Marijuana Reform. (an interesting article.)

[Govier966]

Personally i think alcohol is much more unhealthy. I think marijuana should be legalized and taxed. Its extremely cheap to grow the stuff, if it was taxed and priced reasonably the profit would be huge. People are going to buy it no matter what, should the money be going into the hands of sketchy people off the street or to the government? one problem with marijuana is you dont know how high you are going to get. If it were sold and regulated through the fda then it could state the THC potency. All Im saying is that everyone who wants pot has it but why should the money go to organized crime.

 

[MatticusMania]

Will you deny that you're using the cancer patient to get it legalized for use in people without cancer?

Yes, I will deny that. Im not using cancer patients in an effort to get marijuana legalized. I used cancer patients in an effort to illustrate that the munchies aren't really an adverse effect of pot use. Sure I get the munchies too, and I dont have cancer, but there isnt anything other than will power that keeps me from eating a couple of cookies when it strikes.

Seriously. We're all musicians.

Yes we are. I smoke, I know lots of people who smoke. I also know people who don't smoke pot. Id say cigarettes are more likely to blame for peoples coughing fits, as the ones who have it worst (of the ones I know) arent pot smokers.

 

[baalroo]

Also, I agree we should be researching it more for both it's negative and positive effects. I've also heard that there's a connection between cannabis and cancer prevention, amongst other medicinal benefits. Is this true?

here's a couple of interesting reads on the subject:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm

"The active ingredient in marijuana cuts tumor growth in common lung cancer in half and significantly reduces the ability of the cancer to spread, say researchers at Harvard University who tested the chemical in both lab and mouse studies."​

Invalid Link Removed

"Cannabinoids are a class of pharmacologic compounds that offer potential applications as antitumor drugs, based on the ability of some members of this class to limit inflammation, cell proliferation, and cell survival. In particular, emerging evidence suggests that agonists of cannabinoid receptors expressed by tumor cells may offer a novel strategy to treat cancer. Here, we review recent work that raises interest in the development and exploration of potent, nontoxic, and nonhabit forming cannabinoids for cancer therapy"​

 

[jp58]

Will you deny that you're using the cancer patient to get it legalized for use in people without cancer?

Legalizing it for medical use is the first step, and pot is proven to help cancer patients, namely those on rad/chemotherapy, with several of the symptoms of both cancer and side effects of the treatment. It help reduce nausea and promotes appetite, which in turn helps the cancer patients keep from withering away while the chemo kills both them and the cancer.

I don't smoke, but I see the potential for pot to help reduce budget deficits in our gov't. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent fighting pot alone, not counting the tons of money spent fighting coke etc. Those are needless expenses y our gov't, and add that on top of potential taxings and you have close to $1 billion dollars in added revenue for our budget. School, healthcare, whatever can probably use a share of that $$$.

 

[Govier966]

that's how the law is worded here.....driving is considered a privilege,not a right,and the cops need no probable cause to pull you over and search your car.....

Yeah they do they need a warrant. they can also pull you over and ask to search you car but you can say no.

 

[MatticusMania]

Yeah they do they need a warrant. they can also pull you over and ask to search you car but you can say no.

Telling an officer that they cannot search your car is probable cause, and they can then detain you and search your car.

 

[spade2you]

Legalizing it for medical use is the first step, and pot is proven to help cancer patients, namely those on rad/chemotherapy, with several of the symptoms of both cancer and side effects of the treatment.

Enough with the cancer. It's not about cancer. It's about YOU getting it.

 

[baalroo]

Personally i think alcohol is much more unhealthy. I think marijuana should be legalized and taxed. Its extremely cheap to grow the stuff, if it was taxed and priced reasonably the profit would be huge. People are going to buy it no matter what, should the money be going into the hands of sketchy people off the street or to the government? one problem with marijuana is you dont know how high you are going to get. If it were sold and regulated through the fda then it could state the THC potency. All Im saying is that everyone who wants pot has it but why should the money go to organized crime.

Yeah, I think this is the basic point.

It's not like people who want to smoke pot are having trouble getting it, it's EVERYWHERE (and considerably cheaper than alcohol). We might as well stop turning a blind eye to this fact and start regulating it properly to make sure that the U.S.'s #1 cash crop is being produced and consumed in the safest way possible. Marijuana prohibition simply hasn't worked (just like it didn't work for alcohol) and is not the safest or most cost effective way of dealing with this fairly benign substance.

Frankly, I simply see no legitimate reasoning to believe that we are better off as a nation treating the 12% (The ONDCP's own statistic) of our population who use marijuana at least "occasionally" as criminals than treating them as consenting adults capable of making rational decisions on this issue.

In the end, it's not just an issue of personal liberty, OR medicinal use, OR "fairness," OR economics, OR over crowded prisons... it's all of those things. There just doesn't seem to be any good reason to keep the stuff illegal when it doesn't seem to have any real negative effects when used with moderation, has been proven repeatedly to be almost entirely non-addicting (although admittedly mildly habit forming), cost billions of dollars to keep illegal, is less safe as an illegal product, and is enjoyed by 1 in 10 Americans as an acceptable recreational activity.

 

[Deluge Of Sound]

Enough with the cancer. It's not about cancer. It's about YOU getting it.

Agreed.

I want the ability to buy marijuana legally if I feel so inclined.

Furthermore, I have yet to be introduced to a legitimate reason why this should not be so.

 

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

I'm in favor of Munjibunga reform.

 

[jp58]

Enough with the cancer. It's not about cancer. It's about YOU getting it.

