I would like to urge people to support Medical Marijuana or Legalizing it. In the latest Rasmussen Poll 56% of Voters favor legalization and that number increases with each poll conducted. We spend over Ten(10) Billion dollars a year alone, against marijuana in the drug war. Over One(1) Trillion Dollars on all drugs, since the war on drugs began. Fact: More than 800,000 people are arrested for marijuana each year, the vast majority of them for simple possession. Police prosecuted 858,408 persons for marijuana violations in 2009, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s annual Uniform Crime Report. Marijuana arrests now comprise more than one-half (approximately 52 percent) of all drug arrests reported in the United States. A decade ago, marijuana arrests comprised just 44 percent of all drug arrests. Approximately 46 percent of all drug prosecutions nationwide are for marijuana possession. Of those charged with marijuana violations, approximately 88 percent (758,593 Americans) were charged with possession only. The remaining 99,815 individuals were charged with “sale/manufacture,” a category that includes virtually all cultivation offenses. Sounds like a very big costly mistake to me. What have we accomplished, nothing. It has not lowered the supply of Cannabis or demand for Cannabis. I would rather decriminalize it, regulate it and tax it, even allow people to grow “X” amount of plants for their own personal use. You cannot legislate morality. Did we not learn anything from Alcohol Prohibition? There are health benefits from marijuana, and that cigarettes and alcohol are way worse for you than marijuana. In fact cigarettes and alcohol are the “gateway drugs” not marijuana. Marijuana should not and cannot be compared to cigarettes and alcohol.

Marijuana is addictive: This myth is another one of the most widely believed myths. But before classifying marijuana as an addictive substance, we must first understand that there are two classes of addictiveness: physical addiction and psychological addiction. In order for a drug to be defined as physically addictive, it must be reinforcing, produce withdrawal symptoms, and produce tolerance.
Reinforcement: A measure of a substance's ability in human and animal tests, to get users to take it again and again, and in preference to other substances.

Withdrawal: Presence and severity of characteristic withdrawal symptoms, such as nausea, depression, pain, etc.
Tolerance: How much of the substance is needed to satisfy increasing cravings for it, and the level of stable, high need that is eventually reached
An example of a physically addictive drug is alcohol. A psychologically addictive drug is a drug that makes the user want to use the drug. In other words, a psychologically addictive drug is a drug that is habit forming. Many things are psychologically addictive, including: coffee, eating, shopping, and marijuana. Obviously, psychological addictiveness is not very serious, since many things can be defined as psychologically addictive, and in order to stop using a psychologically addictive substance, one must merely break their habit of using it. Indeed, marijuana is psychologically addictive, but is it physically addictive? Take a look at the facts:
In 1993, among Americans age 12 and over, about 34% had used marijuana sometime in their life, but only 9% had used it in the past year, 4.3% in the past month, and 2.8% in the past week.
There are 40 million people in the United States who have smoked marijuana before. Yet only 1 percent of Americans smoke marijuana on a daily basis. Most people who smoke marijuana smoke it only occasionally. If marijuana were addictive, then there would be millions of regular users, but there isn't.

On a relative scale, marijuana is less habit forming than either sugar or chocolate, but more so than anchovies.
Sociologists report that marijuana use peaks in the early adult years, but then levels off and gradually reduces in use as the person gets older.
The only evidence that proves that marijuana produces physical dependence and withdrawal in humans is a bit misleading. When human subjects were administered daily oral doses of 180-210 mg of THC, (the equivalent of 15-20 joints per day) abrupt cessation produced adverse symptoms, including disturbed sleep, restlessness, nausea, decreased appetite, and sweating. The authors interpreted these symptoms as evidence of physical dependence. They also noted that these symptoms were very mild, and would not occur if normal amounts of marijuana were consumed. Virtually no one smokes 15-20 joints per day, so these symptoms are not likely to occur. Even if they did occur, they are very mild, and are not dangerous to the user.

When humans are allowed to control consumption, even high doses of marijuana are not followed by adverse withdrawal symptoms. The only way marijuana can be deemed physically addictive is if it is used for a long period of time, and then all of a sudden discontinued. Withdrawal from coffee causes more symptoms than withdrawal from marijuana.
Unlike many other addictive drugs, marijuana wears off gradually. There is no "up" and "down" sequence as there is for drugs such as crack or heroin. Upon ceasing use, marijuana smokers experience a very gradual removal of THC from their brain receptors, which means that there is no sudden withdrawal, as there is for nicotine, etc.
THC can be compared to nicotine patches for cigarette smokers: the patch gradually decreases the nicotine being administered to the person. THC gradually decreases its effectiveness, so the person comes down from the high slowly. When you get high off of marijuana, you are not high one minute, and then completely sober the next. Since the wearing off of THC is slow, withdrawal symptoms never occur. The THC gradually withdrawals.

