Janesville couple arrested for selling marijuana

i understand that. but thats the thing gfan...i AM typical of the normal pot smoker...other than the fact that the normal pot smokers dont tell EVERYONE like i do:) typical pot smokers actually probably dont consume as frequently as i do so in that regard im worse than the typical smoker. i know you cant believe what im saying...but its illegal now and drs teachers pols...peeps from all walks of life smoke regardless of the legality...they just cant tell you cuz you(meaning general public) will judge them because of it...i know some soooooo many people who quit drinking and chose to smoke pot only. ive also talked to sooooo many people who tell me if it was legal they would also chose the path i walk, but cuz of jobs and judgers they cant. why do you think over half the money for programs like FAM(families against marijuana) get half their money from alcohol/tobacco companies?? cuz those companies know what would happen with legla marijuana. same as the pfizers of the world know what will happen if people can grow their meds next to the tomatoes instead of goin to the doc...

thekid, possibly because you are not typical of what pot does to people you have been soft-pedaling its more typical effects.

do you SERIOUSLY think the harm to the bystanders is greater with pot than alcohol?? no direct user has ever died from marijuana. have you ever known someone who was killed from a drunk driver...while completely sober?? sry gfan...that comment is just silly.
.
pot is mostly good sometimes its bad. i wont deny that it MAY cause ignorance just like you cant deny that alcohol MAY cause ignorance. why is one drug ok and not the other?? any reason you can give me for keeping marijuana illegal i can show you actual numbers of those same complaints that already happen from LEGAL alcohol/tobacco. believe what you want...but that is most def hypocrisy.

Hey, wait a minute, if alcohol causes ignorance, what does pot cause?!!!

Alcohol is good most of the time; sometimes it's bad. The harm of pot to the smoker and bystanders is at a higher rate than the harm of alcohol to the drinker and bystanders.

Besides, B'moon told me alcohol is grandfathered in.

and it appears ill disagree w/kai here;) i think alcohol absolutely has relevance in the pot discussion. if it were illegal such as acid then maybe not...but the carnage on the roads...the domestic abuse...the ignorance it causes and all the while legal. yet pot is commonly accepted as not being the 'eviler of two evils' remains illegal. hypocrisy...

thekai, good, I think. Talk to thekid about the alcohol thing.

when they leave pot smoking up to the states you will see it legal in the privacy of ones home. most def. the last place it will be legal for tobacco smoke. which us pot smokers are ok with. im ok with your analogy as far as pot/acid and assault/murder. but this is why the alcohol point is far from moot. where gfan, would alcohol, a drug that causes waaaay more death/damage than pot(or acid for that matter) and remains LEGAL...fall in your analogy??

gazettefan,
To clear things up for the both of us: I was talking about your argument, which I clearly misinterpreted. I won't compare marijuana to alcohol, for example, for the very reasons you have already pointed out. Just because alcohol is legal does not mean that marijuana should be legal. I argue that marijuana should be legal for other reasons. Reasons which I believe are solid.
So, in actuality, you and I are in agreement here.

thekid, the Federal government is leaving the tobacco smoking problem to the individual States. And you've noticed how that's going!

thekai, the meaning of the pot/acid and assault/murder comparisons is this: You justify legalizing pot by stating that acid is worse. The reasoning doesn't apply. The legalization of pot has to stand on its own merits, if it has any.

My comparison, legalizing assault because it isn't as bad as murder, is justified because it illustrates that your comparison is faulty. My comparison illustrates that another thing being worse doesn't redeem the other thing merely because it's not as bad.

You introduced a line of thinking that is vulnerable to attract. Re-think it.

gazettefan,
The answer to your question to me is actually within the post I made. If you read a little further, and I'm sure you did but perhaps you didn't notice, I said, "You are of course being sarcastic." The problem with your argument, as I went on to say, was that you were comparing assault and murder to marijuana and some other drug that is much harder than marijuana. Assault and marijuana have nothing in common though. To compare the two is just logically incorrect.
You went on to claim that if marijuana were legalized, parents would be indirectly getting their children high. I can only assume, then, that you have never been in the same room as someone else smoking marijuana. If you had been, then you would know that it isn't that easy to get high off of second hand marijuana smoke. Then, you become worried that children would stink like marijuana. Is that really such a travesty? Kids who come to school and stink like cigarettes, febreeze, spaghetti, or McDonalds doesn't seem to be a problem. Furthermore, if the parents are being responsible and trying to keep the smoke away from their children, then the children probably won't smell like marijuana anyways.

YOUR point is to not add to the damage done. kids/parents alike are smoking now and its illegal. how many stories have we blogged about where teens are smoking pot and causing bodily harm?? i cant recall any where it was pot only. the teen/pot stories are about some kid getting expelled for POSSESSION/DEALING...not use...cuz the fact is kids are going to school now high, and no ones the wiser. look, marijuana is not perfect for everyone, will more kids smoke if legalized?? perhaps...but that shouldnt change the fact that i(and up to 15 million) as a tax paying responsible citizen of the united states am technically a criminal for possessing a plant that is 100% natural and has been smoked for recreation/medicine for thousands of years... MY point, is the same ive been stating since day one...there is absolutely no reason on mother natures green earth that any adult should be able to chose to DRIVE to a bar and intoxicate themselves with alcohol if that same person does not have the rite to sit on their couch and enjoy some marijuana...

