Advertisement

Archive for Monday, October 19, 2009

Medical marijuana policy issued

October 19, 2009

Advertisement

— The Obama administration will not seek to arrest medical marijuana users and suppliers as long as they conform to state laws, under new policy guidelines to be sent to federal prosecutors today.

Two Justice Department officials described the new policy to The Associated Press, saying prosecutors will be told it is not a good use of their time to arrest people who use or provide medical marijuana in strict compliance with state laws.

The new policy is a significant departure from the Bush administration, which insisted it would continue to enforce federal anti-pot laws regardless of state codes.

Fourteen states allow some use of marijuana for medical purposes: Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

California is unique among those for the widespread presence of dispensaries — businesses that sell marijuana and even advertise their services.

Comments

Practicality 5 years, 3 months ago

And so it begins.

The Medical Marijuana farce is just the beginning. The vast majority of Medical Marijuana users are just people who want to get 'high' without any medical need for smoking marijuana except that they want to. Lax drug laws leads to an increase in use. Alcohol is the number one abused substance in America, and that is a direct result of it being a legal substance. People are stupid enough in this country. We do not need more legal substances to make them more stupid.

Flap Doodle 5 years, 3 months ago

Smoke 'em if you got 'em. I wonder if Dear Leader is also planning to legalize his favorite nose candy?

gr 5 years, 3 months ago

"Quite truthfully, we're all going to need be out of it to handle much more of this administration and congress."

Do you think that may be the plan?

Practicality 5 years, 3 months ago

Smitty,

People have and do abuse current prescription drugs. But, there is a legitimate medical reason to prescribe those drugs, unlike Marijuana. And please, do not bother posting a bunch of links that show some phony scientific research. I have already read them. There is a synthetic drug that does the same thing yet won't get people high. Of course, that defeats the purpose for 99.9% of the phony medical marijuana users, so they do not want that.

1029 5 years, 3 months ago

The liberals' plan--drawn up by Soros and the far-left liberal blogosphere with the help of Pelosi and Reid--is to get everyone so high that they won't even notice when the socialism takes over.

gr 5 years, 3 months ago

"But, there is a legitimate medical reason to prescribe those drugs, unlike Marijuana."

Ohhhh, I don't know if there is a "medical" reason, but there is a reason to prescribe them.

"There is a synthetic drug that does the same thing yet won't get people high. Of course, that defeats the purpose for 99.9% of the phony medical marijuana users, so they do not want that."

Would this be comparable to saying that there are health benefits to red wine, which have nothing to do with alcohol, but if you take out the alcohol, that would defeat the purpose of the "recipe" users?

RiverCityConservative 5 years, 3 months ago

This is not a "farce," in my opinion. Think of all the time and money that has literally been wasted on pursuing marijuana use as if it were primarily a criminal rather than a mental health issue. The drug laws have inadvertently pushed marijuana use into the realm of criminal activity, and these laws have been responsible for inducing organized crime involvement in the marijuana trade. Medical marijuana is a humane use of a plant that has many positive health benefits and is far less addictive or harmful than alcohol and nicotine. It has been hard to raise this issue and for rational voices to be heard above the din of drug war and anti-marijuana rhetoric, especially since that rhetoric is nearly as effective as "war on terror" rhetoric for getting politicians elected in a number of places. We need to stop declaring war on everything. Just look with an open mind at the benefits and costs to society, and we can begin to see a middle way on addressing marijuana separately from things like crack and whatever else comes down the "pipeline." I believe the Obama administration has taken an important first step in outlining the new policy today. This is further evidence that it makes a positive difference when you vote for an intelligent person to be president (and the votes are actually counted, as they were in this case, thank goodness).

ferrislives 5 years, 3 months ago

So are those against this now saying that they are in fact against states rights? You can't have it both ways.

headdoctor 5 years, 3 months ago

1029 (Anonymous) says… The liberals' plan—drawn up by Soros and the far-left liberal blogosphere with the help of Pelosi and Reid—is to get everyone so high that they won't even notice when the socialism takes over.


Really?, really? How about ye Republicans without sin of Socialism cast the first stone? What? No stones thrown? I thought not. Just rants.

I will ask the same of you that I did Shewmon only I will qualify it a bit more because I had to keep it simple for him. To maintain our standard of living with the population we have, and the economic principles we work with, how do you propose to eliminate Socialism without bringing the whole Country and a good share of the world to its knees? People think they are over taxed now, just think what it would cost individuals to live if we all paid out of pocket for the services and lifestyles we have.

Since I doubt you will give an answer of any substance I will prime you up with some ideas. Socialism touches various parts of our lives everyday in some form or another. In a few years we would be back to the horse and buggy days. No Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. No public works for roads, infrastructure, or clean water. Public schools and sports activities would be a joke. Some products and services wouldn't even exist because no one could afford to pay them enough to stay in business such as many types of transportation, airlines, railroad, etc. Much of what you and your family rely on today would only be provided based on what you and them could do yourself. A very noble idea but if you really think about it, not very practical. If this is what you want then please by all means go for it. I really doubt if real thought is given there will not be to many takers.

ferrislives 5 years, 3 months ago

prospector, deathpenaltyliberal, TheGreatSantini: I absolutely agree, it's a good day for states rights.

And to those that disagree, I guess we now know where you truly stand on states rights. For you, it depends on the subject.

bookemdano 5 years, 3 months ago

Now this is an interesting comment string. Instead of the libs vs. cons it's the neo/nanny state cons vs. the libs/libertarians.

Finally something different for a change!

Boosh 5 years, 3 months ago

Just don't mix your booze and pot cause that's one of the most powerful highs. Yes, personal experience.

Alexander Neighbors 5 years, 3 months ago

Medical Cards are good things ! marijuana help alleviate pain and its way less harmful than Oxycontin or morphine. When was the last time you saw a medical marijuana patient have to go to rehab after they were cured ?

Alexander Neighbors 5 years, 3 months ago

well if the state Taxed it they would be sitting on a gold mine, Hell even if lawrence in acted an ordnance legalizing it and Taxing it there would not be such a budget short fall there is currently.

alm77 5 years, 3 months ago

So the government giving people the freedom to do what they want is getting criticism from the right? I am so confused...

staff04 5 years, 3 months ago

"People are stupid enough in this country"

9 out of the first 10 posts confirm this.

jonas_opines 5 years, 3 months ago

"And please, do not bother posting a bunch of links that show some phony scientific research. . . . Of course, that defeats the purpose for 99.9% of the phony medical marijuana users, so they do not want that."

So, since you eschew scientific research, can we safely assume that you came up with your figure of 99.9% using old-fashioned intuition and your viewpoint of the way you want the world to be?

Very. . . practical of you.

Cooky_the_Cook 5 years, 3 months ago

Practicality (Anonymous) says…

“There is a synthetic drug that does the same thing yet won't get people high. Of course, that defeats the purpose for 99.9% of the phony medical marijuana users, so they do not want that.”

Cooky says...