Marijuana is psychologically addictive, but so are a lot of things. Chocolate, gambling, video games, sex, massages, sports, shopping, soft drinks, nail biting, and watching television are all psychologically addictive. They don't create withdrawal symptoms when they are stopped, but they make the person want to keep doing it. Basically, something that is psychologically addictive is a habit. In order to cease psychological dependence, one must find other things to do instead of doing whatever their habit consists of. So if a marijuana smoker wanted to quit, they would just have to stop thinking about marijuana and find another activity to do.
A lot of people claim that psychological addictiveness to marijuana is strong, so strong that it is hard to quit. This is due to the simple fact that these people are not addicted to marijuana, they are addicted to the high. Marijuana smokers obviously enjoy getting high; this is why they smoke marijuana. But some people want to be high all the time. Of course, this is not healthy.
There are many people out there who can't control their marijuana-smoking habits. There are many people out there who can't control their eating habits or their shopping habits either. An estimated 10% of the population has "addictive" personalities, which means that they don't have very much control over themselves. These people should seek counseling, because it is not healthy if you are a person who can't stop using marijuana.

I hope that now you understand that marijuana is not addictive. If you still think that it is addictive, then go ask the 40 million people in the States who have smoked marijuana before, and you'll see that they all say the same thing: "Marijuana is not addictive; if it was, wouldn't I still be a pot-smoker right now?"
Marijuana is worse than cigarettes; one joint equals 5 cigarettes.
A lot of people say that smoking marijuana is worse for you than smoking cigarettes. This is untrue. A lot of people claim that smoking one joint is like smoking five cigarettes, yet this "fact" is very misleading. There are many facts to show that marijuana IS NOT worse than cigarettes. Take a look at the facts:

You may have heard that one joint is equal to five cigarettes, but this is exaggerated and misleading. Marijuana does contain more tar than tobacco, but tar isn't the ingredient that leads to cancer and other diseases. Low tar cigarettes cause just as much cancer as normal cigarettes.
Scientists have shown that smoking any plant is bad for your lungs, because it increases the number of `lesions' in your small airways. This usually does not threaten your life, but there is a chance it will lead to infections. Marijuana users who are worried about this can eliminate the chances of infections by eating or vaporizing marijuana. Marijuana is completely safe to eat, yet tobacco is not.
More research must be done, but as of now, there is no evidence to prove that marijuana causes cancer the way cigarettes do. No case of lung cancer resulting from marijuana use alone has ever been documented. Current research has proved that there are much more benefits to smoking marijuana than there are harms.

Marijuana smokers generally don't chain smoke, and so they smoke less. Whereas a cigarette smoker would smoke a pack a day, a marijuana smoker might have one or two joints a day. Even if marijuana was just as dangerous as tobacco, most smokers still would not be smoking as much as the tobacco smokers would be.
Tobacco contains nicotine, and marijuana doesn't. Nicotine is addictive. Nicotine may harden the arteries and may be responsible for much of the heart disease caused by tobacco. New research has found that it may also cause a lot of the cancer in tobacco smokers and people who live or work where tobacco is smoked. This is because it breaks down into a cancer causing chemical called `N Nitrosamine' when it is burned (and maybe even while it is inside the body as well.)

Marijuana contains THC, the chemical that gets you high. THC is a bronchial dilator, which means it works like a cough drop and opens up your lungs, which aids in the clearance of smoke and dirt. This is why many people who suffer from asthma find marijuana as an effective treatment to control their coughing and wheezing. Nicotine does the opposite to your lungs; it makes them bunch up and makes it harder to cough anything up. If someone with asthma smoked a cigarette, their asthma would get worse.

There are many benefits from marijuana that you don't get from tobacco. Tobacco isn't really good for anything. People smoke mainly because they are addicted. Some say that cigarettes calm them down, and help them relax. They become relaxed and calm after smoking because they have just satisfied their craving for nicotine. They would never feel relaxed after smoking if cigarettes were not addictive. Marijuana makes you relax, but not in the same way as tobacco does. The THC is what calms you down, not some addictive substance like nicotine.

Even if marijuana had the same health risks as cigarettes, a lot of those risks could be reduced, or even eliminated, if marijuana was made legal. There is no way to tell if you are getting "safe" marijuana from a dealer. It could have been sprayed with all kinds of harmful chemicals. Maybe the grower wasn't very experienced and they added way to much fertilizer, therefore making the soil toxic. By making marijuana legal, better marijuana can be grown.
Paraphernalia laws directed against marijuana users make it difficult to smoke safely. These laws make water pipes and bongs, which filter some of the carcinogens out of the smoke, illegal. This means that these filters are hard to get, so many people aren't smoking marijuana in the safest way possible.

Marijuana can be eaten, thereby reducing ALL health risks associated with smoking it. The main reason why many people don't eat marijuana is because: a) you need to consume more marijuana to get high when you eat it. Many users don't have enough money to use marijuana in this way. They smoke it because they can get more out of it this way. If marijuana were legal, people could grow there own "unlimited" amount of marijuana, and could eat it instead of smoke it. b) When you smoke marijuana, you feel the effects almost instantaneously. When you eat marijuana, you need to wait 15-30 minutes before you start feeling anything. Many people would prefer not to wait.
The bottom line is that marijuana is safe, non-addictive herb that has significant health benefits to users and society. Therefore, I am in favor of any effort to legalize it for medical or recreational and industrial use.

