Comments on: High Stakes: A Call to Legalize Marijuana

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

[jvally]

The main force of the CA pot industry is made of Californians, NOT Mexican Cartels. Nobody wants they're crappy weed anyway.

[jvally]

$50 will certainly be enough to keep the black market going a bit...the best strains from NorCal generally run $250-$250/ounce right now. $50 difference is certainly enough to keep people going to an old dealer rather than the new, legit government sanctioned store. This is an example if an ill-conceived tax scheme by legislators that do not understand the market they are about to start regulating (nothing new there).

[jvally]

The first comment below raises an interesting question; just what WOULD legalization look like? I predict it would look a lot like the California wine industry. Phillip Morris WOULD sell packs of low grade, tasteless weed to most people, while those who have developed true skill over the past few decades will sell high grade, "boutique" herb to those who can appreciate it.

Another interesting thought: There is now a HUGE vested interest in keeping
legal for only medical purposes in California. For instance, there are the "pot-docs" whose only business is to write "recommendations" for cannabis. These guys are making $10,000 an hour EASY; that's money that disappears entirely once people no longer need a recommendation to grow or possess.

[jvally]

There's a reason why jobs such as commercial piloting require drugs tests. It's much easier to screen for THC than say, alcohol. Implicit in the argument that legalization of a a currently illegal will lead to pilots/doctors/drivers using said drug is the assumption that the ONLY reason such people do not currently use the drug is because it is illegal. Obviously, this cannot be true for all such persons and even if it were, airlines could STILL legally test for THC just as they could breathalize a pilot they thought was drunk. It has nothing to do with whether or not prohibition should have been repealed, and everything to do with common sense and safety.

[jvally]

Not true! I fully support legalization, but mj is NOT harmless. Like all other drugs, it's a poison. It just so happens that it's "poisonous" effects tend to be more subtle than others. Namely, that "amotivational" syndrome that heavy stoners tends to fall into. It's the very "near harmlessness" of pot that can lull one into using it too much and getting into the region of abuse. MJ should not be illegal, but neither should it be touted as a panacea/harmless recreational godsend. As with anything, it's the reality of the situation/substance that should be considered.

[jvally]

"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.'

I've heard enough of the argument quoted above. As much as people would like to reduce a question of pharmacological and medical science to the rhetoric of moral indignation, it just doesn't work that way. The statement about pot being stronger today than in the 60's is meaningless on the one hand and simply false on the other.

It's meaningless because, like most drugs, the effects of THC are complex. THC has been shown to kill neurons in test tubes (it is not known if these same concentrations are actually reached in vitro) but THC also stimulates the growth of new neurons in the hippocampus. This is a trait it shares with SSRI anti-depressants and may indicate that THC might alleviate major depression. Having more THC in pot then could be better OR worse, depending on whether the positive effects lag or lead the negative effects as the dosage increases. Furthermore, it's known that many of the easily recognizable negative effects of cannabis (lung disease or cancer, potential embolism) stem from it's being smoked, not from THC itself and a higher concentration of THC MIGHT decrease the risk of these effects by lowering the amount of plant material a person must consume to get the desired effects. Increased marijuana potency is a fact, but it's a qualified fact and hardly an open and shut argument against marijuana use.

The argument is also entirely false when one considers the acute dangers of THC, that is, how easy it is to overdose on THC. The amount of THC necessary to kill a human being outright is more than is humanly possible to consume (you're talking about smoking kilo's in a few minutes, assuming the smoke didn't kill you first); in terms of acute toxicity, THC IS harmless. If it takes a pound of some toxin to even make you start getting ill, what difference does it make if I make you eat one gram or two? If it takes a minimum of a thousand pounds of feathers dropped on a person's head to kill them, what does it matter if I drop 2 or 27 pounds of feathers on their head?

It's not necessary to discuss drugs like marijuana with all the technical abstraction as goes on in research science, but you simply cannot reduce the debate to simplistic and unqualified arguments like this one about increased potency. It's not only stupid, it's dangerous because it encourages people to think in stupid ways about the chemicals all around them. Case in point, the recent change in the allowed dose of tylenol; anything labeled a "drug" is dangerous beyond all reason, but an OTC painkiller is taken at liver toxic dosages by people who don't give it a second thought.