Legalized pot smoking would expose more innocent kids to THC, whatever the amount, and other toxins in pot smoke; just like secondhand tobacco smoke does. The kids would also stink like pot. If pot were legalized in some way then nothing could be done about a kid coming to school smelling like pot.

The alcohol problem is a moot point. The point here is to not add to the damage done to kids.

the picture may be rosier cuz of the source. that doesnt change the fact that the bill was introduced. how about a govt website?? read this page and this is what were lookin for. not for profit possession by a responsible adult up to a certain weight. KEEP THE PROFITABLE SALE ILLEGAL.
.
http://www.house.gov/frank/hr5843summary...
.
for a kid to get 'goofed' on secondhand smoke they would have to be sitting directly in front of me as i blow smoke directly into their face. i could sit on the same couch as someone not smoking and they would not get 'goofed'. your last argument, which is apparently to protect the children, holds no ground. there is very LITTLE THC in the secondhand smoke, which of course is the compound that causes one to get 'goofed' so there is LITTLE chance of a kid gettin 'goofed' on secondhand pot smoke. plus dont forget its currently illegal to smoke and theres already kids b4 during and after school getting 'goofed' on first hand pot smoke. and if its truly that big of a worry about the secondary effects of an adult using a drug...then we need to SERIOUSLY look at putting alcohol back on the illegal list cuz i can just about promise there are WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more kids who drink alcohol than smoke pot...

That rosie picture of the possibility comes largely from the fact that the piece was written by a pro-drug concern.

Anticipate this coming into the picture: the example will be made that when kids show up in school goofed up on secondhand pot smoke, no one'll be able to do anything about if pot smoking is legal.

see...i know you dont take reading assignments here...but if ya get a minute you should read this...it WILL happen...its just a matter of time...
.
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/545/...

thekai, I don't understand your claim that I "vaguely .... said that marijuana SHOULD be legal because it's not as bad as acid..." Did you mean to say "shouldn't"?

It is you who are saying that because pot isn't as bad as acid it should be legal.

My real syllogism is this:

Major Premise: The medicinal benefits of THC don't require that it be delivered by way of smoking.

Secondary Premise: Smoking a substance of any kind will not be newly legalized.

Conclusion: Smoking pot will not be legalized even though pot contains THC.

Also, what's the basis for your claim that the aging hippies or former pot smokers would support the legalization of pot because it's not as bad as acid?

gazettefan,
You are missing the point. Your premise supports one particular conclusion, but then a different conclusion. Your secondary conclusion is vaguely drawn from your primary. You are in essence, saying that marijuana should be legalized because it is not the same as Acid, but then you counter yourself by saying assault is illegal and it should be legalized because it is not the same as murder. You are of course being sarcastic. This is also an example of an argument twisting the fallacy of two wrongs make a right. Again, sarcastically, you are saying that assault should be legalized if marijuana is legalized. Through your sarcasm you intend to show that marijuana should not be legal. In all reality, though, marijuana and assault are not related at all, and thus you are presenting an argument that is truly false. I'm not saying that you have bad reasons for believing what you do believe, I'm just saying that you should present your arguments in a better way. I will listen to whatever you have to say, but if you intend to change my mind, fallacies are not the right way to go.

OK, let's legalize assault because it isn't murder.

Pot is what it is. What other things are doesn't change that.

Actually, I bet if you asked those same hippies who went along with the schools and told their children to just say no, most would disagree with you gazettefan. If you asked them whether or not they thought marijuana should be decriminalized, many of them would understand that marijuana is not a hard drug and is generally harmless. If you asked that same generation if LSD should be legalized, they would of course tell you no. That's the difference.

Go Bears!!!

its all about perspective:) but there is an organized effort on the fringe to legalize. they just dont get the play. i emaled the gazette to cover the hempfest and of course they giggled. youll see tho. some day ill make my final post on the subject...and that may be a decade yet...:)....when the gazette posts the story about how the federal gov't has legalized marijuana....good day sir...

LOL Don't burn your nose.

If THC is quasi-legal now or is likely to be legal in pill form, it would still require a script. That would, in a de facto way, make pot smoke illegal. And, again, pot smoke would be attached to tobacco smoke and the venues for either kind of smoke would not be increased.

Overall, that hippies and other people who smoked back didn't pass it on to their children and grandchildren is evidence that those people came to disapprove of pot smoking. The ones who continued to smoke pot and the pot smokers of later generations (not all), by their lack of initiative, in effect are exhibiting the stereotype. That's why pot smoking lingers on the fringe without an organizational power behind it to legalize it.

What condemns pot smoking is that the kind of people, overall, not all, who smoke it are negative, but accurate, representations of what pot smoking is and what pot smoking does.

