Should Pot Be Legal?

Part 1 Of Point-Counterpoint Between Judge James Gray and Drug Free America Foundation's David Evans

(CBS)  Editor's Note: This is the first installment of a two-part debate CBS News.com is hosting between James P. Gray, a retired Orange County, Calif. judge who nowadays is a speaker for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, and David Evans, an author and advisor to the Drug Free America Foundation. Part 2 will be published on Tuesday. We asked both participants to begin by summarizing their positions on the question of marijuana legalization. Meanwhile, make sure to add your own perspectives in the comments section below.

CBSNews.com Special Report: Marijuana Nation

---

David Evans:
We cannot legalize marijuana because its use has destructive health and social consequences. Marijuana is far more powerful today than it was years ago and it serves as an entry point for the use of other illegal drugs. This is known as the "gateway effect." Despite arguments from the drug culture to the contrary, marijuana is addictive. This addiction has been well described in the scientific literature and it consists of both a physical dependence (tolerance and subsequent withdrawal) and a psychological habituation.

According to a US report released in June of 2008, the levels of THC - the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana - have reached the highest ever amounts since scientific analysis of the drug began in the late 1970s. The average amount of THC has now reached average levels of 9.6 percent (the highest level in one of the samples was 37.2 percent). This compares to the average of just under 4 percent reported in 1983.

Higher potency marijuana may be contributing to a substantial increase in the number of American teenagers in treatment for marijuana dependence. The latest information from the U.S. Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS, 2006), reports that 16.1% of drug treatment admissions were for marijuana as the primary drug of abuse. This compares to 6% in 1992.

The use of marijuana in early adolescence is particularly dangerous. Adults who used marijuana early were five times more likely to become dependent on any drug and eight times more likely to use cocaine and fifteen times more likely to use heroin later in life.

Drug legalization advocates claim that marijuana is less dangerous than drugs like alcohol, cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine. However, studies over the last few years give us a lot of new information about marijuana. They show that marijuana is not harmless but that it is toxic and addictive.

James Gray
I think that Dave, and everyone involved in this session, will agree that we are all on the same side of this issue, namely we all want to reduce drug abuse, and all of the crime and misery that accompanies it. Where we may have differences of opinion is how best to achieve that goal.

Dave raised some points that are in the minds of many people, and I welcome the opportunity to discuss them. But throughout this discussion I want to be clear on several things. First, I don't use marijuana, and you could give it away on every street corner and bless it by every religious leader in town, and I am still not going to use it -- unless I have some form of medical problem that a medical doctor feels can be helped by this as a medicine.

Second, I strongly agree with Milton Friedman that most of the harms that come from drugs, especially including marijuana, is because they are illegal. Yes, marijuana can have its harms, but far and away the most harmful thing connected with marijuana is jail.

Third, I agree with Dave that the strength of marijuana has seriously increased in the past years. But what Dave doesn't appear to recognize is that the reason is Drug Prohibition. Why? Because it is a cardinal reason of prohibition always to promote the stronger stuff. For example, if I were a bootlegger during Alcohol Prohibition (as opposed to Drug Prohibition, which is a time we now live in), I would be facing the same criminal justice risks for selling a barrel of beer as I would a barrel of bourbon. So which would I sell? That's easy, the bourbon. Why? Because I make more money off the stronger stuff, which is bourbon. The exact same principle holds true with regard to marijuana. For the same criminal justice penalties, I could make much more money selling stronger marijuana. So that is the fundamental reason why the strength has increased.

Are you concerned with these problems? They are all caused by Drug Prohibition. Why? Because as soon as you prohibit a substance, you give up all of your ability to have any say whatsoever about how it is sold, the quantities, qualities, age restrictions, or anything else.

The best resolution is to repeal the prohibition of marijuana. Then we could regulate and control it, tax it, and all of this would, as I said earlier, make this substance less available for children.

I have been on the bench in Orange County, California for 25 years, and a federal prosecutor and Navy JAG attorney before that, but there is no question whatsoever in my mind that the most patriotic thing I can do for the country that I love is to help us repeal these prohibitions.