Uh, not to be too pesky about it, but scads of politicos have made their bones over the years precisely by legislating morality as they and their donors define morality.

You are right, they do try to legislate morality. But does it work? No, it doesn't. Do we have gang and border violence because of it? Yes, we do. Just like alcohol prohibition of the 20's. We need to learn from our mistakes.

The "problem" with eating pot is the difficulty in regulating dosage. If you eat a brownie, unless you bake you own, you don't know how potent said brownie is, or how stoned you'll be. Ever heard of someone unknowingly consuming pot while raiding another's cookie jar? Fortunately, the worst that will happen is being stoned stoopid from which you will recover soon enough.

Smoking allows one more control.

Enough please, about "legislating morality", a tired argument imo. That is a weaseley term but it does indeed work to the extent that most people will stop whatever "immoral" or illegal activity if it means keeping a job or prevailing in a custody dispute.

For what it's worth, I think pot should be legal.

Enough please, about "legislating morality", a tired argument imo. That is a weaseley term but it does indeed work to the extent that most people will stop whatever "immoral" or illegal activity if it means keeping a job or prevailing in a custody dispute.


You are entitled to your opinion.

And you, yours.

Peace 2 ya!

How does smoking allow one more control? I'm assuming you didn't mean over their life..

Incremental pipe or bong hits are different from a "load" of sugar/fat/chocolate. If you don't understand, try it, lol.

Jett713, I would ammend my comment to read "PeaceB2U".

I agree completely. Weed is the primary financial source for the cartels. If possession and cultivation were legal, this would be the single most damaging blow against the cartels we could make. The border violence is out of control, and funding for it would dry up if you could simply buy a joint at seven eleven. The funny thing I don't understand is that people think that by keeping it illegal, it helps reduce supply. Not true, supply is plenty, and plenty of people use the plant already. I'd have to pull some sources, but it was released the other day that the states that have medical laws have seen a 10% decrease in traffic fatalities. Imagine that... All the technology we have put into making cars safer, roads better, and all of the click or ticket ad campaigns, and traffic fatalities rose every year except 2010 or 2011 (further research needed to find source), and states where this "drug" can bought legally, and suddenly fewer people die in car wrecks.

That sounds awesome, but makes no sense to be honest. So.. legalization = lower car accidents, and hurting the cartels is somehow involved? How is medical cannabis helping lower car accidents? I thought marijuana wasn't supposed to affect driving ability much according to the scientists? How do the drug cartels have anything to do with this? I understand the link between weed, cartels, legalization, and hurting the cartels - but car accidents? Are the cartels, by way of peddling weed, also responsible for the economy, the bad weather in Virginia, and City Hall's incompetence?


Incremental pipe or bong hits are different from a "load" of sugar/fat/chocolate. If you don't understand, try it, lol.

Jett713, I would ammend my comment to read "PeaceB2U".

I actually have a job to worry about, unlike "you people," not to project or anything (or then I'd just say, "drink beer like a real man" jk). I also support legalization especially to better concentrate limited public safety resources to make cities safe again. I think that's your argument, and I don't think talking about the best ways to get sky high helps that argument. I'd take a page out of Obama's book..getting the Dream Act essentially enacted by arguing better use of public safety resources, because arguing for the Dream Act itself was harder due to political grandstanding on the issue. I think this should almost become a rule of politics for any issues that necessitate by-passing some heavy political grandstanding.

I wonder what will be legalized first in Oklahoma - marijuana or same sex marriage? I would guess marijuana, since people get more emotional against the idea of legalizing same sex marriage. Whichever, I don't think the two will be far apart time wise in getting legalized. Oklahoma people get emotionally upset toward the idea of legalizing marijuana, too, even if only for medical marijuana.

i would guess neither ..

I wonder what will be legalized first in Oklahoma - marijuana or same sex marriage? I would guess marijuana, since people get more emotional against the idea of legalizing same sex marriage. Whichever, I don't think the two will be far apart time wise in getting legalized. Oklahoma people get emotionally upset toward the idea of legalizing marijuana, too, even if only for medical marijuana.

I'm going to go with marijuana. I know a lot of country boys and girls that like their smoke. We have to many Sally Kerns thumping the anti-gay drum for that to make much traction.

I would probably say 3 out of every 5 people I know do actively participate in smoking marijuana. Some of those are professionals as well. I don't see it as any different than someone who comes home after work and has a few drinks, our grandparents drank after work and now the parents are getting off work and lighting up. No difference in my book.

Colombia decriminalizes cocaine, marijuan - June 30, 2012 (http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/colombia/120630/colombia-decriminalizes-cocaine-marijuana)

Colombia has decriminalized cocaine and marijuana, saying that people cannot be jailed for possessing the drugs for personal use.