Reagan's wife (mommy) and Just Say No signs would not stop the pot smoking juggernaut that you describe.

you dont smoke on a joint harder, but thats irrelevant, cuz your lungs only have so much capacity anyways. even IF that were the case...a typical pot smoker, as kai pointed out, inhales WAAAAY LESS smoke than the typical cigarette smoker. marijuana is not illegal cuz of the smoke. its illegal cuz of the high it produces. when they originally banned pot(1937)with the marijuana tax stamp and then again in 1970 with the controlled substances act, they literally knew nothing about the smoke(they didnt discover THC was the main compound til 1964). it was almost a social thing to smoke cigarettes and they certainly knew nothing of lung cancer and what not.
.
i hate to say it, cuz im sort of a hippie, but my theory is that the hippies from the 60's actually hurt the cause. the tax stamp act was repealed in 1969 cuz they found it unconstitutional(you could legally possess/grow cannabis/marijuana/hemp with a govt provided tax stamp, but in order to get that you already had to possess/grow..which meant you had to break the law to make the law) so for a brief time it was federally decrim. then they passed the controlled substances act of 1970 and classified marijuana/cannabis/hemp as a schedule I narcotic(as ive PROVED in earlier posts is pharmaceutical driven). so anyways mr carter(from what ive read) was making progress and then mrs reagon came along with her 'just say no' and reefer madness was born again. now the hippies are at the age where theyre havin kids and you cant go into a school without seein 'just say no' so the parents had no choice but to go along. 'just say no' encouraged kids to narc on their parents, not to mention that the hippie culture from the 60's used way harder drugs than pot but the older generation blamed marijuana for the whole hippie generation(learned from anslingers reefer madness of the 40's and 50's) so you have the older people who blame marijuana for the hippies. the hippies who are now having kids and are now yuppies and then the kids who are told reefer madness scare tactics thru the entire decades of the 80's and 90's to 'just say no' and THAT my friend is why its not mainstream. but as kai also pointed out were learning. we have younger pols all the time who may not necessarily be pro-pot...but they also know that its a BIG waste of tax payer dollars to arrest people for a drug that does no where near the damage as the 'eviler of two evils':) thats all. now...whered i put that lighter...:)

It seems like the effort would have made it into the mainstream by now.

What about all the potheads who most recently in history (late 60s early 70s) made pot smoking popular? Wouldn't they add to the numbers smoking now? Wouldn't there be many more than 15 million now? Why aren't they still smoking?

But you toke on a joint much stronger than on a cigarette, right? I read that in Time magazine.

More chance for the toxins to cause harm.

well said kai. hopefully president obama will help make it sooner than the next 20 years....
.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_qu...

its not reasonable tho gfan to assume that becuase theres more of what gets you high theres more of the toxicity too. i understand where you sit on this debate...but seriously you seem like an intelligent person...how can you not see that the high has nothing to do with the toxicity?? shall i put a link to the additives in cigarettes?? im sure youre aware there are 599 govt approved additives anyways. how many additives are in a marijuana cigarette?? just one. TLC to roll the perfect j;) read about why the toxicity level of thc is so low...
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrahydroc...
.
15 million smokers isnt my number gfan, ive got time, but not that much;) its uncle sams...
.
http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/mariju...

gazettefan,
We all agree that the effects of marijuana can be delivered without smoking it, and I think that the greater majority of users would be fine with alternative delivery methods. There is a certain sophistication that is normally associated with smoking though, and I do not think the answer would be to completely outlaw the smoking of marijuana. The persons who would be responsible for containing the smoke to certain areas would be the very persons smoking the marijuana. Those are the same people responsible for keeping guns locked up and safe from curious and unsupervised children. Those are the same people responsible for keeping alcohol out of their young children's hands. Those are the same people who are considered to be responsible enough to ensure children watch the shows and play the games (video or otherwise) that are appropriate for their age.
°
Most parents are very responsible and always want what's best for their children.
°
As far as regulating it in public places, or places such as a bar... I think thekid has answered that several times. I can't think of one marijuana user who would be absolutely vexed if marijuana were legalized, but only to be used on private property.
°
For the record, I do believe that there is a very good chance marijuana will be federally legalized in the next 20 years, and I think we are starting to see a bigger push for legalization now, with a lower amount of opposition, than ever before. The congressmen and women who were once so ignorant have slowly been leaving their seats of power, and a new generation is taking over. A generation that understands that marijuana should have never been criminalized in the first place. A generation that does not turn deaf ears to people all across the country who would like to see marijuana legalized.
°
And by the way, in response to prohibition being overturned in a fraction of the time... The reason it was overturned so quickly is because alcohol is so powerful, addicting, and readily available. Alcohol distribution went into the underground market quickly and seamlessly, spawning greed, violence, and corruption. Marijuana simply does not possess all of those attributes. It's mild, and not addicting.

thekid, the fact that 15 million pot smokers (if your figure is correct) have yet to coalesce into an effective power for the purpose of legalizing pot is indicative of the stereotype: laziness and loss of motivation. Paranoia about the government is a weak stance. People can change things here. I don't know how some people can't understand that. Where's the motivation?

It is reasonable to conclude that if there's more of what gets a person high in any kind of cigarette (whether it's nicotine or THC) then there's also more of what's toxic. It's smoke; smoke is not good. No smoke can be contained. Who would monitor how much of it is released where other people are? Diminishing venues for smoking anything is an ongoing unstoppable wave.

If THC has medicinal or therapeutic value, it can be delivered in a non-smoking way.

wow! some one IS awake! hello

well,it is nice to know that all in this blog are early bedtimers! explains a lot!!

this is like telling a virgin what sex is like and expecting them to understand. then telling them sex can kill you. if you have never smoked pot you will never understand. the difference is it can not kill you even if you smoke it all day. i know lots of professionals and business owners that smoke even a few republicans that smoke too. so there is hope. there is no "hope" for McCain but there is hope for marijuana.

GOING OUT ON A LIMB HERE!!!