Your claim is false. The synthetic drug Marinol is a THC pill that does get people high. Marijuana users don't like Marinol because it is no fun to smoke.

kmat 5 years, 3 months ago

I am floored to see Tom agrees with the libs for a change. I will take back some of my criticisms of you based on your libertarian stance on this issue. :-)

Practicality 5 years, 3 months ago

Jonas,

You are right that the 99.9% figure is one that I came up with on my own. It was an obvious exaggeration, not based on any hard data, to point out the obvious fact that the VAST majority of Medical Marijuana users do not have a medical need to use Marijuana. I apologize if that wasn't obvious enough for you, although I think it was given your sarcastic posting history.

If a cancer patient, who after undergoing chemo is experiencing Nausea and Vomiting which the other medication isn't controlling, wants to smoke Marijuana because it helps them with this symptom, so be it. (Although Synthetic Marijuana works just as well) I could really care less and they have enough problems to contend with. MOST everyone else, as I am sure you already know but now want to feign stupidity, smoke it for the joy of smoking it. The Medical Marijuana guise is just another attempt to try and legalize Marijuana. You know this, I know this, and as idiotic as most posters on here are, they know this as well. Let us try and be honest about this so we can have a sensible discussion.

Practicality 5 years, 3 months ago

Drugs usually fall under federal authority, so I do not quite grasp the entire 'states rights' statements. Even so, most people in Lawrence are entirely delusional if they think that the rest of the state will ever vote to legalize Marijuana. The little island of insanity which makes up Lawrence is largely alone on this issue throughout the rest of the state, as it is with most issues.

Alexander Neighbors 5 years, 3 months ago

the difference between synthetic and natural Marijuana is rich white people can produce the synthetic and it makes them money.....

the Natural Marijuana can be made by anyone and the elites dont make any money from it...

http://norml.org/

ferrislives 5 years, 3 months ago

Practicality says "Drugs usually fall under federal authority, so I do not quite grasp the entire 'states rights' statements."

That is true. But for those who believe such issues are up to the states, this is a victory.

How many times have we seen people strongly argue for states rights until it comes to abortion, gay marriage, medical marijuana, and so on. That's the point that was made.

Concerning the people using medical marijuana, I'm not going to pretend to know that 99.9 percent of people are using it one way or the other, because I am not God. I think that it would be wise to do further research on that fact before making such conclusions though. I did know someone that died of cancer after a long battle, and although she came from a conservative family, I'm sure they would have (and may have) considered it during her last few years. You never know until you are in their shoes. Never assume, it's not practical.

Practicality 5 years, 3 months ago

Either way, I am thankful we are in Kansas. This statement from the DOJ only applies to the 14 states where Medical Marijuana is legal. Which, thankfully, Kansas isn't in that much danger of becoming. So count me in the States Right category with the rest of you.

ferrislives 5 years, 3 months ago

Practicality, just curious, will you still be for states rights if Kansas does decide to make medical marijuana legal?

Practicality 5 years, 3 months ago

I respect and follow the laws of our nation. I do not pick and choose which laws to abide based on momentary, personal convenience. Can you say the same ferris?

Stuart Evans 5 years, 3 months ago

Practicality, are you on here again? you never did answer my question as to why marijuana was made illegal in the first place. Can you tell me how many people marijuana is directly attributed to killing in its entire history (note, that goes back well over 5,000 years). I'll save you some time, Zero. marijuana has never been a sole contributing factor in one single death. Marijuana possession was first criminalized in the 1930's as part of the 1937 marihuana tax act, in an attempt to scare off Mexicans who were consorting with the white girls. In fact, the laws behind marijuana have very little to do with the actual high that you can get. One widespread belief is that the DuPont company was behind legislation to shut down industrial hemp production because it would compete directly with the new found chemical compounds created by DuPont. Can you imagine, a government outlawing something in order to benefit a corporation? unheard of, right? Well, in the 1970's, Nixon had a special study done, and the outcome was 100% in favor of decriminalization or legalization. He chose to ignore the results of that study and thus began the modern war on drugs.

In recent years, the alcohol, tobacco and pharmaceutical companies have lobbied successfully to keep marijuana illegal, as it is a direct threat to all three, and without killing anyone. Amazing. So practicality, please tell me, why is it worth spending more than $10 Billion dollars per year to arrest 840,000 Americans for using a plant that has never killed anyone?
Please let me know if you have any more questions. I've actually done my homework on the subject.

ferrislives 5 years, 3 months ago

Yes I do follow the laws practicality, moral and legal. I do not smoke dope, although I enjoy a good drink from time to time. But I believe in each state's right to make up their own laws regarding its use.

You can choose to be self-righteous in you want to, but I believe in being realistic instead. Good day.

Stuart Evans 5 years, 3 months ago

during prohibition of alcohol, most everyone continue to drink, albeit illegally. The government finally came to its senses and repealed prohibition. this is the same fight we're in now. Numerous studies have shown that marijuana use would likely decrease, especially among teens with legalization. Just as with cigarettes, a robust ad campaign, and stringent sales guidelines are the reasons most teens give for smoking and drinking less. unregulated marijuana in the hands of dealers who don't care how old your kid is insane. This is a product that 12 million adults use each year, it should be regulated, and taxed, and not turning hard working Americans into criminals. Additionally, there is no evidence that marijuana kills brain cells. so the argument of making people stupid, is asinine and unfounded.

Daytrader23 5 years, 3 months ago

Its not a matter of if Kansas legalizes it, its a matter of when. It will most likely become a federal law allowing medical marijuana it every state long before Kansas votes it in. Now if we can just be able to grow hemp. These two industries can create tons of jobs for Americans. Nice to see some Libertarians here for a change, Most center republicans and democrats are really libertarians without even knowing it. Finally people are starting to wake up.

ferrislives 5 years, 3 months ago

It's nice to see actual research AreUNorml, instead of boring rhetoric. Thank you.

Stuart Evans 5 years, 3 months ago

Tom, I've read a lot of your posts, and I'd agree that you are probably more libertarian than conservative. i'm definitely happy to see that you're on the right side of the legalization argument.

pace 5 years, 3 months ago

The Bush drug war was based on class, race, and baloney. Lets sweep up the smack, crack, meth and guns, leave the immoral issue sweeps for the right churches to pay for, rather than speading the costs to the paying tax base.

tomatogrower 5 years, 3 months ago

"Really?, really? How about ye Republicans without sin of Socialism cast the first stone? What? No stones thrown? I thought not. Just rants."

Oh didn't you know, the conservatives have taken that story about not throwing stones out of the Bible, because it's too liberal. I mean, how dare someone tell them not to be judgemental. They are all knowing. http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project

Practicality 5 years, 3 months ago

AreUNorml (Anonymous) says…

"Numerous studies have shown that marijuana use would likely decrease, especially among teens with legalization."

This statement is a bold faced lie. No such study exists, and it is awful convenient that you would make one up here to prove a point with a bold faced lie. Unsuspecting people might even believe this lie and think you know what you are talking about. But, like most of what you say, it is just pure fabrication.

