established. The most vocal proponents of pot legalization are the potheads themselves. One should ask how they can be sure "the voices" are telling them the truth about pot.
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/special_eds/20...
http://www.schizophrenia.com/prevention/canna...
http://www.schizophrenia.com/prevention/canna...
Ronald
Your first link contradicts all the study I have done for many independent sources. That information is available on the nets. Compare. This one seems quite like propaganda to me.
The paper alluded in the second quote is not freely available. from the abstract I am not sure what they mean by marijuana cigarette. Then the experience is in vitro: that does not implies you can take this has evidences for similar effects in vivo. Nobody disagree that cannabis contains more adverse molecules, but the statistics made correctly on populations of smokers disconfirm such evidence, together with the existence of an explanation, which is that those adverse effects are compensate by curing effect, both at the vasoconstriction level and the molecular/cells/cancer level.

BTW, I did not backtrack that I belong to 60, I introduced nuances. I did not take the idea of "smoking pot" for granted. I read hundred books before, and I grown my own. I inherited my parents fear that cannabis was that terribly dangerous drug. I am ultra-cautious with those things.
Your idea that tobacco does not kill, frankly, makes me laugh. It killed half of my family. It almost killed myself, and when I stopped smoking it and chew it instead, and, to help, multiplied by ten my smoking consumption of (pure) cannabis my lungs get so well that the doctor told me "that's crazy you have recovered in three month the lungs of a sport man having never smoked". I was smoking three or four cannabis pipes a day. I felt the progresses.
In our society many smokes pot and get well. Just look around you. You cannot speculate that something is dangerous, to condemn it. Fo condemning some one or some thing of that type you have to show statistical data confirming the evidences. This exists for alcohol and tobacco. And it does not exist for cannabis.
Note also that you refer me to a paper "against cannabis and against tobacco" and coldly take its "against cannabis" discourse for granted despite it contradicts your talk on tobacco. Weird.

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#74 Jan 7, 2011
Ronald wrote:
<quoted text>
Bruno24.
So to sum it up, although you have backtracked on your claim to be a 60s person, you fully embrace their underlying philosophy of wallering about among the lower, rather than aspiring to the higher?(AKA "slumming")
Incidentally, prohibition worked. It is current myth that prohibition caused the increase of alcoholic beverage consumption among Americans as well as causing an increase of criminal activity. This wrongful historical memory is primarily the result of sensationalist 20's era silver screen fiction.
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/debate/my...
Prohibition was ended because of well organized political activism, not because it failed. The situation is not unlike that of today when brain damaged self focused elderly 60s 70s people want to give the finger to the society they so hate one last time before they (thankfully) depart to receive their well-deserved judgment and the everlasting contempt of those victimized generations who follow.
Although tobacco has never been proven to have any adverse health effects whatsoever - other than to serve as a "foot-in-the-door bogeyman to promote increased taxation and Governmental control only - the literature is filled with proof of damage done not only to the brain by pot, but to the pot addict's DNA as well.*(note how tobacco is cleverly interjected into this article written in response to one taxpayer funded Government "study")
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/...
The marijuana-schizophrenia link is well established. The most vocal proponents of pot legalization are the potheads themselves. One should ask how they can be sure "the voices" are telling them the truth about pot.
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/special_eds/20...
http://www.schizophrenia.com/prevention/canna...
http://www.schizophrenia.com/prevention/canna...
Ronald
Your first link contradicts all the studies I have done for many independent sources. That information is available on the nets. Compare. This one seems quite like propaganda to me.
The paper alluded in the second quote is not freely available. From the abstract I am not sure what they mean by marijuana cigarette. Then the experience is in vitro: that does not imply you can take this as evidences for similar effects in vivo. Nobody disagree that cannabis contains more adverse molecules, but the statistics made correctly on populations of smokers disconfirm there is an incidence. An explanation exists, which is that those adverse effects are compensated by curing effect, both at the vasoconstriction level and the molecular/cells/cancer level.

BTW, I did not backtrack that I belong to 60, I introduced nuances. I did not take the idea of "smoking pot" for granted. I read hundred books before, and I grew my own. I inherited my parents' fear that cannabis was that terribly dangerous drug. I am ultra-cautious with those things.