And, here's a side of Rick Steves not seen on OETA:

MLQJfj7wq8s

Travel writer Rick Steves compares European drug policies to those of the United States, and calls for comprehensive reform of laws restricting use of soft drugs like marijuana. "There's not a reservoir of people just wishing they could ruin their lives with drugs if only it was legal," says Steves.

I gave up drinking for smoking some time ago(got tired of waking up on the side of the road or starting fights with family). Ever since I made the switch my anger went from a big issue to not one at all even when I don't smoke it for a few days. I would rather be on the road with a high driver than a drunk driver the high driver might break 30 MPH in a 40 and slow down traffic but its way better than than a drunk fling at 60 MPH in a 40 crossing 3 lanes of traffic unknowingly. It would also reduce violent crime as the only violence that comes of maijuana is cause it is illegal.

Think about the instant releif to government bugets if we were to legalize marijuana and release all persons imprisoned due to simple possesion we would have lots more space for car theives rapist robbers and murderers. Then the government can tax the hell out of it like they do cigerettes and alcohol. The feds could use their portion to shore up social security and medicare, Oklahoma could use the revenues to restore the captial building and complete the indian arts center, Oklahoma City could use their portion to dive head first into a larger streetcar project then use funds thereafter to to fund operating costs for ALL MAPS projects.

Right now all that money that could be put to use in extremely beneficial ways to improve americans quality of life without costing most americans a dime. We would create jobs, tax revenues, relieve prison overcrowding, improve public safety, and people would not lose good jobs just because the choose to smoke a joint on their own time. We can do all of this and the only cost will be to the drug cartels that are dragging mexico into a drug war it cannot win causing more of the people from mexico to cross our border illegally for fear of their safety.

i would guess neither ..

Maybe they said that about alcohol and casinos in Oklahoma.

Think about the instant releif to government bugets if we were to legalize marijuana and release all persons imprisoned due to simple possesion we would have lots more space for car theives rapist robbers and murderers.


Not many people are in prison over possession of marijuana charges alone. They're in there for having other charges tacked on such as intent to distribute or for having a gun.

That sounds awesome, but makes no sense to be honest. So.. legalization = lower car accidents, and hurting the cartels is somehow involved? How is medical cannabis helping lower car accidents? I thought marijuana wasn't supposed to affect driving ability much according to the scientists? How do the drug cartels have anything to do with this? I understand the link between weed, cartels, legalization, and hurting the cartels - but car accidents? Are the cartels, by way of peddling weed, also responsible for the economy, the bad weather in Virginia, and City Hall's incompetence?


The reduction of car accidents doesn't have anything to do with the cartels. From what I've heard, researchers have found weed to be basically a substitute to alcohol for a lot of people, and it's. Even shown that drivers are usually safer high than drunk. Therefore wrecks have decreased in states that allow weed. I may stretching what I've heard but I think this is the gist of it.

in general i am against the legalization of cannabis .. however from a practical standpoint .. we should decriminalize small amount (1 ounce or under) possession make it a fine and have the drugs taken....

I would probably say 3 out of every 5 people I know do actively participate in smoking marijuana. Some of those are professionals as well. I don't see it as any different than someone who comes home after work and has a few drinks, our grandparents drank after work and now the parents are getting off work and lighting up. No difference in my book.

I'd say you run with a pretty high pot smoking crowd. In my experience, pot smokers tend to hang out with other pot smokers but there are plenty of large groups that don't have that even on their radar - even if they smoked as a kid.

I would rather be on the road with a high driver than a drunk driver the high driver might break 30 MPH in a 40 and slow down traffic but its way better than than a drunk fling at 60 MPH in a 40 crossing 3 lanes of traffic unknowingly.

I'd rather not be on the road with either, actually.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/125021-differences-between-smoking-cigarettes-/

A lot of people concentrate on the problems of addiction and driving while impaired. They also compare smoking pot vs. drinking alchohol. I think a closer approximation would be comparing smoking pot to smoking cigarettes. Smoking pot has quite a few health problems but we don't talk about them much. And before someone says that cigarettes are worse for you than pot, I have to point out, without really getting into the weeds of the argument, that neither one is harmless. If you'd hate to see a loved one ruin their lungs with cigarettes, I doubt it would be any less painful to see them do it with pot. If you don't smoke cigarettes because you know it's stupid, you might want to think about what pot can do to your lungs and health, too.

I'd say you run with a pretty high pot smoking crowd. In my experience, pot smokers tend to hang out with other pot smokers but there are plenty of large groups that don't have that even on their radar - even if they smoked as a kid.

I agree with you. Out of my friends and acquaintances, I know of 2 that definitely smoke a lot, and another couple that I imagine do here and there. Most of the rest are like me, did it as a teenager and into early adulthood but put it away as they got older. The risks to career and life are higher than acceptable for a recreational activity for me, especially in a state like OK with overly harsh penalties for it.

Were it legal(And I didn't work for a government contractor with some insane rules), I'd probably smoke some with the same frequency I drink-Once or twice a month, maybe.