There is SOME truth to their being a racial undertone to the illegalization of Marijuana, although your scenerio was added with the part about white women to try and sensationalize it some more, which is unfounded. As with many laws, often they were first put in place to control minorities. The illegalization of Opium was directed at the Chinese for example, and was unjust. Are you advocating for its legalization because it's initial unlawfulness had racial undertones as well? Many laws that we have today started out with unjust, racial overtures. That does not mean that the law is without merit. Marijuana is an addictive, medically harmful substance. Period. It might not be as bad as other illegal drugs, but that does not mean it is GOOD for the user. There have been studies that have shown "an association between chronic marijuana use and increased rates of anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, and schizophrenia."

Further, there are ill effects on the heart and lungs, as well as an addictive potential. None of these things are good for anyone. It might not be as bad as other destructive substances, but how is it compared to water? Or an apple?

http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html

P.S. Try to do your homework from somewhere other than your NORML website or the MMP website. You will only get one side that way, and when you proclaim experitise it really makes you appear foolish.

Practicality 5 years, 3 months ago

None of us live in a vacuum. When members of our society CHOOSE to be irresponsible, we all suffer some residule consequence. It is not as simple as libertarian philosophy. The same people on decrying that on here, also decry that people with money do more to help the less fortunate. Drug users more often than not use their drug use as an excuse why they need help. So which is it? Are we required to help you have a place to live, take care of your children, pay for your rehab, etc. etc. etc. but at the same time allow you to continue with being irresponsibe? Children suffer as well. I have seen more times than I care to relive the effects of children growing up in a substance abusive household. It is not good for them. Anyone advocating such an existance is heartless. It is easy to say "well, if someone wants to sit around and do drugs, that is their choice" but they rarely bare the consequences of that action alone. It gets passed on to the rest of us. That is why the rest of us have the right to say, "It is illegal for you to do something", especially when you use it for an excuse for irresponsible personal behavior. Like drugs.

P.S. This does not even touch on the mind altering effects and why that needs to be monitored for the good of society as well.

bookemdano 5 years, 3 months ago

Practicality, not to nitpick, but I think the expression is "bald-faced lie", not bold.

Second, as for your assertion that studies show a link between chronic pot use and several psychiatric maladies, all I have to say is "correlation does not equal causation". Did it ever occur to you that folks who suffer from psychiatric disorders might seek out drugs in an attempt to self-medicate?

As for your rant about you having to "take care" of drug users and their supposed dependants--you would be laughed out of court trying to use that rationale. The point is that our society already fully legalizes a substance (or multiple substances) that are decidedly more harmful than marijuana--both the the abuser himself and to those around him. What legal basis is there to criminalize a less-harmful substance then? We ought to have some consistency in our laws. If you're in favor of banning any substance that people can use for pleasure (which can cause harm if abused) then let's not stop with marijuana! Alcohol, prescription drugs, nicotine, model airplane glue...

The reason this is a libertarian cause is that libertarians believe that in a free society such as ours, individual freedom (and therefore responsibility) should be maximized. Anything that does not cause harm to another individual(s) should be allowed.

But even if you are not libertarian, to have any ground to stand on here I think you would have to demonstrate that marijuana use is somehow worse for our society than alcohol use--and I doubt very strongly that you will be able to do that.

Practicality 5 years, 3 months ago

"But even if you are not libertarian, to have any ground to stand on here I think you would have to demonstrate that marijuana use is somehow worse for our society than alcohol use—and I doubt very strongly that you will be able to do that."

I never claimed that it was, nor do I think the legalization of alcohol was good for our society. Look at all the problems that it has caused. Do we really want to increase the amount of mind altering substances in our community? Look at all the bars along Mass street. Do we want to put Marijuana bars alongside each of those? I do not.

I do not think that marijuana use is necessarily "worse" than alcohol use. They are both equally harmful to the user and society at large. We are not discussing whether alcohol should be illegal, we were discussing whether marijuana should be legal. So I will propose your statement back to you, "to have any ground to stand on here I think you would have to demonstrate that" either Marijuana or alcohol use is GOOD for society.

And, as all of you know good and well, we do not live in a libertarian society. I am impacted by your decisions, and often held accountable to try and fix them for YOU, as you are impacted by mine.

phoggyjay 5 years, 3 months ago

sounds like all these bitter people don't have a hookup

bookemdano 5 years, 3 months ago

Practicality, the fallacy of your little "reversal" is that our country does not make laws based solely on what is "good" for us. To put it another way, there are plenty of things that are allowed in this country that do us no benefit whatsoever. For instance, it's perfectly legal for me to drive around the block five times a day if I want just for the hell of it. Doing so is not "good" for me (I should certainly walk instead for the exercise), but our government does not step in and criminalize a behavior just because it doesn't do good.

If you really think about it you could come up with millions of things you do every day that you are not prohibited from doing, even if those things are not "good" for you. Fortunately, we don't live in a country that forces us to do only do things it deems are beneficial for us. If that is the kind of country you want this to be, well I'm afraid the founding fathers felt differently.

ferrislives 5 years, 3 months ago

bookemdano: well said.

Practicality, get off your high horse already. If you really think that some Libertarian ideas aren't heard by whomever is in power, then you are sadly mistaken. Both sides cater to states rights when they can, because they know that personal responsibility is a shared value.

It's not for YOU to decide what I do with my body, and vice-versa. If that's what you desire, a nanny-state, there are several strict society's around the world that share your views (i.e. North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc.). Move there already, and stop putting your self-righteous wordplay onto us. Guess what, we can take care of ourselves!

Practicality 5 years, 3 months ago

Bookem,

When you start using driving around the block five times a day as an excuse why I have to pay your bills, or feed you and your children, or why you robbed an old lady, and then I am forced to fund those expenditures, then in my opinion, it should be regulated as well.

Our country has already deemed Marijuana use as illegal except as directed by a doctor in states that allow it. Even this statement from the DOJ does not change that. It isn't the "way I want our country to be", it is the way it IS, regardless if you agree with it or not.

Practicality 5 years, 3 months ago

ferris says,

"It's not for YOU to decide what I do with my body, and vice-versa."

I did not decide that, others did long ago, and YOUR government supported and still supports that notion.

"If that's what you desire, a nanny-state, there are several strict society's around the world that share your views (i.e. North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc.)"

I do not desire that, again that has been and currently is the law of YOUR country. If you want something different, maybe YOU should move to Mexico, or Rwanda, or Afganistan. No one will tell you not to smoke Marijuana there.

"Guess what, we can take care of ourselves!"

That is great, glad that you admit that. So everyone can quit yammering about me paying for others medical insurance, kids tuition, teachers salaries, subsidized housing, rehab for druggies, foster care for there kids, clothing for their children, food for them and their children, housing for the homeless, bailouts for the auto industry, subsidizing your ill advised home loans, etc. etc. etc.

I know, I know, you just want to pick and choose when to be a Libertarian. Like now, just when you want to justify smoking dope.

Mkh 5 years, 3 months ago

"People have and do abuse current prescription drugs. But, there is a legitimate medical reason to prescribe those drugs, unlike Marijuana. And please, do not bother posting a bunch of links that show some phony scientific research. I have already read them. There is a synthetic drug that does the same thing yet won't get people high. Of course, that defeats the purpose for 99.9% of the phony medical marijuana users, so they do not want that."