I HAVE BEEN AN ALCOHOLIC FOR MANY YEARS AND I CAN TELL YOU,DOPE DOESNT HOLD A CANDLE TO IT SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS AGAINST THE LAW!! IF ALCOHOL WERE AGAINST THE LAW,I WOULD NOT DO IT!MAYBE THE LAW SHOULD BE CHANGED. A LITTLE DOPE SMOKING NEVER HURT ANYONE I KNOW! A FEW LESS BRAIN CELLS,MAYBE,BUT HOW IS ALC. DIFF????

obama2008 for president:)

gfan: you said 'Common sense tells us that a marijuana cigarette will get someone many times more high than a tobacco cigarette; that's a strong clue as to how much more toxic a marijuana cigarette is compared to a tobacco cigarette.' common wisdom is that its the Tetrahydrocannabinol(THC) in marijuana that gets you high. cigarette smoke contains none of that. its the HIGHLY addictive nicotine in cigarette smoke. its also common wisdom that if uncle sam could seperate that high from the THC then THC would be legal for its WELL known medical uses. im not arguing with you about the toxicity of the smoke cuz as you state, one can find anything on the net to support their theory. i just thought id point out that when given all the FACTS one tells us that the actual high from marijuana has nothing to do with the debatable toxicity level of the smoke....

you will never get rid of marijuana. the fact is it can be grown without chemicals or much of anything other then sun and water. so forgive me if i and many others do not care. i think our economic situation and the war are more important, don't you think ? no one ever died or over dosed from marijuana, in fact it is a medicine. many drugs that can help have not been passed by the FDA and your telling me if you needed one of these drugs you would not take them given the chance legal or not. you break the law too when you speed and that could kill you or someone else. so that's okay but a harmless non toxic weed is the war you want to fight. come on this is just not a battle worth it. if you don't like it, don't smoke it. it's that simple !

truecitizen,
I am saying that it will be easier to contain marijuana smoke to a certain area than containing cigarette smoke to a certain area.

truecitizen...the fact that 15 million americans smoke marijuana every year and youve NEVER smoked, along with the fact that you actually use jumping off a cliff to your ultimate demise as a comparison to why you wont smoke marijuana strongly points out that you are not intellectually equipped enough to have this discussion. good day. i said good day.

To 'thekai' it will not be easier to "contain" if it is legalized, will it!?

To 'thekid3477'. No I have never tried it. I get your point. But I've never jumped off of a tall building before either! Probably kind of exhilerating until that sudden let down!. As far as "outside of the bar at 2:30...." I don't feel another wrong justifies any other. Hypocracy is your point, right? Well not this guy......

mollyd5: I am quite proud to be part of the other 3 of 4 residences that DO NOT have illegal drug activity. Drugs screw with you more than Tylenol PM! How could anyone WANT to feel that loopy?

Whatever.

Yes, thekai, we're not far enough apart on this to be arguing. It's just that the toxicity of pot smoke (whatever the amount) will be attached to the tobacco smoke problem. The venues for smoking of any kind are constantly diminishing and that's not going to change.

The problems of alcohol are a moot point.

gazettefan,
What I am trying to say, and if I'm not being clear I do apologize, is that the actual toxicity of pot smoke compared to the toxicity of cigarette smoke is still being debated, with evidence to support both sides. The big difference that I believe is over looked is that a pot smoker will smoke a lot less joints than a cigarette smoker will smoke cigarettes. That means there is a higher volume of tobacco smoke than marijuana smoke in the air, which of course lowers the damaging effects of the marijuana smoke. I am not arguing that marijuana smoke is safe. I am arguing it is a lot easier to contain to certain areas, and to keep away from innocent non-smokers.

thekid: With the pot following you describe, pot would have been legal a long time ago. Substantial groups change things all the time in this country. The fact that a group with the strength and stature you attribute to it hasn't somehow caused pot to be legal is a serious indictment on the credibility of your statement.

Now you'll claim that stereotyping and government conspiracy has keep pot from being legalized. Blaming the stereotype and a government conspiracy are weak foundations for your argument. Prohibition was overturned in a fraction of the time pot and its proponents have had to change pot laws.

I can only give you this: There may be a small percentage of pot smokers who fit the description that contradicts the stereotype. I met one or two this year. But this type of pot smoker is to small in number to represent your portrayal of pot smokers en mass.

Again, a group with the numbers and stature you attribute to it would have gotten its way by now. Blame pot's illegality all you want on something evil and nonresponsive to the people's will in this country. You are only left with a credibility problem.

thekai, yes, your cut and paste is hardly a recommendation for your side of it. As for my side, I'm not "siding" with tobacco with the claim that its smoke is less toxic than marijuana smoke.

I'm not arguing in favor of tobacco. They are both very toxic. Your earlier post was supposed to be in defense of pot smoke by claiming that it's less of a toxicity problem that tobacco smoke. You haven't made your case.