I've NEVER used pot. Not because its illegal, but because I don't want to. It has nothing to do with me getting anything. I've seen what happens when cancer eats a person. I've had several relatives go through the treatment, been unable to eat, been unable to leave the house.

2 of those relatives lived in a medical marijuana state, those are also the only relatives of mine to survive cancer (not counting my mother, she's still in treatment). They were the only ones with a positive outlook on life, and the only ones that didn't become skin and bones.

You can call it a small sample or whatever you want, but I see the positive effects it can have, and I support those 100%.

 

[baalroo]

Enough with the cancer. It's not about cancer. It's about YOU getting it.

That's most likely true for a lot of the people who speak about that part of the issue, but often people on the legalization side of the debate are made to feel guilty by others for wanting to have the right to consume the products that they enjoy.

What would your opinion be if this same discussion was applied to some other product that you personally enjoy? What if the government banned sugar, caffeine, fast food, alcohol, cigarettes, and all OTC medications? There's easily as many reasons to do so (more in my opinion) and I doubt you would just be fine with such a decision. Am I wrong?

 

[cassanova]

Yes we are. I smoke, I know lots of people who smoke. I also know people who don't smoke pot. Id say cigarettes are more likely to blame for peoples coughing fits, as the ones who have it worst (of the ones I know) arent pot smokers.

I said this in an earlier post and it's worth repeating.

The average cigarette smoker smokes far more cigarettes per day, week, and month, than the heaviest of pot smokers does.

Pot does have more tar and burns hotter than cigs do so if they were smoking weed as frequently as a smoker does their cigs, I'd bet the cancer rates of those that only smoke marijuana would raise. Statistically though, the cancer rates for those that only smoke marijuana are lower than those that smoke only cigarettes.

 

[cassanova]

Telling an officer that they cannot search your car is probable cause, and they can then detain you and search your car.

I've never had that happen to me and I've always told them no they can't search. I also give them valid reasons why. "you stopped me for speeding, I don't see how that creates a suspicion for you to want to search my vehicle." Another one I like to use is "If I was an old man/women or soccer mom driving a mini van instead of a long haired guy driving a Camaro would you still ask to search my vehicle?" You'd actually be amazed at how many cops have been honest and said "no."

 

[MatticusMania]

I've never had that happen to me and I've always told them no they can't search. I also give them valid reasons why. "you stopped me for speeding, I don't see how that creates a suspicion for you to want to search my vehicle." Another one I like to use is "If I was an old man/women or soccer mom driving a mini van instead of a long haired guy driving a Camaro would you still ask to search my vehicle?" You'd actually be amazed at how many cops have been honest and said "no."

Thats good that the cops didnt feel the need to search you after you told them they could not. Ive been told by a few different officers that saying no to a search is probable cause. It doesnt necessarily mean that they will or feel they need to, however. I was once pulled over driving home from work at 10pm by an officer who was sitting in the parking lot of my work (Burger King at the time) talking to 2 other officers. His reason for pulling me over was that one of the lights above my license plate was out (when I got home I checked and they were both working fine). He asked me if I had anything illegal in the car, I said no (I did have a pipe with me, but nothing else). He asked if he could search the car and I said yes. He looked around for no more than 20 seconds or so and said 'be sure and get your light fixed'.

 

[Jonyak]

wow... I dunno what you guys are doing.

I have been pulled over for various things int he past and I have never had a police officer ask to search my car.

and I used to have hair down the middle of my back and a big beard and wear grateful dead t shirts.

 

[MatticusMania]

wow... I dunno what you guys are doing.

I have been pulled over for various things int he past and I have never had a police officer ask to search my car.

and I used to have hair down the middle of my back and a big beard and wear grateful dead t shirts.

Probably cuz youre in Canada, eh?

Like I said, I was just driving home from work, some long haired kid driving a beat up 88 Beretta, at 10pm.

 

[superfunk47]

Thats good that the cops didnt feel the need to search you after you told them they could not. Ive been told by a few different officers that saying no to a search is probable cause. It doesnt necessarily mean that they will or feel they need to, however. I was once pulled over driving home from work at 10pm by an officer who was sitting in the parking lot of my work (Burger King at the time) talking to 2 other officers. His reason for pulling me over was that one of the lights above my license plate was out (when I got home I checked and they were both working fine). He asked me if I had anything illegal in the car, I said no (I did have a pipe with me, but nothing else). He asked if he could search the car and I said yes. He looked around for no more than 20 seconds or so and said 'be sure and get your light fixed'.

Refusing to consent to a search is NOT probable cause. It's exercising a Constitutional right. If you refuse to consent and they have no probable cause other than that (one that will stand up in court) and they search you anyway, even if they do find anything, it won't matter, because they discovered it illegally. In other words, the case would be thrown out.

 

[MakiSupaStar]

Refusing to consent to a search is NOT probable cause. It's exercising a Constitutional right. If you refuse to consent and they have no probable cause other than that (one that will stand up in court) and they search you anyway, even if they do find anything, it won't matter, because they discovered it illegally. In other words, the case would be thrown out.

Troof.

 

[MatticusMania]

Refusing to consent to a search is NOT probable cause. It's exercising a Constitutional right. If you refuse to consent and they have no probable cause other than that (one that will stand up in court) and they search you anyway, even if they do find anything, it won't matter, because they discovered it illegally. In other words, the case would be thrown out.

Well, thats not what Ive been told on more than one occasion from multiple LEOs. Not consenting to a search gives them reasonable cause to assume that you are hiding something or have something you don't want them to see, is how its been put to me.