Practicality,

You are greatly ignorant to the important differences between medical marijuana and synthetic drugs such as Marinol. Many patients cannot digest the synthetic drugs, hence the entire benefit of medical marijuana.

Practicality 5 years, 3 months ago

Mkh,

The greatest difference is that people can not smoke Marinol. And that just defeats the purpose now, doesn't it?

Practicality 5 years, 3 months ago

Great refute there Defender. Let me get this straight. I am wrong. . . . . . . . . because you say so? Maybe law schools ought to teach that method. It is just so . . .. logical? I guess I can not dispute it. LOL!!!

Alexander Neighbors 5 years, 3 months ago

Practicality

Our country has already deemed Marijuana use as illegal except as directed by a doctor in states that allow it. Even this statement from the DOJ does not change that. It isn't the “way I want our country to be”, it is the way it IS, regardless if you agree with it or not

Wrong dude it is not the country its the People, the people banned Weed because they (white males back in the day ) thought that white women would have sex with black men after smoking it then it needed to be outlawed to keep that from happening........

just look at alcohol that used to be banned by our "country" ....

Cait McKnelly 5 years, 3 months ago

Marinol is synthetic, not denatured, THC. It's efficacy is significantly less than that of marijuana. There is a case for medical marijuana. There has never been a documented case where marijuana has been the direct cause of anyone's death, unlike alcohol, which is a multi-system toxin and can cause death over long term from continuous insult to various organs, especially the liver. Alcohol toxicity also causes death from profound CNS depression. Alcohol is also physically addictive. Marijuana is not. Marijuana can be psychologically addicting (along with food, gambling and NASCAR racing) but it cannot and does not cause physical symptoms of withdrawal. On a social front, again unlike alcohol, there has never been a documented direct correlation between the drug and domestic violence. On the contrary, violence while under the influence of marijuana is close to impossible. It has always been my opinion that the reason marijuana has not been decriminalized was for a two fold purpose. First, as detailed above in a previous post, it supported industry. Second, it has always been my belief that decriminalization and legalization has been actively fought by organized crime for a very long time. Millions of dollars in revenue will be lost to organized crime if marijuana is legalized, not just from direct sales but also losing marijuana as a "gateway" drug. They quite literally stand to lose the most. No one brings this up but I think it bears rational thought.

Practicality 5 years, 3 months ago

Again, wonderful logic defender. That really proves your point. A large group of Marijuana smokers want legalized Marijuana. Really. . . . . . . . . . who woulda thunk it? I guess asking people to obey the law is too much for people to except.

Cait, although I find your post the most detailed and actually an attempt at using evidence to support an argument, you do expect to the reader to take a giant leap of faith in your logic.

"There has never been a documented case where marijuana has been the direct cause of anyone's death, unlike alcohol, which is a multi-system toxin and can cause death over long term from continuous insult to various organs, especially the liver."

Why are you comparing Marijuana to alcohol? Is it your argument that marijuana use is better for the user than alcohol? What about compared to water, or an apple? Why do you choose a harmful substance to compare it to?

"Alcohol toxicity also causes death from profound CNS depression. Alcohol is also physically addictive. Marijuana is not. Marijuana can be psychologically addicting (along with food, gambling and NASCAR racing) but it cannot and does not cause physical symptoms of withdrawal."

According to HarvardScience,

"Researchers identify symptoms of marijuana withdrawal. Irritability, anxiety and physical tension, plus decreases in appetite and mood, were experienced by regular marijuana users who quit the drug for four weeks during a study conducted at McLean Hospital in Belmont, Mass. Sixty percent of those in the study experienced "significant symptoms" of withdrawal, said the researchers, Elena M. Kouri and Harrison Pope. Kouri and Pope are Harvard researchers. “Most people think marijuana is a benign drug, and there is disagreement in the scientific community about whether withdrawal causes significant symptoms. This study shows that using marijuana for a long time has consequences,” said Kouri."

http://www.harvardscience.harvard.edu/medicine-health/articles/researchers-identify-symptoms-marijuana-withdrawal

Practicality 5 years, 3 months ago

Cait,

Another explanation blames a withdrawal effect, similar but not as pronounced as the agitation, irritability, sleeping problems and appetite loss suffered by users of heroin or alcohol. Such symptoms impair attention and memory.

"Some of the deficits we saw were as bad, or even worse on day seven as on day one," Pope notes. "This suggests that withdrawal, rather than a residue of drug in the brain, accounts for the bulk of lingering impairments." A residue effect should decrease from day one to seven after quitting, but withdrawal problems would increase before they decrease.

Pot smokers who believe they are back to normal sometimes show detectable impairments on various tests. "That's a cause for concern," Pope points out. "You don't want to try landing a 747, driving a bus or train, or taking a calculus test a week after heavy marijuana use even if you feel normal."

As for the Social Effects of Marijuana use

Although researchers found no irreversible cognitive defects from a lifetime of marijuana consumption, pot users are not a happy lot. In a separate study, most heavy users admitted that the drug has a negative impact on all aspects of their lives from job performance and physical health to mental well being and satisfactory socializing.

Heavy smokers also have substantially smaller incomes and lower levels of education than nonusers or light users, despite the fact that the education and income levels of their families are the same. However, there's no way to determine if marijuana is the cause or if these people naturally have less ambition.

"It's a chicken and egg situation," Pope admits. "Probably the direction of causality goes both ways. In all likelihood, people who become frequent users are somewhat different at the outset; they may have lower cognitive abilities or less motivation. Once they start using the drug regularly, these differences become wider."

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2001/10.11/marijuana.html

This is a good article. It refutes a lot what you have said Cait, as well as supports some of it. It was conducted by Harvard doctors and scientists. They refrain from commenting one way or the other about Marijuana legalization.

Practicality 5 years, 3 months ago

Should have said accept instead of except on the first post to Defender. My apologies.

Alexander Neighbors 5 years, 3 months ago

ironhorse66: Drug Dealers belong in prison.


you are still a moron no where in any of my comments did I say drug Dealers are awesome. This has nothing to do with drug dealing this is the legal use of weed for medicinal purposes which is legal in many State. Including the state I live in.

Practicality 5 years, 3 months ago

Liberty,

"Doesn't matter. The question is what right do you have to take away your neighbors' liberties."

I did not take away my neighbors' liberty. I support the illegality of drug use and drug dealing, but it wasn't I who ever determined it's illegality. I know you are a libertarian at heart, and I also respect the fact that you do not just claim to be one when it is convenient, so I know your stance on this issue. But, the fact remains, that we do not live in a strict libertarian society. As long as members of society are required to save/help/bailout other members of society for their decisions or choices or inability to take care of themselves, that leaves the door open for the government, or society, or even me to pass judgements and laws to minimize their excuses and opportunity to make irresponsibe and harmful decisions that have a high percentage of costing me in the future.

"No, they do not fall under federal authority. Federal drug laws are not authorized by the Constitution and are a prime example of the federal government extending its power beyond permissible bounds."