Your idea that tobacco does not kill, frankly, makes me laugh. It killed half of my family. It almost killed myself, and when I stopped smoking it and chew it instead, and, to help, multiplied by ten my smoking consumption of (pure) cannabis my lungs get so well that the doctor told me "that's crazy you have recovered in three month the lungs of a sport man having never smoked". I was smoking three or four cannabis pipes a day. I felt the progresses.
In our society many smokes pot and get well. Just look around you. You cannot speculate that something is dangerous to condemn it. For condemning some one or some thing you have to show statistical data confirming the evidences. This exists for alcohol and tobacco. And it does not exist for cannabis.
Note also that you refer me to a paper "against cannabis and against tobacco" and coldly take its "against cannabis" discourse for granted despite it contradicts your talk on tobacco. Weird.

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#75 Jan 7, 2011
Concerning the cannabis-schizophrenia relationship, hmm ... I see in your link that the first paper asserting the relationship are still judged controversial in 2004. Hmm ... I might concede a slight risk, so that cannabis might not be good for everybody in arbitrary quantity.

But that means only that it is part of the role of the doctor to suggest that cannabis might not been suitable for you, like he can suggest you to stop smoking tobacco or drinking alcohol. But I am not sure of the links, I have not yet find the time to look closely at the statistics. It seems that many schizophrenics appreciate smoking pot. That smells the traditional error in statistics.

Anyway, even if that is confirmed, we are again way below an argument for making it illegal. Just an argument that we may add on the cannabis legal pack a warning like "that product can precipitate a latent schizophrenia on some subject".
Ronald

Long Beach, CA

#76 Jan 7, 2011
Bruno24 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your first link contradicts all the studies I have done for many independent sources. That information is available on the nets. Compare. This one seems quite like propaganda to me.
The paper alluded in the second quote is not freely available. From the abstract I am not sure what they mean by marijuana cigarette. Then the experience is in vitro: that does not imply you can take this as evidences for similar effects in vivo. Nobody disagree that cannabis contains more adverse molecules, but the statistics made correctly on populations of smokers disconfirm there is an incidence. An explanation exists, which is that those adverse effects are compensated by curing effect, both at the vasoconstriction level and the molecular/cells/cancer level.
BTW, I did not backtrack that I belong to 60, I introduced nuances. I did not take the idea of "smoking pot" for granted. I read hundred books before, and I grew my own. I inherited my parents' fear that cannabis was that terribly dangerous drug. I am ultra-cautious with those things.
Your idea that tobacco does not kill, frankly, makes me laugh. It killed half of my family. It almost killed myself, and when I stopped smoking it and chew it instead, and, to help, multiplied by ten my smoking consumption of (pure) cannabis my lungs get so well that the doctor told me "that's crazy you have recovered in three month the lungs of a sport man having never smoked". I was smoking three or four cannabis pipes a day. I felt the progresses.
In our society many smokes pot and get well. Just look around you. You cannot speculate that something is dangerous to condemn it. For condemning some one or some thing you have to show statistical data confirming the evidences. This exists for alcohol and tobacco. And it does not exist for cannabis.
Note also that you refer me to a paper "against cannabis and against tobacco" and coldly take its "against cannabis" discourse for granted despite it contradicts your talk on tobacco. Weird.
Bruno24.

I agree. While it is true that association does not prove causality, it's pretty clear to anyone but the dunderhead that tobacco is an entry drug for tax addicted politicians. The fact of the matter is that tobacco has never been proven to have caused a single death among users, much less ever having "killed" anyone with "secondhand smoke". Since the corrupt tax addicted politicians seized control of the medical industry, numerous expensive taxpayer funded Government "scientific studies" have "proven" tobacco "dangerous to ones' health", this at ever higher and higher tobacco tax rates. This is in keeping with the thieving Government politician tactic of "kick 'em in the butt so hard they say THANK YOU! for not kicking any harder".

You say you read hundreds of apologetic pothead books prior to reaching the "independent conclusion" to justify the 60s 70s generation using this dangerous mind destroying drug. Shouldn't the mess they made of things warn us kids away from that? I take it you are really a pot enthusiast, rather than an independent researcher or truth seeker?

Incidentally, Bruno24. Several years ago, prior to the politicians' becoming so tax addicted they needed to take control of the medical industry and to nationalize Big Tobacco, there was an interesting scholarly paper written by Wanda Hamilton describing the benefits of nicotine - a beneficial active ingredient of tobacco. Hamilton's research was an unbiased effort to get at the truth, not an attempt to augment a preconceived notion or bias.

Source: http://www.forces.org/evidence/hamilton/other...