I ask all of you to give all of these things some thought, use all of your experiences and observations, and help me to engage everyone in our country in a full, open, and honest discussion of this critical issue.

David Evans
Judge Gray has raised issues about legalization and marijuana related crime and that legalization of marijuana would reduce this problem. He also discusses taxes and hemp.

The legalizers claim that as legalized drugs become less expensive, people will no longer need to commit crimes in order to pay for their drug use. The problem with this claim is that some drugs are already inexpensive. Marijuana, the most abused and addictive drug for young people, is very inexpensive. Some drugs can be manufactured in home laboratories. In addition, if drugs were sold legally and have to comply with government regulations and pay the costs of taxes placed upon the legalized drug there is a question whether it is possible to reduce the current price of some drugs.

However, if legal drug suppliers could undersell the black market by offering drugs at a lower price the rates of addiction would rise. Even supporters of drug legalization admit that "low prices would encourage use." A good example of this is cocaine. Once cocaine began being marketed in the high potency and low cost form of "crack," addiction rates increased. If addiction rates increase - so will purchase-related crime. Higher levels of drug use cause increased crime, especially property crime to pay for the drugs.

Legalizing drugs would not reduce purchase-related crime, but may actually increase it for two reasons: (1) if we decrease the price of an addictive drug, addicts will merely buy more of it and need more money to buy drugs. (2) there will be more addicts stealing to meet living expenses such as food, rent, etc. Drug abusing offenders are the most active criminals. Dependency on drugs drives people to commit crimes to generate income. Drug users, many of whom are unable to hold jobs, commit robberies and other crimes not only to obtain drugs, but also to purchase food, shelter, clothing and other goods and services. Even if drugs were legalized, addicts will still need to pay the rent and may resort to crime to do so.

The advocates of legalization claim that drug users only damage themselves and therefore they have the right to use drugs. Others claim that if drugs were legal, crime and violence would decrease because it is the illegal nature of drug trafficking that fuels crime and violence, instead of the violent and irrational behavior that drugs themselves induce. The flaw in this argument is that most violent drug related crime is committed because people are under the influence of drugs. The use of drugs changes behavior and causes criminal activity because people will do things they wouldn’t do if they were rational and free of the drug’s influence.

Psychoactive drugs have a powerful impact on behavior. This influences people to commit crimes that have nothing to do with supporting the cost of their drug use. Some offenders suffer emotional and/or brain damage due to drug use, which contributes to mental illness or anti-social behavior. Cocaine-related paranoia is an example. If drug use increases with legalization, so will many forms of violent crime such as assaults, drugged driving, child abuse, and domestic violence.

If legalization will cause an increase in drug use, an increase in drug use certainly will create more criminal behavior. There is a strong connection between drug use and criminal behavior. Drug use studies show that two-thirds of all male and female arrestees tested positive for at least one drug. Cocaine was found in about one-half of males and females, and marijuana was found in 25% of the men and 20% of the women. Opiates were found in 10% of the men and women. Twenty-five percent of the total sample tested positive for more than one illegal drug.

A survey of prison inmates showed that inmates report high levels of drug use prior to the commission of the crime for which they were incarcerated. In the month prior to the crime, 43% were using illegal drugs on a daily or near daily basis, and 19% were using heroin, methadone, cocaine, PCP, or LSD on a daily or nearly daily basis. The study also showed that 35% of the inmates reported they were under the influence of drugs at the time they committed the crime. Marijuana or hashish were most frequently used at the time of the crime.

Approximately 80% of the inmates in a 1986 survey had used drugs at some time in their lives. Only 13% of inmates seemed to fit the pattern of drug addicts who committed the crimes for gain. Of those sentenced for robbery, burglary, larceny, or a drug offence, one-half were daily drug users, and about 40% were under the influence of an illegal drug at the time they committed the crime. The greater an inmate's use of major drugs, the more prior convictions the inmate reported. Twenty-eight percent of the state inmates reported past drug problems with such drugs as heroin (14%), cocaine (10%), and marijuana or hashish (9%).