You as a law student obviously know that drug crimes usually fall under the jurisdiction of a federal prosecutor. So why do you bring this up? I know what you are getting at, but like the last question, this is not reality. This is an idealized version of America as you see it should be, but fails to address how things really are. It is not going to change just because you think that it isn't right. This argument you are making has been going on since the Whisky Rebellion, and it appears to me, the Federal Government has always won. Again, I am not disagreeing with you on your argument, but it does seem ungrounded in a practical sense.

sundancewierdo 5 years, 3 months ago

ok, so, what's everybody fighting over? I lost the plot several posts ago and now have no idea what's going on??? ...

sundancewierdo 5 years, 3 months ago

just so i'm clear...The feds are gonna stop spending money trying to arrest potheads? They are going to let local authorites do the job? What's the problem?

Alexander Neighbors 5 years, 3 months ago

PBS had an interview with the producer of the shield a police drama. he said there is a huge problem with the war on drugs. He said the cops that do real police work are not promoted because when they look at their record they only have a few busts (which took a lot of time to get), then you have the cops that all they do is make drug busts and they don't do any real police work because its easy to look in someones pocket and bust someone for drugs. Its a lot harder to solve real crimes. Then on top of that if you bust a heroin dealer 5 more will pop up in their place.

Stuart Evans 5 years, 3 months ago

will someone please dislodge the huge stick from Practicality's azz?

DrMoody 5 years, 3 months ago

Hey, you still live in Lawrence though. I can toke on Mass street and still not get in trouble. It's pot, not heroin, lighten up you stuck up douchebags.

coolmom 5 years, 3 months ago

I am not a smoker but agreed that people who had severe medical problems that were made better by marijuana even if it was psychotrophic should be allowed to smoke. i have a family member who is critically ill from a brain tumor who says this drug helps...who am i to say how this person spends the last few weeks of their lives? i have a friend who got a doc to write a script for arthritis type pain and for the last 6 months has dwindled down to doing nothing. no job no helping care for her teens no apparent desire to do anything but recreational activities. this just doesnt seem like the way this was supposed to be used and i am now doubting my initial judgement on medical marijuana.

Stuart Evans 5 years, 3 months ago

coolmom, was your friend ever a user of marijuana before? how about alcohol or prescription pain pills? As with everything, you have to use common sense and moderation. You say that 6 months of pot made her lose her job and all but abandon her children. I say there was likely a predisposition to being lazy and uncaring. Millions of Americans use marijuana recreationally as well as medically, yet still manage to hold down very good jobs and tend to their families.

gr 5 years, 3 months ago

"Marijuana possession was first criminalized in the 1930's as part of the 1937 marihuana tax act, in an attempt to scare off Mexicans who were consorting with the white girls."

So making marijuana illegal was racist issue?

Mkh 5 years, 3 months ago

Practicality (Anonymous) says…

Mkh,

"The greatest difference is that people can not smoke Marinol. And that just defeats the purpose now, doesn't it?"

Again Practicality you are just demostrating your ignorance with these statements.

Not all medical marijuana patients smoke their medicine, many use baked goods which are much easier for them to digest than synthetic substitutes and don't have the adverse side effects from smoking.

Practicality 5 years, 3 months ago

Mkh,

I am aware that it is also baked into foods. It isn't I who appear ignorant on the subject. It is you and all the others who continue to try and justify the medical marijuana farce. The use of marijuana by most people isn't for any medical purpose. It is simply trying to get around the law to partake in their recreational drug. But please continue your charade.

Practicality 5 years, 3 months ago

Liberty,

In your scenerio above, about the marijuana user who grows it himself and then smokes it himself, you are right that if it doesn't pass state lines, then it wouldn't violate the Commerce Clause. But, it would violate the Controlled Substance Act and the Anti-Drug Act. But, even prior to those two Acts, the court ruled against a pharmacist in a similar scenerio in United States vs. Sullivan in 1948. They found that, under the Interstate Commerce Clause, that the Federal Government has authority in Intrastate transactions concerning the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act because the intent of the Act was to protect the publicc and that it wasn't limited to a narrow definition of the meaning of Interstate. I also wonder if they would not derive some authority due to the Supremecy Clause of the Constitution. But, I am unsure about that one.

ferrislives 5 years, 3 months ago

Practicality, as I stated earlier, I do not smoke pot. Obviously you did not completely read my post, or you would not put me into that category of Americans. But either way, it's none of your business, and never should have been asked of me. Also, it's not for you to decide where I stand on issues, because you do not know me. If you did, you wouldn't come to your dim-witted conclusions on me and everyone else on this thread.

What bothers everyone here is that your "Practicality" username is a farce. You are actually very impractical and over-emotional about what everyone else does with their bodies. Yes, smoking pot is against the law in several states, and some of those states have chosen on their own to allow for medical marijuana use. It's not for you to decide what those states do, that's their right: states rights!

You are bitter old man/woman who obviously either used to smoke pot and is now a born again Christian, you got screwed over by a pot head somehow, or your just a self-righteous jerk who likes to preach about what everyone else should do, even when it IS the law in that state. Any one of those three does not bode well for you, so your opinion is pointless and IMPRACTICAL!

ferrislives 5 years, 3 months ago

And by the way "Practicality", this article is not about "recreational" marijuana use. It's about "medical" marijuana use. Your problem is that you're mixing the two together, instead of dealing with the subject at hand.

So on that subject, please tell us why you think that it's wrong for those who actually have a terminal illness to use it, if they say that it helps them to eat and get through the daily pain? I'm not talking about those who lie about that, but those who are being completely honest. You don't seem to have been around someone who was dying from a terminal disease, but I could be wrong.

Practicality 5 years, 3 months ago

ferrislives (Anonymous) says…

"Yes, smoking pot is against the law in several states, and some of those states have chosen on their own to allow for medical marijuana use."

It is against the law in EVERY state, and SOME have allowed for it ONLY in a Medical usage.

"It's not for you to decide what those states do, that's their right: states rights!"

Only when those 'rights' do not violate federal law. Tell me ferris, how do these Marijuana 'pharmacists' get their medicine? Please explain to me how they do that without violating State and Federal law? Is it to much of us citizens to ask that the laws on the books be enforced? Is that 'not my right' as you see it?

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." - - - - Supremacy Clause

Spare me your Self-Righteous name calling and your parrot like States Rights nonsense, I do not think you know what you are talking about. You only yell States Rights in this instance because you think it somehow allows for individual States to decide if people can smoke Marijuana. Just like Ante-Bellum southerns thought they could own slaves. It didn't work then, and it doesn't work now.

ferrislives 5 years, 3 months ago

Practicality, you are a lost cause, and you are off subject. You are not listening to anyone's point of view on this subject, but instead you are just preaching what you know is right. And God knows, when Practicality says that it is so, it is so.

You are a waste of everyone's time, and everyone should just ignore your nonsense. That is what I will do right now. Good day, and good luck to anyone around you in daily life.

To those that are listening to other opinions, I do believe in states rights in this any many cases. I think that the size of government has gotten way out of hand, and it's only getting worst. I think that there are several good cases for the use of medical marijuana with people that have terminal illnesses, and it's not for me judge upon them what they do when it is the law in their state.

