Comments on: High Stakes: A Call to Legalize Marijuana

California Desperately Needs Tax Revenue, Prompting Some to See Green in Making Grass Legal

[deplaneboss]

Alcholol is very different then from drugs and the two should never be compared
=====================================================================
alchohol is a drug moron.

[gonesouthern]

Selling pot should stay illegal in every state in the USA ...
We as a nation have enough problems already and to make pot legal will just become the bigest one.
You think mental health care is high now just wait till thousands of kids and adults start doing pot.
why put something as debilitating as pot in to the mainstream of our society??? just to make a few tax $$$. That's the worst idea California has ever come up with.
California can not solve its bad government problems by selling pot.

[Samuel-HiLL]

@StopDcratSocialists

If stupidity were illegal, you'd get a life sentence+20 years, with no possibility of parole.

[ahandalib]

The point is that all of those drugs ARE bad for you and extremely addictive. MJ is niether. if you have read any of these comments you would see that no one is going to argue that meth,coke,heroin...etc is bad for you. There is a reason why people are for legalizing herb. it is a just as safe or even safer drug than tobacco because you dont have to smoke it. I dont want to bash your ideals. I just would like you to trust that all people arent going to knowingly jump into something that they know could kill you. dwell on this. if you smoked nonstop from now until next year you would not overdose. try that with alcohol and tell me how far you get before croaking.

[Responsible_free]

"The marijuana of the 1960s and Woodstock is not what's being sold on the streets in the United States today, said Chief Bernard Melekian, head of the California Police Chiefs Association. "The narcotic portion, the THC of marijuana in the '60s, hovered around one or two percent. THC today is around 27 to 30 percent."

This statement is untrue. The THC of marijuana is the '60s was not one or two percent. If that were true then the entire Woodstock Generation would have experienced a placebo effect. Industrial hemp, which you cannot get high on, is only one or two percent.

THC at any percent is nontoxic. Marinol, a pharmaceutical pill, is 100% synthetic THC and it was proven to be so safe that it was moved from Schedule 1 (most restrictive category for heroin, etc.) to Schedule 3 (category for more benign drugs).

Marijuana of 20% THC requires the user to smoke less to achieve the desired effect, thus lessening the amount of smoke in lungs, much is undoubtedly a good thing.

The scare tactic of "it's not your dad's pot" is based on falsities and total propaganda.

[blog_fever2]

This is a slippery slope we are on people. The next thing you will see is crank, meth, coke, and heroin. If this is passed, what will stop those? Natural plant or not, this is not necessary. Wake up people.

[ahandalib]

The point is that all of those drugs ARE bad for you and extremely addictive. MJ is niether. if you have read any of these comments you would see that no one is going to argue that meth,coke,heroin...etc is bad for you. There is a reason why people are for legalizing herb. it is a just as safe or even safer drug than tobacco because you dont have to smoke it. I dont want to bash your ideals. I just would like you to trust that all people arent going to knowingly jump into something that they know could kill you. dwell on this. if you smoked nonstop from now until next year you would not overdose. try that with alcohol and tell me how far you get before croaking.

[mswolfestock]

It should be legal to both possess AND grow marijuana. If I can be left alone to grow my own, I'd be saving a ton of money which I would likely put back into the economy.

YOU ARE ALL IDIOTS IF YOU THINK THIS IS WRONG.

[OregonJames]

Some have questioned how a marijuana tax could be collected, and the answer is taxing weed just like cigarettes. Yes, many people will grow their own and will pay no taxes, but that is not a big issue. After all, people can grow tobacco now, but the vast majority of tobacco users just purchase it. It is the same for marijuana, as most smokers purchase it instead of growing it. Even without a tax the savings of 10 billion dollars a year (the cost of the marijuana war) is quite substantial.

[AttentionDeficit]

"If you sell drugs to other people for reasons other then for medicinal purposes then you should go to jail." - whitemale

someone should tell the alcohol and nicotine pushers, or is nicotine not a drug, too?

[stychokiller]

For all of those that believe that MJ should remain illegal, I just have one
question: "Are you still that racist?" You only have to google "cocaine-crazed
Negro" to find out why drugs are illegal. It's the White man's way of being
able to arrest anyone at anytime and placing them in prison for a long time
(by the way, I'm a 51-year old White male). Everyone that thinks the Govt will
legalize it for tax revenue are missing one important fact: It's called weed
because that's what it is . And as such, if it becomes legal and taxes on it
become too steep, people will grow their own. Let's say for the sake of argument
that it finally does become legal -- what are the consequences?