Carefully note that since the time Hamilton wrote her paper, the thieving lying politicians - through their taxpayer funded Government controlled NGO organizations have taken each and every one of nicotine's benefits and turned them upside down. Perhaps that is why us kids call taxpayer funded Government "science" junk science.

Ronald
absurd

Minneapolis, MN

#77 Jan 7, 2011
Ronald wrote:
<quoted text>
Bruno24.
So to sum it up, although you have backtracked on your claim to be a 60s person, you fully embrace their underlying philosophy of wallering about among the lower, rather than aspiring to the higher?(AKA "slumming")
Incidentally, prohibition worked. It is current myth that prohibition caused the increase of alcoholic beverage consumption among Americans as well as causing an increase of criminal activity. This wrongful historical memory is primarily the result of sensationalist 20's era silver screen fiction.
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/debate/my...
Prohibition was ended because of well organized political activism, not because it failed. The situation is not unlike that of today when brain damaged self focused elderly 60s 70s people want to give the finger to the society they so hate one last time before they (thankfully) depart to receive their well-deserved judgment and the everlasting contempt of those victimized generations who follow.
Although tobacco has never been proven to have any adverse health effects whatsoever - other than to serve as a "foot-in-the-door bogeyman to promote increased taxation and Governmental control only - the literature is filled with proof of damage done not only to the brain by pot, but to the pot addict's DNA as well.*(note how tobacco is cleverly interjected into this article written in response to one taxpayer funded Government "study")
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/...
The marijuana-schizophrenia link is well established. The most vocal proponents of pot legalization are the potheads themselves. One should ask how they can be sure "the voices" are telling them the truth about pot.
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/special_eds/20...
http://www.schizophrenia.com/prevention/canna...
http://www.schizophrenia.com/prevention/canna...
Ronald
The studies cited "proving" cannabis causes schizophrenia are highly flawed. Just as the pharma industry can manipulate studies to "prove" their drug "works" and is "safe," so too can other studies. In the case of the schizophrenia "link" they make no adjustments or acknowledgements for things like familial history. Would anyone give a study a second look that "proved" XYZ "causes cancer" but ignored familial hisory? No. That is not following a scientific model.

The media outlets are all controlled by prohibitionist corporations anyway. OF COURSE something on ABC news is going to PROVE that pot causes schizophrenia! Pot activists are gaining traction despite not having a mainstream media outlet to combat the propaganda of the drug war. The ABC's of the world have refused to run PAID advertisements from pro-cannabis reform organizations. The same corporations that advertise booze along the highway billboards and abortion-related advertisements. The TRUTH is speaking volumes with people, despite the BILLIONS spent further this failed agenda each year. Other corporations show their prohibitionist roots all the time. PayPal cuts off organizations all the time from getting contributions (such as was the case when Ebay's pro-prohibitionist Meg Wittman wanted to squash proposition 19 in California and be governor.)

Even our own government threatens to cut off funding. When El Paso Texas wanted to hold a town hall meeting just to TALK about legalizing cannabis in an effort to curb the advance of the cartels, the state's own Senator threatened to cut off Federal funding to the city if they even TALKED about it. Do we really fear knowledge this much? How are we still a free country when things such as this occur?
Ronald

Long Beach, CA

#78 Jan 7, 2011
Bruno24 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your first link contradicts all the study I have done for many independent sources. That information is available on the nets. Compare. This one seems quite like propaganda to me.
The paper alluded in the second quote is not freely available. from the abstract I am not sure what they mean by marijuana cigarette. Then the experience is in vitro: that does not implies you can take this has evidences for similar effects in vivo. Nobody disagree that cannabis contains more adverse molecules, but the statistics made correctly on populations of smokers confirm such evidence, together with the existence of an explanation, which is that those adverse effects are compensate by curing effect, both at the"..." level and the molecular/cells/cancer level.
BTW, I did not backtrack that I belong to 60, I introduced nuances. I did not take the idea of "smoking pot" for granted. I read hundred books before, and I grown my own. I inherited my parents fear that cannabis was that terribly dangerous drug. I am ultra-cautious with those things.
Your idea that tobacco does not kill, frankly, makes me laugh. It killed half of my family. It almost killed myself, and when I stopped smoking it and chew it instead, and, to help, multiplied by ten my smoking consumption of (pure) cannabis my lungs get so well that the doctor told me "that's crazy you have recovered in three month the lungs of a sport man having never smoked". I was smoking three or four cannabis pipes a day. I felt the progresses.
In our society many smokes pot and get well. Just look around you. You cannot speculate that something is dangerous, to condemn it. Fo condemning some one or some thing of that type you have to show statistical data confirming the evidences. This exists for alcohol and tobacco. And it does not exist for cannabis.
Note also that you refer me to a paper "against cannabis and against tobacco" and coldly take its "against cannabis" discourse for granted despite it contradicts your talk on tobacco. Weird.
Bruno24.