Edit: There are other ways of using pot without smoking it. I know vaporizers exist for THC as well as nicotine, and there are always brownies as well.

From all the research I have read. Cannabis is much safer then Alcohol or cigarettes. Any matter that is burned and inhaled will cause some damage. If you are concerned with damage you can use a vaporizer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporizer_%28cannabis%29

Cannabis is not linked to causing cancer only the potential for. But, Donald Tashkin, M.D., professor of medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA in Los Angeles, has found that marijuana use is not linked to an increase in lung, head or neck cancers. Tashkin surmises that this is due to a chemical within marijuana that kills off cells before they become cancerous. Here is another article from the Scientific American .

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=large-study-finds-no-link

No matter how you feel about legalization. Prohibition does not work. Here is very good article written by Pete Guither at http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/why-is-marijuana-illegal/ Why is Marijuana Illegal. He pretty much sums it all up.

So, jett . . . are you, like, going for your masters degree in education trying out your thesis/theory in here?
(if so, screaming yellow zonkers make a great snack. even the cartoons on the box are funny. or used to be. the irony is that the Quaker Oats Company makes them! at least they did back in the late-60's to early-70's. the comedy album "a child's garden of grass" warning us about listening to accordion music, jimi hendrix "axis bold as love" and "sympathy for the devil" by the stones makes for interesting "ambiance music".)

Nope, just a lifelong Okie. Trying to bring Oklahoma into the 21st Century one person at a time. The likes of Sally Kern, Mary Fallin, Jim Inhofe and others does not do a body good. These folks make me want to :banghead:

There you go, making it a partisan issue again:sheep:

Liberals don't own this, not even close.

Bosco, I am not making this a partisan issue. I was stating my opinion on the likes of Sally Kern et al too RadicalModerate. I don't recall making this a partisan issue anywhere in this topic. So don't go jumping down my throat and accusing me of it otherwise.

The reduction of car accidents doesn't have anything to do with the cartels. From what I've heard, researchers have found weed to be basically a substitute to alcohol for a lot of people, and it's. Even shown that drivers are usually safer high than drunk. Therefore wrecks have decreased in states that allow weed. I may stretching what I've heard but I think this is the gist of it.

Ah, ok - that sounds like a cogent argument, I'll accept that.

If pot is to be legalized, I can live with it but do it out in the open. Colorado, where I live, has one of the sham laws making it legal to get "medical" pot. It's amazing how 90% of those who have medical pot licenses where pot can be bought legally are males between the ages of 20 and 35. It you're going to legalize it, legalize it.

Okay 13, I was out of turn to suggest you were partisan. The whole Sally Kern thing and "legislating morality" just stinks, and I jump to conclusions. Stereotyping can be rude.

I do want to commend you for including recreational use in the thread title. Far too long, the movement folks have hidden behind the skirts of medical marijuana.

I tolerate Sally Kern, gay marriage, and pot. Why can't we all just get-a-bong?

If pot is to be legalized, I can live with it but do it out in the open. Colorado, where I live, has one of the sham laws making it legal to get "medical" pot. It's amazing how 90% of those who have medical pot licenses where pot can be bought legally are males between the ages of 20 and 35. It you're going to legalize it, legalize it.

I heard that's going to be on the ballot this fall for Colorado.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfiaC-2K1LM

I'm in favor of full legalization and taxation on the sale of pot, for reasons stated above. I also believe people should be able to grow a small amount for personal use.

Personally, I don't smoke it any more but if it were legal I might take a couple of hits before going to see a concert or something.

I would be interested to hear someone from law enforcement add to the discussion. It's been my theory for some time that LE wants to keep it illegal because they get lots of nice toys to use and federal money to go after it.

However, street cops would probably just as soon it be legalized or decriminalized.

I'm no libertarian though: I think we should keep meth, coke and other hard drugs illegal.

The biggest beef I have with our system is that we treat drug addiction as more of a criminal issue than a health issue. It's a lot cheaper to send someone to Betty Ford than it is to lock them up.

... Why can't we all just get-a-bong?

Credit where credit is due. That provided a right decent chuckle.

Bosco, I am not making this a partisan issue. I was stating my opinion on the likes of Sally Kern et al too RadicalModerate. I don't recall making this a partisan issue anywhere in this topic. So don't go jumping down my throat and accusing me of it otherwise.

it would help if you mentioned a couple from the other party in your examples...

I'm no libertarian though: I think we should keep meth, coke and other hard drugs illegal.