My point is that the toxicity of pot smoke is one of the reasons the American public will not legalize it.

thekai for president!!
.
what i really LOVE about this discussion, and as you can all tell im with kai and im always down for the discussion;), but what i really love is that the people who USE marijuana on even a semi regular basis are the ones who KNOW what it really does to you. those of you who are against marijuana have all the rite in the world to your opinion. we would never judge you for that but you gotta understand your opinion comes from being TOLD. you want a study to see how truly harmless it is?? you probably wont find many people who smoke more pot than i do. im sure there are equals...but not sure about more. not quantity...but frequency. when i smoke ill smoke 1 hitter, or about 2-3 inhales(of good stuff;) i have a buzz for about half an hour to hour and after that lifes just better. i/we smokers cant explain it to you cuz if you havent smoked you JUST DONT KNOW and just CANT UNDERSTAND. id bet large amounts of green on the fact that those of you who believe we are all 'Criminals, loosers, bums' actually know drs, lawyers, teachers, police, politicians who smoke, but cant tell you they smoke pot cuz youll judge them...but trust me they DO. ive smoked with all those professions. losers, criminals, and bums?? stand outside a bar at 2:30 on a sat nite and tell me what you see. how many are getting in cars and making themselves criminals??

http://bbsnews.net/article.php/200712231...

I think the copy and paste didn't work the first time. However, seeing as how you requested what was on the site (but still made the attempt to check it anyways) I will just copy and paste it.

"BBSNews 2007-12-23 -- (IACM) Canadian researches investigated the chemical composition of cannabis and tobacco smoke. Smoking of cannabis and tobacco cigarettes, which weighed about 800 mg was carried out on smoking machines. The results showed qualitative similarities with some quantitative differences. With a normal tobacco smoke rhythm, the smoke of both tobacco and cannabis cigarettes contained an average of about 40 mg tar. Following a more intense inhalation to simulate usual cannabis smoking the amount of tar by cigarette increased to 80-100 mg. Thus, the amount of inhaled noxious substances is less dependent from the smoked material than from the smoking pattern. The results are agreement with previous research.

With the same smoking pattern, ammonia was found in cannabis smoke at levels of about 20-fold greater than that found in tobacco, which according to the authors may have been due to higher nitrate levels in cannabis due to fertilization. Hydrogen cyanide was about 2.5 times, nitric oxide (NO) about 4 times and some aromatic amines were found in cannabis smoke at concentrations 3-5 times those found in tobacco smoke. Tobacco-specific nitrosamines were not found in cannabis smoke. Concentrations of mercury, cadmium, lead and arsenic as well as low-molecular weight carbonyl compounds (formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, etc.) were found at considerably lower concentrations in cannabis smoke compared to tobacco smoke. Cannabis smoke also contained somewhat less amounts of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. "
°
You mentioned "cherry picking" around on the internet to find something that supports someone's own argument. I feel obligated to tell you how I found this one. Someone in another thread made the same claims that you are saying. Furthermore, they posted a link to a website that showed the research that marijuana smoke was five times more toxic than cigarette smoke. I went to the site and found the study that was used, and did a google search on that particular study. What I found was the complete results of the study, and that is what I have posted here. It's not biased in my direction, it is just the results of the study. The results offer evidence for both sides of the argument, but it does show how only stating your side can be misleading.

http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php

thekai, I don't take reading assignments here, but I did you the courtesy of clicking on that site and it didn't open properly.

Furthermore, people can cherry-pick all day on the net to find something that agrees with their point of view. Instead, let's just use some common sense.

Common sense tells us that a marijuana cigarette will get someone many times more high than a tobacco cigarette; that's a strong clue as to how much more toxic a marijuana cigarette is compared to a tobacco cigarette.

http://www.gazettextra.com/users/thekai/...

That is the link to the study on the harmful effects of cigarette smoke compared to the harmful effects of marijuana smoke.

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/study-say...

That is the study of what a gateway drug really is, showing that it has more to do with environment and availability.

It was late last night and I didn't feel like digging through my old research. I wrote an entire research paper on this stuff and I assure you I'm not making anything up. Since I wrote the paper, the file became corrupt. I still have a hard copy of the paper, but I lost my works cited page and all of my sources that I used.

thekai, I hope that in the first sentence of your October 7th 11:58pm post you meant to say "objective" and NOT "objectionable."

Also, the toxicity of one marijuana cigarette is equal to five tobacco cigarettes.

By the way, we can argue all we want on legalizing marijuana. But I have eyes. I have very rarely seen a normal life's pattern from any of the many pot smokers I have known in my life. Only a few of them, and some of that few regreted their using it. Imagine society trying to govern this stuff (after becoming legal) when people are smoking on lunches, breaks, between classes (etc....). We have enough brainless workers being out matched by foreign influence right now. We are becmoing less competitive in the schooling and work force, and stuff like this is what concerns me even more. I know there are people who are good to the bone, and I realize this (particular) topic is not the worst, but still...come on!

Decriminalize the stuff and it will still be unteathered as related criminal activity, to say the least. It's possible things would get worse. And, "A study was done..." ? Real factual! I guess all of the classes on this, and criminal behavior patterns, as well as the countless reformed drug users having discussions about it....must all be mistaken huh? It is as simple as you trying to defend your wishes. It isn't right argue all you want and make up more stuff along the way! If you lie with dogs, you will get fleas. So I hope you have a flea collar on!