I agree. While it is true that association does not prove causality, it's pretty clear to anyone but the dunderhead that tobacco is an entry drug for tax addicted politicians. The fact of the matter is that tobacco has never been proven to have caused a single death among users, much less ever having "killed" anyone with "secondhand smoke". Since the corrupt tax addicted politicians seized control of the medical industry, numerous expensive taxpayer funded Government "scientific studies" have "proven" tobacco "dangerous to ones' health", this at ever higher and higher tobacco tax rates. This is in keeping with the thieving Government politician tactic of "kick 'em in the butt so hard they say THANK YOU! for not kicking any harder".

You say you read hundreds of apologetic pothead books prior to reaching the "independent conclusion" to justify the 60s 70s generation using this dangerous mind destroying drug. Shouldn't the mess they made of things warn us kids away from that? I take it you are really a pot enthusiast, rather than an independent researcher or truth seeker?

Incidentally, Bruno24. Several years ago, prior to the politicians' becoming so tax addicted they needed to take control of the medical industry and to nationalize Big Tobacco, there was an interesting scholarly paper written by Wanda Hamilton describing the benefits of nicotine - a beneficial active ingredient of tobacco. Hamilton's research was an unbiased effort to get at the truth, not an attempt to augment a preconceived notion or bias.

Source: http://www.forces.org/evidence/hamilton/other...

Carefully note that since the time Hamilton wrote her paper, the thieving lying politicians - through their taxpayer funded Government controlled NGO organizations have taken each and every one of nicotine's benefits and turned them upside down. Perhaps that is why us kids call taxpayer funded Government "science" junk science.

Ronald
Ronald

Long Beach, CA

#79 Jan 7, 2011
absurd wrote:
<quoted text>
The studies cited "proving" cannabis causes schizophrenia are highly flawed. Just as the pharma industry can manipulate studies to "prove" their drug "works" and is "safe," so too can other studies. In the case of the schizophrenia "link" they make no adjustments or acknowledgements for things like familial history. Would anyone give a study a second look that "proved" XYZ "causes cancer" but ignored familial hisory? No. That is not following a scientific model.
The media outlets are all controlled by prohibitionist corporations anyway. OF COURSE something on ABC news is going to PROVE that pot causes schizophrenia! Pot activists are gaining traction despite not having a mainstream media outlet to combat the propaganda of the drug war. The ABC's of the world have refused to run PAID advertisements from pro-cannabis reform organizations. The same corporations that advertise booze along the highway billboards and abortion-related advertisements. The TRUTH is speaking volumes with people, despite the BILLIONS spent further this failed agenda each year. Other corporations show their prohibitionist roots all the time. PayPal cuts off organizations all the time from getting contributions (such as was the case when Ebay's pro-prohibitionist Meg Wittman wanted to squash proposition 19 in California and be governor.)
Even our own government threatens to cut off funding. When El Paso Texas wanted to hold a town hall meeting just to TALK about legalizing cannabis in an effort to curb the advance of the cartels, the state's own Senator threatened to cut off Federal funding to the city if they even TALKED about it. Do we really fear knowledge this much? How are we still a free country when things such as this occur?
absurd.

Please review post # 48.

Thanks.

Ronald

“Good luck with that !!!!”

Since: Dec 10

New York, NY

#80 Jan 7, 2011
Ronald wrote:
<quoted text>
absurd.
Please review post # 48.
Thanks.
Ronald
Ronald,

I commented on those studies you provide in #48 with a response in #60 that you did not answer.

As far as your claims that cigarettes have killed noone, I must disagree. Between, seeing the damage that tobacco has done first hand and the stats known, I don't see how you can make that claim.

http://www.health.com/health/condition-articl...
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fa...