1. The Police will have to spend their time and effort actually going after
DANGEROUS criminals -- that have guns and aren't afraid to use them!

2. Church attendance won't necessarily go down, but how can a good Reverend
preach about looking for rewards in Heaven when users are having such a good
time here on earth? When one looks at the history of drugs vs. religion, one
notices that almost every mind-altering substance known to mankind has been
condemned by organized Religion (they can't stand the competition!). Furthermore, at one time religious arguments were used to rail against the preceived immorality of consuming alcohol to excess, which led to Prohibition -- we all know how stupid that turned out to be (except religious fanatics that only believe what their Pastor tells them to!), even though Jesus "turned water into wine." Go figure.

3. Users will actually have to admit that they're responsible for their actions,
while stoned and while straight. Lawyers are going to lose out on an impressive
revenue stream of excuse-making for their clients misbehavior.

4. Doctors will finally have to face the end principle that they are no longer
in charge of DECIDING what is good for their patients -- they will have to admit
what's been going on all along -- that patients will only follow recommendations
from the Medical Establishment, when it's not too inconvenient for the patient!

5. For everyone currently in Jail for using weed, well I would say that they should
be released -- but they have to acknowledge the fact that they knew they were
breaking the law, and that's a crime that cannot be excused so readily.

6. All of the Puritans and Politicians that think that somehow, vices can be
prohibited, will have to recognize the hard truth that there are 10
Commandments in the Bible. After all this time, even those prohibitions are being
violated on a daily basis. Even God has found out that forbidding a choice doesn't
lead to righteousness, and trying to force someone to believe as you is a total non-starter.

7. Children will suddenly have more respect for Govt, Church, Law, Medicine and
other Established Institutions once they give up on the Hypocrisy that's been
the so-called war on drugs.

8. Govt will have to find Honest work for the FDA, the DEA and Customs.

In short, this argument should not be about right-wing conservatives vs left-wing
liberals, or Decepticrats vs Republicons, it should be about Stupidity vs Common
Sense, which, judging by all of the previous comments, is in quite short supply
here in the USA.

9. In the final analysis, it still boils down to this: Where do Authority figures get off telling me what substances I can and cannot ingest/smoke/look at, etc? I was told that we live in a free country. I can think of no more fundamental right than to determine what substances I will or will not use to make my body/mind feel better. No government has the right to say otherwise. Notice that there are no laws on drinking cyanide? People are not that stupid, unless of course their judgment is clouded by Authoritarian Power of some sort -- reason stands no chance of succeeding against these sort of people.
This so-called "War on Drugs" is an attempt to legislate morality (again!), plain and simple.

[stychokiller]

Actually these so-called "gateway theory" proponents always ignore the fact that a user of a so-called "gateway drug" finds out that the Authorities lied about the pernicious effects of the so-called "gateway drug". So why should someone believe what the Authorities say about so-called "dangerous drugs?"

[Tony_42]

Portugal decriminalized in 2001 and it was so successful that the UN is using them as an example to promote decriminalization worldwide.

[Tony_42]

Most government websites contain a lot of propaganda mixed in with truth. Cannabis is not "evil" and is less harmful than most things. I am an adult and I will use it if I want.

[Tony_42]

Google "Liberty"

[jvally]

While this is a good comment, "Medically addictive" is misleading. If you mean addictive in the way alcohol, heroin, cocaine and nicotine are addictive, you have it wrong. Cannabis does not always stimulate dopamine release in the ventral tegmentum area in the same way as these drugs do, thus, it does not lead to the same sort of extremely compulsive addictive behavior. Exactly what is different about the reinforcing mechanism with THC is just not fully understood.

Also, you are conflating addiction with dependence, something that is commonly done and easy to do. Withdrawal symptoms occur because of a bodies dependence on a drug, but a person can be dependent on a drug without compulsive addictive behavior and vice versa. In fact, a person can be BOTH and still not be ABUSING a drug if we define drug abuse as "continued use despite present and mounting negative consequences." Many people are addicted to (feel compelled to drink) and are also dependent (get a headache/nausea if they don't get) a cup or more of coffee or other caffinated beverage every day. Addiction and/or dependence alone are hardly, though they are often, necessary and sufficient for abuse and even abuse is not always reason enough to make something illegal with a high punitive enforcement. For instance, many children exhibit an extremely compulsive relationship with sugar that often has very negative consequences (tooth cavities, childhood onset diabetes and obesity), but making it illegal is simply ridiculous and infringes upon the rights of those who are adults and don't gorge themselves into a sugar coma with sour patch kids...