truecitizen
A study was done to see whether or not marijuana really was a gateway drug. The results of the study showed that marijuana is actually not a gateway drug. The truth is, kids will start out with whatever is easier for them to get a hold of. If it's easier to take dad's vodka, then kids will enter the drug world with vodka. If mom has a regular prescription of vicodin, the kid will start with vicodin.
To say that people who use marijuana (which is illegal by federal law) hang out with criminals is simply stating the obvious. To say that people who use marijuana hang out with losers is both left up to interpretation, and more than likely, ignorant on your part. To say that people who smoke marijuana hang out with bums is a rather vague statement. Just what is a bum? That guy who always wants to bum a cigarette or beer? The girl who never brings her own bag? Or is it the guy standing on the side of the street asking for money? Lastly, to say that marijuana is associated with undocumented money transferring is ignoring the fact that if marijuana were made legal, then there would be documented money transfers with the legal and commercialized drug.
I rather enjoy intelligent debate, and I do love someone who can challenge me to justify why I think marijuana should be legal. Someone who is simply ignorant, bias, or has many other barriers to critical thinking and is incapable of being objectionable provides often weak or invalid arguments. To be fair, that's not going to help your side of the story at all. I respect your right to disagree with me on the issue of decriminalizing marijuana, but I do implore you to challenge me if you want to change my mind.

gazettefan,
I would like to point something out that I have also pointed out in the past. You seem to be a very reasonable and objectionable person, so I think you will understand what I am saying. I hope this will also allow you to understand how harmless the second hand smoke of a marijuana user is.
I am using your comparison of cigarette's second hand smoke to marijuana's second hand smoke, not as a fallacy, but as a tool. It is true that the second hand smoke from cigarettes can be very toxic, and it is not fair at all to subject any non-smoker to those fumes. I personally hate second hand smoke. Marijuana smoke is also undoubtedly toxic in many aspects. The debate over which smoke is more harmful is still ongoing, with scientific research supporting both sides. One thing that is commonly overlooked, though, is that cigarettes are highly addictive. Many smokers smoke because they feel like they need to have a cigarette. The result is that most smokers will smoke at least a pack of cigarettes a day. Roughly, that's equivalent to smoking twenty joints in one day. No regular marijuana user smokes that much, and I can honestly say I've never met even a very heavy marijuana user who smoked that much. This reduction of volume alone presents far fewer toxic chemicals in the air from second hand smoke. More importantly, though, it makes it a lot easier to control where the second hand smoke will go. Some people smoke cigarettes inside because it is inconvenient (especially during winter months) to step outside every forty-five minutes or so. A marijuana user might only smoke one joint over a three or four hour period. Remember, my point is that where the smoke goes will be far easier to control, and thus, it is reasonable to say that second hand smoke from marijuana may not present the same dangers as second hand smoke from cigarettes.

to DUB190....you mention lots of facts, some are from way back. We humans learn as time goes on don't we? I also want to point out you make little or any mention of the articles original base-----illegal THC which was being sold. I don't think this young couple was doing much rope making!
*
It is obvious that so many people want that drug to be allowed. It is simply sad, and I say fine, you're free will is unwilling to do what is right.
*
As far as the alcohol comparison, I barely touch it. If they made that illegal, I would not agree with it, but I would follow the rule.
*
Are all of you forgetting about the tangents? Look at the atmosphere around this drug and other drugs (yes it is a gateway drug too). Criminals, loosers, bums, undocumented money transfering etc etc. Much of this would not change if it was legalized. It would still have a bad atmosphere surrounding it.

if you want to use the POTENTIAL second hand smoke consumed by children as a reason to keep maijuana illegal then it only fair we discuss the POTENTIAL secondary effects of responsible adults drinking alcohol. i.e. kids seeing it be ok to intoxicate. advertising effects. the sober people that are dead from drunk drivers. 20% of rock countys court cases are domestic abuse, and about 100% of those stem from alcohol. do you see why the prevailing logic from our perspective is complete and udder hypocrisy??

thekid, secondhand pot smoke is an issue. A major point of the tobacco smoking bans is secondhand smoke. Pot smoking is not going to be legalized with the idea that pot smokers won't expose other people, including kids, to secondhand smoke. How would that be monitored?

And by the way, there's no reasonable contradiction to the findings that pot smoke, beyond the THC effect, is dangerous in many ways.

again...the actual smoke MAY be a negative. you can also read about how of the 400 compounds in marijauna smoke there are over 60 that are theraputic. assuming the smoke is a negative for me i should have the rite to take that risk. you risk liver cancer by consuming alcohol. you risk alcoholism(a disease??) with regular alcohol consumption. as for the second hand smoke...thats not part of the debate...im talking about responsible adult consumption...kids not home. as for 'Dangers beyond the simple ingestion of alcohol are not always there' the dangers of simple ingestion of alcohol are always there...people just dont see them...and worse they cant even acknowledge them...

thekid, don't forget that this debate has gotten into the dangers of firsthand and secondhand pot smoke. If someone smokes pot, then that danger is always there. Dangers beyond the simple ingestion of alcohol are not always there.

gfan...im not denying or belittling your injuries...by any means... if you and i searched the entire country...who do you think would get more prescriptions...me and marijuana for alcoholism/depression or you and alcohol for pain?? my guess is youll get more unsolicited presciprions for marijuana than even i would, and i cant imagine a dr ever prescribing alcohol for pain. there are other pain medications out there that you could get prescibed from your dr. why cant you do that?? are you SURE the alcohol has no mental therapy for you??
.
good to hear from ya dub and thankx for the love crafty.