Now regarding the legalization of cannabis, Your studies are all based on those with predisposition of schiz or mental illness and adolescents. Noone here advocates cannabis use by teens nor use by those who are predisposed to mental illness. I also notice that your studies focus on those who use 3 or more cannabis cigarettes a day. Noone I know uses that much in a day.
Seems your current studies mirror those of the 70's in which rhesus monkeys were denied oxygen while being masked and exposed to cannabis smoke. The brains which were damaged by a lack of oxygen were touted as being damaged by the THC. I hope thet is not where you get your "mind rotting" falacy from.
Bottom line is that when you take into consideration of how this priohibition has begun, and the inaccuracies used to keep it in place, along with the rather tame effects on human physiology, there is no valid reason for this prohibition to continue.
Ronald

Long Beach, CA

#81 Jan 7, 2011
Len in NY wrote:
<quoted text>
Ronald,
I commented on those studies you provide in #48 with a response in #60 that you did not answer.
As far as your claims that cigarettes have killed noone, I must disagree. Between, seeing the damage that tobacco has done first hand and the stats known, I don't see how you can make that claim.
http://www.health.com/health/condition-articl...
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fa...
Now regarding the legalization of cannabis, Your studies are all based on those with predisposition of schiz or mental illness and adolescents. Noone here advocates cannabis use by teens nor use by those who are predisposed to mental illness. I also notice that your studies focus on those who use 3 or more cannabis cigarettes a day. Noone I know uses that much in a day.
Seems your current studies mirror those of the 70's in which rhesus monkeys were denied oxygen while being masked and exposed to cannabis smoke. The brains which were damaged by a lack of oxygen were touted as being damaged by the THC. I hope thet is not where you get your "mind rotting" falacy from.
Bottom line is that when you take into consideration of how this priohibition has begun, and the inaccuracies used to keep it in place, along with the rather tame effects on human physiology, there is no valid reason for this prohibition to continue.
Len in NY.

Yes. One of the shameful legacies to be left by the dysfunctional 60s 70s generation is their having perverted science in their failed attempt to achieve their own narrow "know nothing" ends. This is a tragedy. Hopefully, the Asian nations will be able to dig western civilization out of the superstitious dark morass into which they have led us. That they will be able to do so, though, is far from assured.

Here is a helpful link to a scholarly paper describing the post 60s 70s era Government controlled Big Medicine/Big Government Science/Nationalized Big Government Tobacco/Big lying thieving politician/Big Government court association that was translated from the French:

http://cagecanada.blogspot.com/2010/12/belief...

Ronald
Robbie

Edenton, NC

#82 Jan 7, 2011
You both seem very well educated especially on the effects of substances individuals put into their bodies. This being said you should both know that whatever published article one presents there is another one published to contradict it, that's what tenured professors are paid to do. Instead of drawing comparisons why not look at each chemical independently and access what harm comes from said chemical. The arguments you present now are redundant and you are comparing apples to oranges. You could compare the harmful effects of herbicides ingested by people eating fruits/vegetables to the harmful effects that smoking marijuana has on people but what it proves is absolutely nothing. Please stop citing papers that most mean very little other than to those who wrote them and unless you have participated in such studies drop it. If either one of you have written papers published on the subject I for one would enjoy reading that.............
Ronald

Long Beach, CA

#83 Jan 7, 2011
Robbie wrote:
You both seem very well educated especially on the effects of substances individuals put into their bodies. This being said you should both know that whatever published article one presents there is another one published to contradict it, that's what tenured professors are paid to do. Instead of drawing comparisons why not look at each chemical independently and access what harm comes from said chemical. The arguments you present now are redundant and you are comparing apples to oranges. You could compare the harmful effects of herbicides ingested by people eating fruits/vegetables to the harmful effects that smoking marijuana has on people but what it proves is absolutely nothing. Please stop citing papers that most mean very little other than to those who wrote them and unless you have participated in such studies drop it. If either one of you have written papers published on the subject I for one would enjoy reading that..........
Robbie.

Yes. That is the point I was making.(Please see posts # 36,# 40, and # 66 on this thread) Thank you for your vindication as well as for your support.

The many health benefits of smoking tobacco are well known among enlightened peoples. Those benefits really should need no elaboration here. On the other hand it is just as well known that pot use is a destroyer of children's health. Perhaps just one example should suffice to quiet the radical leftist deniers:

Tobacco smoke is known to strengthen the natural immune systems of developing children. Tobacco smoke elicits a healthy immune response in children. The result is that the child's immune system strengthens and he is better able to resist disease elements without resorting to dangerous taxpayer funded "approved and promoted" Government drugs. In less superstitious times, moms knew that as "the dirt effect".

Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/14343748/Why-Dirt-i...

One obvious proof of this effect is that as tobacco smoking declined among parents, the incidence of immune deficient ailments such as childhood Asthma soared in perfect harmony.