I'm 100% for the full legalization of Cannabis and naturally occurring psychedelics. I think that the really hard stuff, synthetics and so forth, should be addressed case-by-case, and in the case of drugs like meth, it shouldn't be a criminal penalty to possess, but should come with mandatory treatment. I've never done the latter, but I've known many people who got sucked in and had their lives ruined by its use. It's not a criminal act, it's a serious illness that requires serious attention to resolve. So I would definitely maintain a restriction on meth use, but I wouldn't lock up users. I'd rather assist them in remitting their addiction.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/125021-differences-between-smoking-cigarettes-/

A lot of people concentrate on the problems of addiction and driving while impaired. They also compare smoking pot vs. drinking alchohol. I think a closer approximation would be comparing smoking pot to smoking cigarettes. Smoking pot has quite a few health problems but we don't talk about them much. And before someone says that cigarettes are worse for you than pot, I have to point out, without really getting into the weeds of the argument, that neither one is harmless. If you'd hate to see a loved one ruin their lungs with cigarettes, I doubt it would be any less painful to see them do it with pot. If you don't smoke cigarettes because you know it's stupid, you might want to think about what pot can do to your lungs and health, too.
The legal federal medical marijuana patients who have smoked up to 300 joints a month for decades can easily tell you how wrong you are about your fear that smoking pot has quite a few health problems. But it's obvious that you're quite unaware that a renowned doctor tried for years to demonstrate that smoking pot causes lung cancer, only to fail in doing so. This doctor no longer opposes legalizing marijuana. Probably the worst that can happen to most pot smokers is to come down with bronchitis. This health problem is easily cured by stop smoking and seeing a doctor. Too bad it isn't that simple when it comes to cancer and smoking tobacco. Yet, look what's still legal--tobacco. I wonder if the government is still helping tobacco farmers with subsidies for crop insurance? It amazing how it seems that so many people live and thrive on hypocrisy.

No matter how you feel about legalization. Prohibition does not work. Here is very good article written by Pete Guither at http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/why-is-marijuana-illegal/ Why is Marijuana Illegal. He pretty much sums it all up.
That is surely one of the best and most important articles on the Internet, highlighting the nonsense behind cannabis prohibition.

I think corporate fears that fought to ban hemp are now outdated, though, since hemp doesn't play a dominating industrial role where it is legal, such as in China. Still, hemp should be legalized in the USA, so as to give hemp promoters a chance to prove how it can benefit the world in so many ways. Hemp might be a good crop for tobacco farmers to turn to.

Ah, ok - that sounds like a cogent argument, I'll accept that.

I hope plenty of people have better sense to drink AND smoke pot at the same time and then try to drive. Imagine trying to drive while seeing in doubles and high.

It's none of the governments business if you smoke pot or not.

it would help if you mentioned a couple from the other party in your examples...

I agree in principle, but who? Which Democrats are ranting and raving about keeping pot illegal? I would guess that the two or three people on this thread who seem opposed to the idea of legalization are Repubs, based on their posting history here. It was the 'Pubs that initiated the "war on drugs." It was the 'Pubs who brought mandatory minimum sentencing to our legal system. I'm all for being nonpartisan and such, but I don't see a lot of elected Republican officials promoting any kind of cannabis legalization -- even of the medical variety.

I agree in principle, but who? Which Democrats are ranting and raving about keeping pot illegal? I would guess that the two or three people on this thread who seem opposed to the idea of legalization are Repubs, based on their posting history here. It was the 'Pubs that initiated the "war on drugs." It was the 'Pubs who brought mandatory minimum sentencing to our legal system. I'm all for being nonpartisan and such, but I don't see a lot of elected Republican officials promoting any kind of cannabis legalization -- even of the medical variety.

True, Nixon, a Republican started the war on marijuana by not listening to a commission he created that advised, otherwise. But the Democrats at the State Capitol surely had most everything to do with instituting Okahoma's insane anti-marijuana laws during the many years they were in charge of the senate and house. These days Democrats say they can't do anything about their mistake in creating those marijuana laws, because the Republicans are in charge. It's up to Okahoma citizens to do something about it. Arkansas is trying to do something about it by getting any signatures on a petition to bring legalizing medical marijuana up for a vote. It only has until Friday to do it. If Arkansas doesn't get a petition together, I don't see how Oklahoma can.

Sorry to be a pessimist, but you'd likely have a far better chance of turning all 77 counties wet, lowering the age for wine and strong beer to age 16, and make both available to the 16 and up crowd at below wholesale prices through every grocer and convenience store in the state.

Not saying it oughta be that way or not, only that's pretty much how it is.

Sorry to be a pessimist, but you'd likely have a far better chance of turning all 77 counties wet, lowering the age for wine and strong beer to age 16, and make both available to the 16 and up crowd at below wholesale prices through every grocer and convenience store in the state.

Not saying it oughta be that way or not, only that's pretty much how it is.

Ha, I sense there is more interest in allowing sales of wines in grocery stores than in lowering the drinking age and legalizing marijuana combined.

I wonder what will be legalized first in Oklahoma - marijuana or same sex marriage? I would guess marijuana, since people get more emotional against the idea of legalizing same sex marriage. Whichever, I don't think the two will be far apart time wise in getting legalized. Oklahoma people get emotionally upset toward the idea of legalizing marijuana, too, even if only for medical marijuana.