Yes DUB...in the past there were many materials made of hemp...but I remember my school had aspestis (I know I spelled that wrong...hopefully you know what I mean)and until extended exposure there was no way to know the effects on the human body. I am not saying that hemp is good or bad, but obviously there is research somewhere that promotes the need for it to be illegal. Even if it is for the mere fact that it is addicting or that importation may not be controllable. I am not against it, but I do realize that all of the activists who have promoted the need for legalizing pot haven't made progress in the past decades that they have tried. I just suggest that if your going to do it, don't get caught. That is what I always tell my kids. I tell them I am not stupid enough to think that lying, cheating and sexual behavoir doesn't take place when your a teen, but if you are going to risk the behavoir, you better get away with it because I promise if you get caught there will be consequences. And that is pretty much what you have to do, be good at what you do.

Proving my point...

dub..., no one's going to read it. But thanks anyway.

Sorry. But it had to be done. I hope you hard heads read it. I hope everybody reads it.

The Cannabis Hemp ban is so extreme and its intention is to hide the truth. The truth is that out of the 300,000 species and the millions and millions of subspecies of plants on Earth, Cannabis Hemp is the 1 plant for our survival and quality of life here on Earth. Since September 11, 2001, the U.S. government and Attorney Generals from John Ashcroft to Alberto Gonzales, as well as U.S. drug czar John Walters, have been calling Cannabis Hemp users "terrorists" and yet the government of the United States has been "terrorizing" Cannabis Hemp users for the last 70 years! There have been over 16 million arrests for Cannabis Hemp in the last 70 years in the U.S.
alone! Fourteen million were within the last 33 years!

No one has taken the $100,000 challenge to prove me wrong. Why? Because I am right. The U.S. government has been lying to us since the early 1900s. Do economic interests and the police have more to say than the people about the future of our planet? How angry are you for being lied to by the U.S.
government about Cannabis Hemp? Are you willing to make a stand right now?

No one can dispute this information and knowledge. You have to join me in this fight. Either you are on the U.S.
government's side or you are on the Earth's side with me!

Jack Herer

http://www. jackherer. com

The role of Cannabis Hemp was erased from America's history (as well as most of the rest of the world's) after 1945. To prove it, think…what did you learn about Cannabis Hemp in grade school? High school? College? From you parents and grandparents? Nothing! (Unless it was from the underground press within the last 15 to 30 years.) The continuing suppression of this information by the U.S. government places us all in mortal jeopardy. I believe that in order to save the planet, we must use non-fossil fuel energy.
(Chuck, 34, says, "If what I learned in school about marijuana was true, I would look like Dolly Parton by now!!")

Cannabis Hemp, in conjunction with wind, solar, tidal and hydroelectric power, could save the planet by providing all of our energy, fuel, paper, fiber, and 10 to 30% of our medical needs, naturally. It would also reduce acid rain and chemical pollution, rebuild the soil, and reverse the Greenhouse Effect (no other plant can do this!). Cannabis Hemp was used to make over 25,000 products before it was outlawed in 1937.

Why does the U.S. government want to eradicate this seed, out of all the seeds on Earth? The want to kill the most perfect plant on the planet.
We must stop this insanity and demand that the laws against Cannabis Hemp be 100% REPEALED!!

Former Attorney General John Ashcroft, Drug Enforcement Administration head, Karen Tandy, and White House Drug Czar, John Walters, have been given all of these proven facts and yet are still set against the legalization of Cannabis Hemp and recognition of Cannabis Hemp knowledge. For whatever personal reasons, they refuse to believe the facts and are willing to sacrifice the future of our planet and the health of our people by keeping it illegal.

crafty, it's legal to smoke cigarettes around kids too. It's not likely laws will be passed to aggravate that problem. The problem is the smoke.

In 1850, 80% of all paper, fiber, fuel and oil was made out of Cannabis Hemp in America and the rest of the world.
This was before the discovery of coal and petroleum for energy in the late 1850s…before the start of the worst permanent pollution ever experienced on Earth…fossil fuel pollution (coal and petroleum)!!

As a medicine, the worldwide use of Cannabis Hemp goes back at least 6,000 years. Remember, 10 to 30% of our medicines used to be Cannabis Hemp based medicines. It has been found to be healthy and effective in the treatment of chronic pain, cancer, strokes, heart disease, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, glaucoma, sickle cell anemia, Alzheimer's disease, AIDS wasting and many other illnesses, including simple nausea, appetite stimulant, anxiety and muscle pains, etc.

On September 6, 1988, the Drug Enforcement Administration's Chief Administrative Law Judge, Francis L. Young, ruled: "Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man," and asked the Drug Enforcement Administration to reschedule it. The DEA refused, keeping it a Schedule I drug, which they say "has no known medical use"! In 1007, DEA Law Judge, Mary Ellen Bittner, ruled, "…it is in the public interest to allow marijuana cultivation for research purposes.
"

Thousands of studies have been done all over the world, documenting the medical use of Cannabis Hemp (England, Spain, Hungary, Holland, and the U.S., just to name a few.
No one has ever died from Cannabis Hemp in over 6,000 years of recorded history…unless they were shot by a cop!

Cannabis Hemp was also used for land reclamation until 1915. Cannabis Hemp was planted or left to grow feral as ground cover and on riverbanks, and not intended for harvest. It is the 1 plant in history used to prevent mudslides and loss of watershed, and river and soil erosion on Earth. It has been illegal to grow this 1 plant in the United States since 1937.