I also like that fact that the DOJ's new policy is now focusing on the source of drugs, which is where the drug war should have been all along. There is a good (small) role for the federal government, and it's not arresting grandma for baking some marijuana-laced brownies because of her cancer. But that's just one person's opinion, and I'm done. Thanks for the good dialog from everyone but IMPRACTICALITY.

Practicality 5 years, 3 months ago

Liberty,

If Marijuana is a Federally controlled substance, and the person growing the Marijuana for personal consumption is not authorized by the Federal Government to do so, then it would violate the Controlled Substance Act. I imagine if your subject in your scenerio somehow had a State Pharmicist license, or was somehow acknowledged by the state to do so, then maybe it would be unconstitional for the Feds to come in, but that is purely speculation on my part and I am in no way positve either way. Obviously this has been tested already and it has been determined that it isn't Unconstitutional. I do not think the ACLU would agree, but they do not get to decide, only advocate. Do you know the cases that have tested this? I do not know.

Practicality 5 years, 3 months ago

Porch_Person,

Your dislike of Liberty notwithstanding, that was a good post. I thought most of the authority came from the Commerce Clause as well, but there are a lot of them that seem to apply.

Practicality 5 years, 3 months ago

Porch_Person,

I too have noticed the hypocritical notions of many who profess libertarian ideals, but only when it is convenient for them. They are quick to say, “What right does the government have to tell me what I can do with my own body!” Then turn right around and say that others have to pay for their healthcare. I have even classified this for myself as Convenient Libertarian Philosophy. Although, to be honest, I do not think Liberty_One falls into that category, but that is my personal take on previous conversations.

I have not really pondered on the simplistic nature of the argument that they are making. It is a good point and I will have to consider it.

Stuart Evans 5 years, 3 months ago

Practicality.. you owe me an apology for calling me a liar.

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/viewbackgroundresource.asp?resourceID=177

now you know that you're not always right.

Practicality 5 years, 3 months ago

AreUNorml (Anonymous) says…

"The government finally came to its senses and repealed prohibition. this is the same fight we're in now. Numerous studies have shown that marijuana use would likely decrease, especially among teens with legalization."

This is what YOU wrote. It was in relation to the legalization of Marijuana. Your link is in relation to Marijuana use AND Medical Marijuana. Nice try on changing the argument. Further, it has been shown that Marijuana use among teens has consistently dropped for the last decade. So, it is not at all surprising that it ALSO declined in states with Medical Marijuana being legal. I would also like to point out, that the steady decrease is used as evidence that the war on drugs is working. Nice try, though.

Stuart Evans 5 years, 3 months ago

did you really spend all day on here? you should be well educated on the subject by now. however, your closed mind has not allowed for you to absorb anything you've read. Lets try this link.
http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/

browse around awhile. try and keep an open mind.

by the way, I'm about to have a nice relaxing smoke. partially for stress relief, but definitely for recreation.

Practicality 5 years, 3 months ago

The Alaska Experiment and Other Failed Legalization Ventures:

"The consequences of legalization became evident when the Alaska Supreme Court ruled in 1975 that the state could not interfere with an adult’s possession of marijuana for personal consumption in the home. The court’s ruling became a green light for marijuana use. Although the ruling was limited to persons 19 and over, teens were among those increasingly using marijuana. According to a 1988 University of Alaska study, the state’s 12 to 17-year-olds used marijuana at more than twice the national average for their age group. Alaska’s residents voted in 1990 to recriminalize possession of marijuana, demonstrating their belief that increased use was too high a price to pay."

"By 1979, after 11 states decriminalized marijuana and the Carter administration had considered federal decriminalization, marijuana use shot up among teenagers. That year, almost 51 percent of 12th graders reported they used marijuana in the last 12 months. By 1992, with tougher laws and increased attention to the risks of drug abuse, that figure had been reduced to 22 percent, a 57 percent decline."

"Other countries have also had this experience. The Netherlands has had its own troubles with increased use of cannabis products. From 1984 to 1996, the Dutch liberalized the use of cannabis. Surveys reveal that lifetime prevalence of cannabis in Holland increased consistently and sharply. For the age group 18-20, the increase is from 15 percent in 1984 to 44 percent in 1996."

"The Netherlands is not alone. Switzerland, with some of the most liberal drug policies in Europe, experimented with what became known as Needle Park. Needle Park became the Mecca for drug addicts throughout Europe, an area where addicts could come to openly purchase drugs and inject heroin without police intervention or control. The rapid decline in the neighborhood surrounding Needle Park, with increased crime and violence, led authorities to finally close Needle Park in 1992."

"The British have also had their own failed experiments with liberalizing drug laws. England’s experience shows that use and addiction increase with “harm reduction” policy. Great Britain allowed doctors to prescribe heroin to addicts, resulting in an explosion of heroin use, and by the mid-1980s, known addiction rates were increasing by about 30 percent a year."

"The relationship between legalization and increased use becomes evident by considering two current “legal drugs,” tobacco and alcohol. The number of users of these “legal drugs” is far greater than the number of users of illegal drugs. The numbers were explored by the 2001 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. Roughly 109 million Americans used alcohol at least once a month. About 66 million Americans used tobacco at the same rate. But less than 16 million Americans used illegal drugs at least once a month."

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/demand/speakout/06so.htm

Practicality 5 years, 3 months ago

AreUNotNorml,

Maybe you should try exercising or reading to relax. It is more than apparent that your reasoning and logic capabilities are at a deteriorated level. This is likely due to your recreational hobby, but considering I did not know what you were like before, I can only surmise. The first step is admitting you have a problem. Others have done before, so you can too. Good luck!

P.S. I will be waiting for your apology now!

Stuart Evans 5 years, 3 months ago

practicality, the only apology you'll get from me is this; I'm so sorry that you're a busy-body that can't help but shove your morality into other people's lives.

Stuart Evans 5 years, 3 months ago

Prac.

did you seriously lift all of your information from the governments own DEA website? I can't imagine that they would have only bad things to say about pot. The DEA lives for marijuana problems. if they wanted it eradicated, it would have been done.

if the problem in the Netherlands was so bad, why are the laws there still relaxed; why are there all these coffee shops still operating in Amsterdam? http://coffeeshopsamsterdam.com/index.html

and I also have a list. but mine is from people who don't have a history of lying to the public or exaggerating numbers to increase figures for annual budget estimates. my list comes from those who truly believe in their cause and their rights. your list comes from people who truly believe in your money and their job security.

** Marijuana prohibition has not prevented a dramatic increase in marijuana use by teenagers. In fact, the overall rate of marijuana use in the U.S. has risen by roughly 4,000% since marijuana was first outlawed.

** Independent studies by RAND Europe and the U.S. National Research Council have reported that marijuana prohibition appears to have little or no impact on rates of use.

** Since Britain ended most marijuana possession arrests in 2004, the rate of marijuana use by 16- to-19-year-olds has dropped.

** In the U.S., rates of teen marijuana use in states that have decriminalized adult marijuana possession are statistically equal to the rates in states that have retained criminal penalties.