Same sex marriage will probably beat it by a decade IMO. But let's be honest..anyone who thinks either of those trends can actually be stopped isn't really living in the real world.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/125021-differences-between-smoking-cigarettes-/

A lot of people concentrate on the problems of addiction and driving while impaired. They also compare smoking pot vs. drinking alchohol. I think a closer approximation would be comparing smoking pot to smoking cigarettes. Smoking pot has quite a few health problems but we don't talk about them much. And before someone says that cigarettes are worse for you than pot, I have to point out, without really getting into the weeds of the argument, that neither one is harmless. If you'd hate to see a loved one ruin their lungs with cigarettes, I doubt it would be any less painful to see them do it with pot. If you don't smoke cigarettes because you know it's stupid, you might want to think about what pot can do to your lungs and health, too.

Casual marijuana use is not a huge threat to the lungs like tobacco typically is. The volume of smoke taken in just isn't typically high enough. I would be more worried about the unknowns in long term brain development. THC is many times more active around nervous tissue than nicotine is. All of my friends who were smokers of either tobacco or marijuana have given it up now, but if anyone of me took the habit back up the tobacco use would concern me more.

I agree in p. rinciple, but who? Which Democrats are ranting and raving about keeping pot illegal? I would guess that the two or three people on this thread who seem opposed to the idea of legalization are Repubs, based on their posting history here. It was the 'Pubs that initiated the "war on drugs." It was the 'Pubs who brought mandatory minimum sentencing to our legal system. I'm all for being nonpartisan and such, but I don't see a lot of elected Republican officials promoting any kind of cannabis legalization -- even of the medical variety.

"Raving", perhaps not -- but, Councilman Dr. Ed Shadid, purveyor & slinger of synthetic narcotics, is quite opposed to medicinal & recreational marijuana use. Don't take my word for it though, drop a dime -- he's happy to discuss the issue.

"Raving", perhaps not -- but, Councilman Dr. Ed Shadid, purveyor & slinger of synthetic narcotics, is quite opposed to medicinal & recreational marijuana use. Don't take my word for it though, drop a dime -- he's happy to discuss the issue.

So, maybe Shadid would love to see tobacco and alcohol banned.

It's a win-win for everyone to legalize it. It can be a major commodity crop to help farmers. The government can tax it. Cafe shops can sell it as a edible "magic brownie" (cookie) or joint. It's less harmful than alcohol. It can be used as a medical aid. There's tons of things you can make with hemp.

LEGALIZE IT ALREADY!

It's a win-win for everyone to legalize it. It can be a major commodity crop to help farmers. The government can tax it. Cafe shops can sell it as a edible "magic brownie" (cookie) or joint. It's less harmful than alcohol. It can be used as a medical aid. There's tons of things you can make with hemp.

LEGALIZE IT ALREADY!
Ha, ha, try telling that to an Oklahoma Republican legislator. To name one of them--former OSU president and now State Senator Jim Haligan. He won't even support so much as legalizing medical marijuana, because he's afraid it's a gateway drug. But that notion has been largely discredited. If true, there would be a lot more people using harder drugs, such as heroin and cocaine.

I agree in p. rinciple, but who? Which Democrats are ranting and raving about keeping pot illegal? I would guess that the two or three people on this thread who seem opposed to the idea of legalization are Repubs, based on their posting history here. It was the 'Pubs that initiated the "war on drugs." It was the 'Pubs who brought mandatory minimum sentencing to our legal system. I'm all for being nonpartisan and such, but I don't see a lot of elected Republican officials promoting any kind of cannabis legalization -- even of the medical variety.


I would be interested to hear someone from law enforcement add to the discussion. It's been my theory for some time that LE wants to keep it illegal because they get lots of nice toys to use and federal money to go after it.




"Raving", perhaps not -- but, Councilman Dr. Ed Shadid, purveyor & slinger of synthetic narcotics, is quite opposed to medicinal & recreational marijuana use. Don't take my word for it though, drop a dime -- he's happy to discuss the issue.



kFgrB2Wmh5s

"Okay. Your agency [DEA] has established abuse of prescription drugs as its top priority, you've indicated as much to us. Does that mean that abuse of prescription drugs is a greater threat to the public health than marijuana?"

June 20, 2012



So, maybe Shadid would love to see tobacco and alcohol banned.

He's not the only democrat...

In Making Case For Drug Prohibition, Obama Administration Claims Alcohol Prohibition Worked - June 23, 2012 (http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/in-making-case-for-drug-prohibition-obama-administration-claims-alcohol-prohibition-worked/?utm_source=Say+Anything+Email+List&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=dbd97528e1-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN)

If history doesn’t support your agenda, then change history. That’s how the Soviets did it.

I don't see how legalizing another impairing substance is a plus for individuals or society. Quantifying impairment is an altogether more difficult issue to legislate and enforce.

The legal threshold for a DUI in Oklahoma is - I believe - 0.08%. For a pilot to operate an aircraft, the FAA has its "eight hour bottle-to-throttle" rule. Both are measurable. But how much pot is that? What strength? What if he consumes __ alcohol + __ pot. How does the motorist/pilot know how much is too much? How can authorities measure it? Whole new can of worms.