What disgusts me the most is how the U.S. government, as well as the people, knew about Cannabis Hemp and praised its value and then look what happened! In literally 90 seconds, the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 passed in Congress. By using the unknown name "marijuana" instead of the familiar name "Cannabis Hemp," Congress was able to accomplish this because no one knew what plant they were talking about. Cannabis Hemp became illegal and was replaced by petrochemical products, coal and natural gas. They made it such a banned and forbidden plant that the words, "Hemp" and "Cannabis Hemp" were not even taught in schools from the 1940s, '50s and thereafter.

$100,000 CHALLENGE!!!
'
Until 125 years ago, 70 to 90% of all rope, twine, cordage, ship sails, canvas, fiber, cloth, etc., was made out of Cannabis Hemp fiber! It was replaced by DuPont's newly discovered petrochemical fiber (Nylon) beginning in 1937. By comparison, Cannabis Hemp is four times softer than cotton, four times warmer, four times more water absorbent, has three times the strength of cotton, is many times more durable, is flame retardant, and doesn't use pesticides. Fifty percent of all pesticides are used on cotton, yet cotton uses only one percent of the farmland in the U.S.! Cannabis Hemp is the most health giving plant on Earth and it doesn't require pesticides or herbicides! It is the healthiest plant for human consumption, and for the Earth itself.

Until 125 years ago, 80% of our economy depended on Cannabis Hemp for paper, fiber, oil and fuel. At that time, it took 300 man-hours to harvest an acre of Cannabis Hemp, but with the invention of the brand new hemp decorticator in the 1930s, it only took 1-1/2 to two man-hours. This is equivalent to reducing the labor burden from $6,000 down to $40 or $50 per acre, in today's money. Keep in mind that the cotton gin, in 1793, reduced the man-hours from 300 hours down to two hours to harvest and clean an acre of cotton. Cannabis Hemp would have taken over the cotton market, as it is far superior to cotton, and pesticide free. The role of Cannabis Hemp should be determined by market supply and demand and not by undue influence of prohibition laws, federal subsidies and huge tariffs that keep the natural from replacing the synthetic.
I repeat - Cannabis Hemp is the KING KONG of the King Kongs of all plants!

Of all the 300,000 species of plants on Earth, no other plant source can compare with the nutritional value of Cannabis Hemp seeds. It is the only plant on Earth that provides us with the 1 source, and the perfect balance of essential amino acids, essential fatty acids, globulin edestin protein, and essential oils all combined in one plant, and in a form which is most naturally digestible to our bodies.

Prior to the 1800s, Cannabis Hempseed oil was the 1 source for lighting oil throughout the world. Until 1937-38, even pains and varnishes were 80% Cannabis Hempseed oil. Cannabis Hemp is non-toxic and has been used to make high-grade diesel fuel, motor oil, aircraft and precision oil and even the 1 vegetable oil. The U.S. Army/Navy standards purchasing specifications list hemp oil as the 1 preferred lubricant for their machinery. Cannabis Hemp is the best sustainable source of plant pulp for biomass fuel to make charcoal, gas, methanol, gasoline and electricity in a natural way.

THIS IS JACK HERER'S $100,000 CHALLENGE!!!
'
All of my information about Cannabis Hemp has been taken from Federal and State Department of Agriculture reports, articles from Popular Mechanics, Popular Science, entries from encyclopedias and pharmacopoeias, and studies from all over the world during the last 200 years. This is all public information. The United States government is hiding the fact that 125 years ago, and even as far back as 4000 B.C., 60-80% of our economy was based on the use of Cannabis Hemp for paper, fiber and fuel. Ten to 30% of our drug economy was based on Cannabis Hemp medicines, 125 years ago.

Cannabis Hemp was part of our every day life. Virtually every farm and every plot of land in the cities and towns across the United States and the world, from 100-125 years ago and before, had a Cannabis Hemp patch growing. The U.S. government's cover-up of Cannabis Hemp outrages me and it should outrage you, too. I have been studying Cannabis Hemp for over 35 years, and I can't believe how the U.S. government, in 90 seconds in Congress, could outlaw "marijuana" in 1937, without the people realizing they were outlawing Cannabis Hemp, the most perfect plant for the planet! They even got other countries to outlaw it, too, after the Second World War and beyond.

From 1640 to 1940, 80% of all the world's Cannabis Hemp was grown (mostly by Cossacks, who were indentured servants), and then imported from Russia, Italy, etc.

I will again reiterate a few of the facts about Cannabis Hemp, which you may already know.

Cannabis Hemp was the 1 annually renewable natural resource for 80% of all paper, fiber, textiles and fuel, from 6,000 years ago until about 125 years ago. Furthermore, it was used for five to 50% of the food, light, land and soil reclamation, and even 10 to 30% or more of all medicine. Everyone, from the educated to the uneducated, the farmer to the townsperson, the doctors and the scientists used Cannabis Hemp products and depended on them.

From at least 100 AD to 1883, 75 to 90% of all paper was made of Cannabis Hemp. Books (including Bibles), money and newspapers all over the world have been mainly printed on Cannabis Hemp for as long as these things have existed in human history.

Speaking of Equators and Arctic Circles:
If all fossil fuel and their derivatives, as well as trees for paper and construction, were banned in order to save the planet, reverse the Greenhouse Effect and stop deforestation; then there is only one known annually renewable, natural resource that is capable of providing the overall majority of the world's paper, plastics and textiles; meet all of the world's transportation, industrial and home energy needs; provide about 30% of the world's medicines, while reducing pollution, rebuilding the soil and cleaning