Speaking of which, it's tylenol is FAR more toxic (acutely speaking) than THC is.

[davcor2]

Couldn't agree with you more tincup. There are plenty of self rightous individuals in this country that basically never bother to get all the facts right or discount the facts to suit their prejudices. This state could do worse than legalizing marijuana and already has.

[TXliberal]

by dowell100 July 12, 2009 12:16 PM EDT
To white male08,,,,why is alcohol NOT a drug? .....

Wait a second. BOTH alcohol and dope are bad. Don't use one to try to justify the other. Drunk drivers killed over 15,000 people last year. Doped drivers will double that number.

That is ridiculous...entirely ricidulous and proves that you don't know what you are talking about. There has not been 1 recorded death at the hand of pot...in history. NOT ONE. The fact that you wrote this proves you have never smoked, and if you have never smoked...you don't know what you are talking about.

[jvally]

Look, pot is NOT harmless, but you should hardly expect a federal government website to make any honest statement as to the risks or benefits of it's use: The DEA does not recognize ANY benefits of marijuana (having no accepted medical use by the DEA is required for schedule I status). However, when you say something like "Marijuana effects your brain" what are you saying? That is a meaningless sentence. Music, aspirin and Glenn Beck all effect your brain too. A more appropriate statement is that marijuana stimulates neurogenesis (growth of new neurons) in the hippocampus, is known to decrease short term memory in a negative (and does dependent manner) by effecting the voluntary attention system and marijuana stimulates appetite by relaxing the stomach and other not quite understood interactions in the medulla of the brain. That's two positive and one negative effect on the brain for those who are counting. There are NO medicines out there that don't have some potentially negative consequences. If we demanded that everything we use as medicine (or as a recreational drug: coffee, tobacco, betel nut, alcohol, and tea must be included here) have NO harmful effects, the pharmakopia will be minute indeed.

[ardnuz]

@fueildoasij

Your arguments are weak at best. First of all being high on marijuana does not impair one's ability to take care of one's children. Being high is not like being stone drunk. A person can smoke and still function well and in some cases even better under the influence depending on the task at hand.

To your point about money being spent on weed instead of food/other necessities. Well drugs are just like any other luxury item. If you can't afford it you shouldn't by it. It is not the government's place to tell me where and how I spend my money. What about all the money being spent on alchohol instead of buying food? What about the money being spent on jewlrey, cars, cigarettes, hell even cable TV instead of the bare necessites.

As far as people breaking the law while under he influence that is the biggest load of BS in your post. You NEVER see a police report of someone being shot or killed by a person under the influence of marijuana. Weed makes your happy, hungry, silly and *****. Who in their right mind wants to go commit crime in that state of mind? If you ask me some people could stand to toke up now and then and maybe we'll all quit killing each other.

There are far more crimes committed by people under the influence of "legal" drugs such as alchohol and prescription drugs than will ever be committed while people are stoned. I remember a quote from a police chief (sorry I don't wanna look up a reference right now...Google is your friend) who is pro-legalization. This isn't exactly his quote but it was something to the effect of:

"I once asked my officers how many times they gotten calls because someone was high on marijuana and had committed a violent crime. No one raised their hand. Then I asked how many times had they gotten calls for people who had been drinking and had committed a violent crime and someone responded 'What time is it?'"

[debinok1]

1) we are not lazy,
2) we are not violent,
3) we are not stupid,
4) we are in the majority, and
4) we are, indeed, paying very close attention.

Your complicity in attempting to further crass stereotypes does far more damage to your increasingly precious and dwindling credibility than they do to us, the Average American Cannabis Consumers.


Amen. I know Doctors, Bankers, Financial Advisers, Educators, all very smart well educated, hard working, taxpaying citizens who are also recreational users. They not only made it through High School, they made it through college and beyond. They use it to relax and unwind. The typical pothead mentallity is so outdated.