A US study of crime victims showed that 30 per cent perceived their attackers to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

A study published in the International Journal of Addictions links homicides to the use of marijuana. Interviews with 268 inmates in prison for homicides in New York demonstrated that 71% used marijuana within 24 hours of committing the crime and that they were experiencing some effect from the drug at the time of the crime. Twenty-five percent felt that the homicide was related to their use of marijuana before the crime.

If legalizing drugs will increase drug use, then drugged driving will also likely increase. Many studies show a clear correlation between drug use and motor vehicle accidents, trauma, and dangerous driving. More drugged driving will mean more dead and injured drivers and their innocent victims. Recent studies of intoxicated driving suspects indicate that approximately one-third of those failing standard field sobriety tests will test positive for illegal drugs. Drug tests on the bodies of 168 fatally injured truck drivers found that marijuana was found in 13%; cocaine was found in 8% and amphetamines in 7%.

A New Era for U.S. Drug Policy?
Inside Holland's "Half Baked" Pot Policy
America's Love-Hate History with Pot
Pot Not Focus of Anti-Drug Campaigns
Does the Pot Pill Work?

James Gray
This conversation is helpful, because Dave Evans is bringing up many issues that are on the minds of lots of people. I will go through them, line by line, and discuss them. But the difference between my discussion and that of Dave Evans is that I will respond to his points, and even acknowledge the strength of some of them, because no program is perfect. But he probably will not do the same thing. Because one thing is clear. We are facing two substantial issues here: one is drug problems, and I do not intend anything

I say in this area to minimize them. But the second is drug money problems, and without a doubt, these are far, far worse than the drug problems. So far, you have not heard Mr. Evans even address, much less acknowledge, the drug money problems expressly caused by our policy of Drug Prohibition, both here and around the world. I ask him to respond to them as well.

He says: "The legalizers claim that as legalized drugs become less expensive, people will no longer need to commit crimes in order to pay for their drug use."

First of all, calling us "legalizers" is a tactic that most people who support our present policy use. And it is expressly intended to freeze people's minds, and shut off discussion. Why? Because the use of that term brings the connotation of such things like that people like me don't care if your 14 year-old daughter buys cocaine in a vending machine across the street from her junior high school, or other such idiocy. Now I know Dave Evans, and he is not included in this statement, but that is exactly the connotation that most people who use that term wish to convey. And it is not true, at all! In fact I hate what some of these drugs do so much that I want to change our system to reduce those harms!

And besides, this sounds technical, but it is an important distinction, I do not want "legalize" anything. When you think of the legalization of drugs, think of aspirin. There are no restrictions on advertising, quantity, age of purchaser, or location of sale, and the price is set by the free market. What I wish to install is a system of the strictly regulated distribution of some of these drugs -- starting with marijuana. This would be similar to what we do now with tobacco and alcohol. And in order to keep the marijuana from being advertised, the government would have to own the product. Would there be problems? Of course, because as I said, no program is perfect.

But this system would be far, far, far better than what we are doing now. In fact, anything would be better than what we are doing now!

With regard to his comment that people will no longer need to commit crimes in order to pay for their drug use, that is silly. Of course many will because nothing is perfect. But that crime would be greatly reduced. For this, please focus upon the results in Portugal, where they decriminalized the use of all drugs back in 2001. Mr. Glenn Greenwald of the CATO Institute published a report about the results just a few months ago, and he reported that when this occurred, overall drug usage became slightly lower, but problem drug usage was reduced by about half!

The reason behind this was twofold. First, under the prior criminal system, drug addicted people legitimately feared their own government, so they were highly unlikely to bring their problems to the government. But now that people would only receive an administrative citation for the use or possession of drugs, which would require them to appear before a medical staff to discuss their drug usage (and this staff was not at all connected to the criminal justice system), the drug addicted people were now willing to enter treatment programs is much, much greater numbers.

Second, now that the government was no longer spending such large amounts of money on the investigation, prosecution, and incarceration of drug-addicted people, they had much more money to use for drug treatment. So those treatment programs were funded. This is seen as a truly effective program, and is one we should not only study, we should emulate.