[jvally]

Very astute comment!

[jvally]

Not buying it. Perhaps you should also do some homework before making a statement. There are several reasons why inhaled cannabis might be better than synthetic THC. The first is that inhalation allows for the fastest intake possible (~10 sec to the brain versus ~20 minutes for oral/digestive administration) and with practice, a patient can more accurately titrate their dose for than with a pill (for effect of course, not dosage in mg which is nearly irrelevant with THC).

The second reason is that while THC is undeniably important for treating cancer and aids wasting, it is many of the other cannabinoids in the actual cannabis plant that are of the greatest import in treating nausea and facilitating appetite. This is why many patients prefer the effects of the smoke stuff compared with the synthetic and this work has come mostly from Rapheal Mechoulam's lab at Hebrew University (he was the guy who first isolated THC as the active ingredient of marijuana back in the 70's after just about every other chemist on the planet failed miserably, including the great Albert Hoffman). It is currently not known if the most effective medication would be one of these other (often non-intoxicating) cannabinoids on it's own of if they should be presented in combination with the myriad of other chemicals found in cannabis smoke, including THC.

Lastly, Dronabinol/marinol is more expensive than cannabis, especially if a person does not have insurance. Plus, in the case of a patient with a caregiver that grows outdoors, the medicine can be essentially free.

All that being said, it is true that marijuana is being recommmend for all sorts of other reason than aids and cancer (some bogus for sure) though it should be noted that California law stipulates that in is legal for "all conditions for which cannabis is indicated for relief" so it is perfectly legal for an MD in CA to recommend cannabis for anorexia, insomnia, back pain and a host of other seemingly not as serious conditions. Still, it is worrisome the number of doctors that are cashing in on this and it would be more ethical to simply decriminalize marijuana in general (which, by the way, the article you are commenting on was talking about). It's very difficult to make a rational case why pot should not be a legal recreational drug without also condemning everything from coca-cola to television. Of course if you want to make a religious argument for prohibition, reason doesn't really factor into it...

[Live_in_Faith]

I have an idea for all you people who think we should keep marijuana illegal. Let's do that. I can keep smoking pot just like I always have, and not have to pay any taxes to do it. In the mean time, we can raise your income taxes and cut things like social security payments and Medicare coverage. If we keep wasting money on marijuana prohibition; this is exactly what will happen. And I will keep smoking pot tax free while I watch you whine about your high tax rates, giggling as I watch you pay high sales taxes on your wine, beer, and liquor.

[jvally]

Why would it matter if he had used it? Are you implying that his using crack would have been worse than Bush's using powdered cocaine? Do you understand the difference?

[jvally]

Being black or gay was once commonly (and still is depressingly often) a barrier to the work place. The testing endemic to the workplace was pushed by DEA as another way to curb use of drugs it deemed illegal. I would like to see the Rand Corp data by the way. Was the decrease in performance statistically significant and in what areas? He may be an outlier case, but Carl Sagan was a stoner and obviously functioned alright. Maybe he would have been 10% smarter if he hadn't toked, it's hard to tell at this point. And again, as I've point out in other comments, there is always a trade off. That student who might be scoring 5 less points on his MCAT's because he smokes might also be alleviating otherwise career killing major depression with affordable pot since he cannot currently afford SSRI antidepressants. In the end, the REAL issue behind the argument for legalization is that in order to keep pot illegal AND have a consistent system of laws, one has to make the argument that anything that can possibly have any negative effect on ANY area of a persons life (and can potentially lead to pleasure) must be made illegal. This is not only impractical, it's just stupid.

As for the 5% being smokers, that's probably a conservative estimate but either way, if 5% of Californians are generating ~$15 billion a year, then I think it might well be worth CA's time to consider the taxing option. Also, whatever the take might be, the cost of administering the legal market would inevitably be BILLION's less than the enforcement of current laws, thus increasing the overall benefit to the economy.

Lastly, many societies have legal or defacto legal pot. Ours did as recently as 80 years ago and the country was hardly turned into a race of pot blunted zombies (we were in fact, plauged by the much more effective scourge of patent medicines like "Mrs. Winslows Soothing Syrup for Teething Infants" which contained a whole lot of morphine).