** In the Netherlands, where adults have been allowed to possess and purchase small amounts of marijuana since 1976, the rate of marijuana use by adults and teens is lower than in the U.S., and teen use of cocaine and amphetamines is far lower than in the U.S. Indeed, some researchers believe it is the prohibition of marijuana that causes progression to hard drug use, sometimes called the "gateway effect."

"The idea that prohibiting adults from using marijuana will keep it away from kids is a myth that isn't backed up by the data," said MPP Executive Director Rob Kampia. "We need laws that are based on facts and science, not faith-based myths."

  • MPP.org

tonymontana 5 years, 3 months ago

How much longer until i can smoke and snort just because i enjoy it???

Practicality 5 years, 3 months ago

AreUNotNorml,

Again MMP is a laughable, far from impartial, organization. I have already read their nonsense extensively. You need to broaden your horizons on your research front so you can find the truth. I can honestly say I have read NORML, MMP, LEAP, etc. etc. etc. ALONG with all the other opposing views. That is what one does in research. I have already refuted everything you have posted, with 'credible' sources and studies, but here is another one for you.

Marijuana Addiction among Dutch Teenagers:

"An increasing number of Dutch teenagers are becoming addicted to marijuana. Many of them begin smoking pot regularly around age 13, and the habit develops into dependency and results in being admitted to a rehab clinic. Rob Kievit of Radio Netherlands reports that young smokers are getting into conflicts with their parents, dropping out of school, and getting into trouble with the law as they often steal to finance their habit.

A survey by NOS public TV found that in the past year, 370 teenagers diagnosed with a cannabis addiction were staying in three specialized rehab clinics. Three more treatment centers are being built to cope with the rising number of young addicts. Since 2002 the number has increased fourfold."

http://www.drugaddictiontreatment.com/types-of-addiction/marijuana-addiction/marijuana-addiction-increasing-among-dutch-teenagers/

Again, to spell it out for you in case you do not understand the relavance. How do you explain the continual rise in Marijuana use in Holland, and, most especially, it's young people since the decriminilazation of Marijuana?

Satirical 5 years, 3 months ago

I am just waiting for "medical opium" or "medical heroine," or maybe even "medical crack." After all, if it didn't have benefits, people wouldn't use them....right....?

Yes, it may turn a significant percentage of our population into drug addicted zombies; but if millions of Americans want to ruin their lives and those of their family and children, they should be given every opportunity. It wouldn't affect me...

Alexander Neighbors 5 years, 3 months ago

Medical Prostitution ? Medical Financial fraud ? Medical Misconduct ? Medical use of excessive force ?

these don't make any since

Medical Marijuana Does.

"Alcohol is legal and it kills way more people per year than Weed does"

Practicality 5 years, 3 months ago

Prospector,

"Who makes the better source, someone named Drug Addiction or Connie."

You left off the Treatment part. How convenient of you. This is an organization whose entire purpose is the treatment of addicts. That does include MARIJUANA. But, it also includes Prescription Drugs, Street Drugs, Alcohol, Club Drugs, Cocaine, Heroin, Dissociative Drugs, Stimulants, Hallucinogins, Steroids, Nicotine Addiction, Gambling Addiction, And Internet & Video Game Addictions. So, in effect, they are an organization dedicated to helping people break their addictions, what ever it might be. I guess in your eyes that means they don't know what they are talking about. But you would be about the only one who would believe such a thing.

On the other hand,

Connie Littlefield is a two-bit Documentarian who has produced a handful of documentaries that have not aired anywhere advocating the legalization of Drugs and glorifying LSD. Notice how it says, Citizen Special? The LJW has its own Citizen Journal Academy as well. Not too hard to belong to that group is it Prospector? Don't you need to start your effort in getting falling down drunk somewhere at whatever happy hour is going on about now?

Mate

Satirical 5 years, 3 months ago

Prospector…

Who wants to watered down version of that stuff? It’s much more effective taken the old fashioned way…Just need to find the “right” doctor.

Satirical 5 years, 3 months ago

Was_freashpowder2… “Alcohol is legal and it kills way more people per year than Weed does”

So anything that kills fewer people than alcohol should be legal? Odd logic…

Practicality 5 years, 3 months ago

Liberty,

To answer your question earlier, I believe the Government already does many things to save people from themselves. A tax payer funded lifeguard will jump in and rescue a swimmer at a public pool if that person jumped in the deep end knowing they can't swim. The fire department will rescue an individual from a fire in their own house, even if that person started the fire and no other dwellings would be affected. Etc. etc. etc.

They also do things for the common good, even when affects personal choice. They make children attend school until the age of 14 even if the child and parents don't want them to. They make people pay into social security, even when they do not want them to. Etc. etc. etc. They do these things because they serve the best interest of society. Drug Use falls into this category, I believe. Sure, it is possible to use drugs and not become a criminal who supports their habit by commiting crimes. But, the statsical odds increase dramatically that they will. Sure, it is possible to use drugs and not abandon your family, but statistcal odds tell us that their is a higher chance of that happening if you use drugs. Sure it is possible for a child to go on and live a productive life if they haven't finished 3rd grade, but statistical odds tell us the percentage is awful high they will not. All of these things affect everyone else, even if it is not anymore than the finacial cost associated with those decisions placed upon society.

Now, there are plenty of instances you have named that the Government doesn't intervene. So I can see the hypocritical argument quite clearly. Especially when it concerns Alcohol. I am not saying that is right, but two wrongs do not make a right either.

The constitution doesn't cover a whole slew of things the government does. No where does it say they are responsible for inspecting airplanes and to monitor air travel. Yet they do. They do things like this for the common good of our society. Drug Use falls into this category with me.

Practicality 5 years, 3 months ago

Liberty,

"Actually the constitution does cover that since airplanes traveling from state to state fall under interstate commerce, which is part of Congress's power to regulate under the Constitution."

That isn't entirely true. Like in your scenerio earlier, there are many, many, aircraft that never cross state lines. Think of Alaska, The vast majority of aircraft in that state never leave the state, yet they still have to abide by the regulations of the FAA.

To be honest, I do not concern myself as much as you do if or why the government has the authority to do what it does or not. To me it seems rather irrelevant. If congress passes a law, it does not matter if I think they didn't have the authority to do so. I will go to jail or suffer the penalty if I do not follow the law. It is more of a common sense issue to me. Most drugs do not help anyone, especially the user of the drug. Should people be allowed to do whatever they want to do? I do not really have an answer to that. Nobody does whatever they want to do. It is a rather immature concept when applied to our current society. Residual harm is created all over our community by individual decisions. Often, there are many people advocating for others to step in and help people. Yet, when the government wants to take a preemptive measure to deter those decisions, then people say they do not have that right. It seems rather short sighted and selfish in my opinion. To me, the government can not make anyone be responsible, but they can punish people for being irresponsible whether for a deterant or for the position they put others in to pick up their slack.