On the other hand, it is no less well known that marijuana smoke destroys the body's natural immunity:

Source: http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/article...

Ronald

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#84 Jan 8, 2011
Ronald, I am glad you defend tobacco, and I do think that Nicotine has many virtue. My own study makes me think those virtue are annihilated by the its smoking, so that the key for benefiting of Tobacco is "never inhale". But for cannabis I come up with the opposite conclusion: Inhale as much as possible!

And I do agree with you that cannabis is not for the kids, unless it is prescribed for some health reason. But that is my main reason to think that cannabis should be made completely legal. Prohibition of a drug leads to its wild uncontrolled proliferation. That is why I advocate the legalization of all drugs. The abuse problem is an health issue, not a criminal one.

“30yrs in this garbage state ”

Since: May 10

sheeple country USA

#85 Jan 8, 2011
Storm Crow wrote:
Unfortunately, most folks know very little about medical cannabis use! First off, smoking is rapidly becoming passe' among medical users. Tinctures, edibles and using little machines called "vaporizers" that gently heats, but does not burn the cannabis, are replacing smoking in the medical community.
Secondly, cannabis is good for far more than "just" pain and nausea! Go over to WebMD and read these articles-
"Marijuana's Active Ingredient Targets Deadly Brain Cancer"
"Marijuana Ingredients Slow Invasion by Cervical and Lung Cancer Cells"
"Marijuana Unlikely to Cause Head, Neck, or Lung Cancer"
"Marijuana May Fight Lung Tumors"
"Marijuana Ingredient May Cut Fibromyalgia Pain"
"Marijuana Chemical Fights Hardened Arteries"
"Chemicals in Marijuana May Fight MRSA"
"Pot-Based Drug Promising for Arthritis"
"Cannabis May Help Multiple Sclerosis"
"Marijuana May Slow Alzheimer's"
"Marijuana Smoking Doesn't Kill"
"Teen Pot Smoking Won't Lead to Other Drugs as Adults"
If you think those are interesting, run a search for "Granny Storm Crow's MMJ Reference List" for 100s of articles like those. Learn the facts about cannabis. Educate yourself!
Very well put and that is the reason god put it on earth !!!

“30yrs in this garbage state ”

Since: May 10

sheeple country USA

#86 Jan 8, 2011
ZenBirdist wrote:
<quoted text>
A fun fad? Here's a historical timeline of medical marijuana for you, my friend: http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resou...
Nice link thank ya !!
Ronald

Long Beach, CA

#87 Jan 8, 2011
My fellow kids and myself often discuss the contrast between peaceful tobacco smokers and the violence surrounding pot users, including so-called "medical pot".

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/01/local...

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/06...

http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2010/04/lo...

Even politicians are not safe. According to stash.norml's website, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) responded to a letter written by a constituent's marijuana legalization inquiry. Giffords wrote:

"Thank you for contacting me about the decriminalization of marijuana.

"I believe that while legalization might reduce the high costs of prosecuting and enforcing some narcotics crimes and help alleviate pain for some patients, the larger cost to society must be considered. There are serious public health costs associated with drug misuse, as well as larger economic and societal costs. For example, marijuana is often cited as a gateway drug that leads to the use of more dangerous narcotics. For these reasons, I do not support decriminalizing marijuana."

Giffords was shot dead, reportedly along with 6 0thers. The shooter was described as a "fringe character", disheveled in appearance, typical in appearance to that of the chronic pot user.

http://www.blogforarizona.com/blog/2011/01/co...

Tobacco is an excellent mood enhancer that, unlike dangerous violence associated pot, allows the user to maintain a cool, even tempered, composure.

Since the corrupt politicians began their war against hard working women and men who smoke tobacco,(for purposes of increased taxation and Government control only), more and more instances of pot related violence has come to the fore. How many more of my fellow kids must die before Government gets its wars right?

Ronald

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Minneapolis Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Al Franken's record, sized up (Oct '14) 15 min Divine Messenger 79
Al Frankin remains the actual sexiest man alive 1 hr Minnesota miserable 45
Will This Finish Off The NFL? 2 hr Minnesota miserable 14
Will Franken be reelected? 5 hr Minnesota miserable 5
Why is Minnesota so liberal 5 hr cadescove99 8
QB Jameis Winson accused of groping Uber driver Sat Space ace 4
Dimocraps still crying Russia Fri cadescove99 10

Minneapolis Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Minneapolis Mortgages