I don't see how legalizing another impairing substance is a plus for individuals or society. Quantifying impairment is an altogether more difficult issue to legislate and enforce.

The legal threshold for a DUI in Oklahoma is - I believe - 0.08%. For a pilot to operate an aircraft, the FAA has its "eight hour bottle-to-throttle" rule. Both are measurable. But how much pot is that? What strength? What if he consumes __ alcohol + __ pot. How does the motorist/pilot know how much is too much? How can authorities measure it? Whole new can of worms.

I thought I heard in Colorado that they were in the process of coming up with a level of THC in the blood system that they would consider someone to be impaired.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/05/boy-eats-grandmothers-pot-cookies_n_1651922.html


A 3-year-old boy slept for three days after accidentally eating his grandmother's pot-laced cookies.

But wait, it gets better…it was medical marijuana

The indica incident happened Friday night in Murrieta, Calif. Authorities said the grandmother, who has been diagnosed with cancer, had a doctor’s recommendation for marijuana to treat her pain and to help her sleep.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/05/boy-eats-grandmothers-pot-cookies_n_1651922.html


But wait, it gets better…it was medical marijuana

Probably a good thing the child didn't find grandma's pills, either -- just might've killed him.

I recently read an article on Doug Dawg's blog written by Jim Kyle regarding how Governor Edmondson came into office to both enforce and end prohibition in Oklahoma. I don't mean to draw Doug or Jim into this discussion, but the article is good to read. I was struck by the similarities in the way that prohibition was enforced and the way our current "war on drugs" is being conducted. I don't know if I'm ready to abandon my current opinion about the matter, but it's easy to see that the current "war on drugs" ain't workin'. Maybe we need to take a serious look at what we want to call dangerous (cigarettes? alcohol? marijuana?) and whether it needs to be made completely illegal or simply controlled. I look at some in my family and see their life is hopelessly ruined and I've always blamed drugs, but to be sure, they are also digging deeper holes for themselves with (or have died from) alcohol and cigarettes. I can hardly say that marijuana or other drugs were the sole problem. Maybe some people are simply wired for addiction, and too much of anything is a bad thing. I don't know. In light of the points made above, I would say that we're well on our way to not solving a damned thing and we need to re-examine what the goal is and how to get there.

The 40 + year war on drugs has failed. The lose of lives in Mexico now over 50,000 is approaching the number America lost in the Vietnam war. It is time to look at alternatives. It is time to legalize marijuana.

By my conservative estimate Oklahoma could generate over 50 million a year in taxes by legalizing marijuana.

Here is how I came up with that number. My estimate is based on a state population of 3.5m with 6% of that population being marijuana users. That would equate to 210,000 users if those 210,000 users were spending $100. a month on marijuana that is monthly sales of 21 million a month. A 20% tax rate would thus return 4.2m a month to the state for a total of 50.4million a year.

The 50.4million in taxes would be the most obivous benefit but what about the impact that local growers would have on our state. Because if you have an agriculture product that has 252 million in annual retail sales, why would you want to import that from another state or country when it could be grown locally.

It is time to legalize marijuana.

I recently read an article on Doug Dawg's blog written by Jim Kyle regarding how Governor Edmondson came into office to both enforce and end prohibition in Oklahoma. I don't mean to draw Doug or Jim into this discussion, but the article is good to read.You didn't draw me in; I've been lurking on this thread since it began. The big difference between the "war on drugs" and Joe Cannon's enforcement of our state's prohibition laws is that Cannon enforced the law across the board with special emphasis on the "movers and shakers" of our society, such as the Petroleum Club, the Beacon Club, and Dick Dolph's hangout for the legislators and lobbyists. Our current "war" on drugs applies only to the "lower" elements of our society, who are least able to defend themselves.

In my reporting days, I briefly experimented with stay-awake pills such as dexedrine, which were very close relatives to what we now know as meth. I never used them to get high, merely to stay awake and reasonably alert so that I could function at both my day job and my moonlighting -- and I cut them off cold turkey after becoming aware that the physical abuse they enabled was having bad effects on my health. Nevertheless, while I was using them, my source of supply was a friendly pharmacist (now deceased) who didn't require a prescription to dispense them, and who gave them to me at his cost.

I have no doubt that similar situations still exist, in addition to the physicians who write prescriptions in wholesale lots, and this is a large part of the reason that abuse of prescription drugs is one of our major drug problems today. If anyone in a position to do so would adopt the Edmondson-Cannon approach and fully enforce existing drug law, across the board but with emphasis on the movers and shakers involved, I think we would see a most significant shift in public opinion.

Of course, nothing is going to stop the hysterical from continuing to scream about "gateway drugs" -- but establishing and then enforcing prohibition rules against all physically addicting substances, specifically against tobacco, would go a long way toward drowning out their cries. (And I was a heavy smoker for 40 years; I was fortunate enough to escape physical addiction to it but did witness its effect on someone very close to my heart!)