Stuart Evans 5 years, 3 months ago

practicality says: To be honest, I do not concern myself as much as you do if or why the government has the authority to do what it does or not. To me it seems rather irrelevant. If congress passes a law, it does not matter if I think they didn't have the authority to do so.


wholly crap! really? you're not concerned if this government passes a law that is immoral and illegal? you're ok with rolling over and doing as you're told? that explains EVERYTHING about your arguments. you're a lap dog. you do as you're told and you have no opinion of your own. you think the government is out to make your life better? NO, the government is full of opportunists who are out for money and power. come out of your little hidey-hole, take your head out of the sand. This is your life, why would you be content with what some bureaucrat in Washington thinks is best for your very individual life? We are all very very different people. Why can't we make decisions about our short time on this planet that fit our own needs? You have been indoctrinated. you are a willing slave to this society. good luck with that!

Stuart Evans 5 years, 3 months ago

nice job Liberty One, now you've got porch person saying "garfinkle" more than they say (laughter). by the way porch, if you're going to reference the name Garfinkle, you have to capitalize it.

Practicality 5 years, 3 months ago

AreUNorml,

I figured you would be in Denver by now applying for a job as a Marijuana Critic. What happened?? Did you already forget about it or did you just not have any motivation to get up and do something. That happens with long term Marijuana use you know.

jonas_opines 5 years, 3 months ago

practicality says: "To be honest, I do not concern myself as much as you do if or why the government has the authority to do what it does or not. To me it seems rather irrelevant. If congress passes a law, it does not matter if I think they didn't have the authority to do so."

You would have made a great Tory.

phoggyjay 5 years, 3 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Stuart Evans 5 years, 3 months ago

Practicality (Anonymous) says… AreUNorml, I figured you would be in Denver by now applying for a job as a Marijuana Critic. What happened?? Did you already forget about it or did you just not have any motivation to get up and do something. That happens with long term Marijuana use you know.


well you see Practicality, I have a great career here. My family and friends are here. And even with all the "success" of the war on drugs, I'm still able to acquire marijuana any time I want. And actually, prolonged marijuana use does not cause memory loss. That is a complete fabrication. As is the case that all marijuana causes everyone to become unmotivated. Remember, it's not illegal to be lazy and worthless. if it were, you'd be locked up for spending your entire day posting on LJWorld.

Practicality 5 years, 3 months ago

AreUNorml (Anonymous) says…

"And actually, prolonged marijuana use does not cause memory loss"

Again with your wishful thinking. Just beause you want something to be true doesn't make it so. You are not the only one on here who is this delusional so I do not hold it against you.


A new study finds those who've used a lot of marijuana have worse memories and don't think as quickly.

It's not the first study to suggest pot hurts memory, but the findings are stark.

"We found that the longer people used marijuana, the more deterioration they had in these cognitive abilities, especially in the ability to learn and remember new information," said Lambros Messinis of the Department of Neurology at the University Hospital of Patras in Patras, Greece.

A separate study in Neurology last year found higher blood flow velocity in the marijuana users even a month after they stopped smoking. Researchers said the change could help explain other studies that have revealed memory problems in pot smokers.

"A Harvard Medical School study in 2003 found lasting memory impairment in people who had started smoking marijuana before age 17, when the brain is still forming."

http://www.livescience.com/health/060313_pot_brain.html


So there you have it UARENOTNORML, people can either believe you, a self-proclaimed pot-head from Lawrence, or Neurologists from around the world and Psychiatrists from Harvard.

There are plenty of studies concerning Marijuana and Memory. I can't really blame you though, because as the studies suggest, you really probably just do not remember all that well.

P.S. This one brought me a chuckle, didn't realize you were this witty.

"Remember, it's not illegal to be lazy and worthless. if it were, you'd be locked up for spending your entire day posting on LJWorld. "

Stuart Evans 5 years, 3 months ago

gosh Practicality, you must be right. i must just be a stupid old pot head. I can hardly remember to tie my shoes or maintain a train of thought long enough to go to work every day. It's amazing that I still get promoted and trusted with important numbers and data. I better go tell my boss about this. oh wait, he knows and doesn't seem to care.

Practicality 5 years, 3 months ago

UAreNotNorml,

The problem is, you are careless with your words. You continue to make unsubstantiated claims that I have disproven time and time again. This makes you appear very ignorant. When you say things like,

"“And actually, prolonged marijuana use does not cause memory loss”"

what you really mean to say is

"I do not know if marijuana use causes memory loss or not, but I really do not care if it does, because I believe it does not impact my life enough to stop smoking." (This would be an honest statement made by any addict however debateable the last part might be)

Most addicts try to justify their addiction at some point in their use. Some never get past that either. You are not alone in this. Usually, the addict is the last person to come to terms with the fact they have a problem. Everyone around them notices long before the addict does, because, well, the addict usually believes they are managing everything just fine and they are being controlled by the addiction. The people around them know better. Sound familiar?

Now, if you were honest about these things in your statements, I might not make you appear so foolish. It is more than apparent that you are really not very educated concerning the subject, which is very ironic considering your self-acknowldeged use of Marijuana and my lifetime abstinence of the drug. That is the problem with people who only look at High Times, Norml, and MMP websites as their only source of information. Those sites routinely leave out significant findings because they are harmful to their desired purpose, which is to make drug use seem less harmful than it really is so it can be legalized.

If you and I were just talking somewhere, I would not care near as much as on here. Where we come into conflict is when you post idiotic statements concerning drug use that have been disproven by established academic studies, and the Medical profession.

Again, if it was just you and I, I wouldn't waste so much time with you. But, as you know, many people read these forums. There are a lot of impressionable people who are not too bright who might believe your careless, unsubstantiated nonsense if no one corrects you. I especially do not want any teenagers to read your words and think that it is o.k. to use Marijuana because they read it on the LJW that Marijuana doesn't cause memory problems. Or, Marijuana is harmless and it is cool to use it.

Just like you, I imagine, they wouldn't look at all of the research and studies that show these statements to be false. They would just start absorbing a harmful substance into their lungs without really concerning themselves with the Physical, Psychological, and Legal consequences that go along with such a decision.

Practicality 5 years, 3 months ago

Oh yeah, one more thing UAreNotNorml,

Just because you got promoted from fry cook to cashier at Burger King doesn't make you a reliable person with numbers and data.

Enjoy your smoke, apparently your reality is not very good, or else you wouldn't always try to escape it.

Stuart Evans 5 years, 3 months ago

oh Practicality, you just have no idea. I am one of those people that you would never suspect as a smoker. it's because you have a preconceived notion that cannabis users look and act like Shaggy from Scooby Doo. You're holding on to pictures of Sean Penn rolling out of a smokey van in Fast Times at Ridgemont High. You might even have some ridiculous image of Tommy Chong not knowing where Dave is. But what you don't have, is an honest view of the millions of hard working, responsible Americans are using cannabis and succeeding in their careers. and no, I have never worked in a burger joint. my job is technical and requires a lot of detail with numbers and the public. I will continue to do what I do because it does work for me. and no, the people around me aren't clammering to put me away in a rehab center. My wit is sharp and my mind is whole. Now go use your moral opinions somewhere that you can make a difference, because it isn't here.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.