[DamianGreenthumb]

50$ per ounce is Very reasonable, when MJ is sold by the gram. It has always been sold by the gram. 28 grams per ounce, most dispenseries sell in 2.5 gram units. $1.78 tax per gram. Sounds fair to me.

[Cuppiexten]

Exactlyyyyy, it can produce more than 500 billion dollarssss. Waddddup.

[scoobydob]

by whitemale08 July 12, 2009 2:38 PM PDT
to -- dowel645 and tincupp238,

People can drink alcohol and not abuse it but to use drugs for recreation is 'abuse' period.

Marijuana just makes you lazy and hungry and right now we need a 'productive' society to rebuild our industries and economy.

That rebuild cannot happen with a population of lazy dope-heads being taxed to bail out Goldman Sucks and JP Morgan and George Soros, who lose if we stop all bailouts because their derivatives will become more worthless.

Now if you think that we should live in a 3rd world country with low wages and everybody spending what they have left to pay for dope instead of toilet paper and food and then pay taxes on that dope to George Soros, then you are out of your mind.

I don't care if you get high, I don't think we should criminalize people who do but to legalize the 'trafficking' of those drugs or use thereof because bankerst have run out of industries to loot and destroy with their derivatives scam, I say NO!

whitemale08 have you thought of entering a beauty pagent that's a great example of a contestant answer. It is a prototype for the required 3 Rs answer: ridiculous rambling rationalization!

[BC Kelly]

Call 1-800-555-1212

Ask for Fred

;-)

[ahandalib]

you have given no argument at all. the only rebuttle to anything for herb is "making dope legal will only bring more problems". I still understand it. the media has wrongly portrayed the users of weed. htey portray them as poor, panhandlers, low-life, murderers, thiefs, addicts.. and so on. It simply isnt true. I attended a higher-class private school, and the majority of the kids used. All was done only for responisble recreational purposes. All very smart kids that went on to big name colleges. the only drugs you see are the "street" drugs. You wont find someone who is about to rob a house to pay for weed because it isn't addictive unlike nicotine cigarettes. obviously it has its health concerns, but thier are ways to dampen them. From my experience alcohol affects driving 10X worse than weed, and Alcohol can KILL you. You will not find someone who has overdosed on weed. EVER. It isnt synthetic like LSD, PCP, heroin, crack, Ectasy...etc. All of which I would never recomend anyone use, but weed gets wrongly thrown into that group.

[gunownerdan]

If god has such a problem with marijuana, why did he make it in the first place? Marijuana is a 100% natural plant - a gift from god himself that can be used for so much more than just getting high.

[sixtyfps]

It seems you're a far better acolyte of prohibition than of Christianity. Your attempts to reconcile your stated belief with these passages should prove very interesting indeed.

http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=seed&x=0&y=0

[jankebenzone]

There's a reason why California (America)is stricken with so much trouble, its called sin. But as the bible says they (sinners) will only harden their hearts against the truth and reject God,so more and intensified troubles can be expected. Making dope legal will only bring more problems.

[sixtyfps]

It seems you're a far better acolyte of prohibition than of Christianity. Your attempts to reconcile your stated belief with these passages should prove very interesting indeed.

http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=seed&x=0&y=0

[ahandalib]

you have given no argument at all. the only rebuttle to anything for herb is "making dope legal will only bring more problems". I still understand it. the media has wrongly portrayed the users of weed. htey portray them as poor, panhandlers, low-life, murderers, thiefs, addicts.. and so on. It simply isnt true. I attended a higher-class private school, and the majority of the kids used. All was done only for responisble recreational purposes. All very smart kids that went on to big name colleges. the only drugs you see are the "street" drugs. You wont find someone who is about to rob a house to pay for weed because it isn't addictive unlike nicotine cigarettes. obviously it has its health concerns, but thier are ways to dampen them. From my experience alcohol affects driving 10X worse than weed, and Alcohol can KILL you. You will not find someone who has overdosed on weed. EVER. It isnt synthetic like LSD, PCP, heroin, crack, Ectasy...etc. All of which I would never recomend anyone use, but weed gets wrongly thrown into that group.

[earthling76]

Google 'truth'