The first sentence of Mr. Evans' second paragraph says: "However, if legal drug suppliers could undersell the black market by offering drugs at a lower price the rates of addiction would rise. Even supporters of drug legalization admit that 'low prices would encourage use.'" He is basically right. Anyone with half a sense of economics will understand that if the demand is the same, and the price is cut in half, or even reduced, (and the substance is no longer illegal for adults), usage will certainly increase. But not necessarily addiction. Actually, as we have already addressed by the experience of Portugal, addiction and other problem drug usage would probably decrease, because treatment would be more available, and the drug addicted people no longer would be automatic criminals, so they would be much more likely to seek help.

And if we followed the experience of Holland, where all drugs were decriminalized several decades ago, after 6 to 12 to maybe 18 months, probably usage would decrease as well. The Minister of Health of Holland held a news conference numbers of years ago and said that their country, where anyone 16 years of age or older can go to a coffee house and get marijuana, they only have half the marijuana usage per capita as we do in the United States -- even for teenagers!! And then he went on to explain why by saying that "We have succeeded in making pot boring." Of course, we glamorize it in our country by having it illegal, and by having an incredible profit margin to sell it to us, our neighbors and our children. We must learn from Holland's experience. This is more fully discussed in my book "Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed." Holland does have one problem, however, that they do not know what to do about, and that problem is that a full third of the people who use and abuse drugs in their country are foreigners. I have no suggestions, but obviously since we are so much larger, we wouldn't be as likely to have the problem.

[rockcutr]

The debate has been going on for most of my life. I'm in my 50's. You can find more excuses for making BBQ illegal than pot. A bad piece of meat actually kills. The only conculsion that I can come to is that the Government actually makes money on the so called war on drugs. Yet, this is hard to believe with the huge population of pot convicted prisoners. Then what happens when they have to let all the cons go? At $40,000 per prisoner per year of expenses, just maybe we could balance the budget. But, that would make sence. So, how has the war on drugs been going? The real answer is "not so good". Reduction in use just hasn't happened. But, a huge problem here is simply ego of law enforcement. And just really how stupid they look wasting all this time chasing hippies.

[wheatfield2]

Legalize pot, assess taxes on it and then lower my taxes.

[jankebenzone]

Legalize pot??? Sure why not, a few more million brain dead idiots running around is sure to improve things.
Oh,all you pot smokers who claim no adverse affects after years of use, the wino and the druggie laying in the back ally usually also claim their habits are not to blame. You might think you're normal but you stand out like a sore thumb by the facial features and the diminished intellect evident in the speech.

[DJBLAZEN]

Mr evans is so out of touch with reality.

[therxbandit]

Hello,I am just a typical college student who happens to enjoy smoking weed on a regular basis. I stumbled upon this debate while in class today and just had to express my opinion, because arguements like this tend to upset me. I think the problem is that the two people in this debate apparentely have no personal experience with marijuana. How are you supposed to talk about the effects of smoking weed if you have never in fact done it yourself. This guy David Evans is saying a lot about how marijuana is addictive and can be a gateway drug, but he has no idea what it actually does. That would be like me telling him that every friday in his foundation is bring some weed to work day. Obviously he would tell me I'm wrong and an idiot because I don't work there and would have no idea what goes on there. That is why I'm writing to tell him that he is wrong and an idiot, because I know a lot more about this topic than he does. He is just going based off of whatever research happens to back up his point, the same way anyone else could find research to say the opposite. If these people had actual experience with doing drugs and trying to obtain drugs, they would understand the situation a lot better. Weed is most definately not a gateway drug. Unfortunately, to get weed you have to deal with shady drug dealers who try and push whatever else they have on you. Anyone who has ever been in a high pressure sales situation can understand the feeling someone would get trying to say no to some big cary dude trying to get you to buy coke. Being an avid lover of ganja myelf, I have been through this experience many times, but have always managed to leave with just some fresh herb. As for the part about weed being addictive, most people who smoke will tell you it is absolutely not addictive. This isn't just because they are naive stoners, but because they genuinly aren't addicted to it. I said before that I smoke weed on a daily basis, and I have no problem not smoking when I go away to my grandparents for a few weeks. I like to smoke weed becaue I enjoy the way it makes me feel and the act of smoking, the same way I eat pizza because I enjoy the taste of pizza and the act of eating. Would it then be safe to say that I am addicted to pizza? No, of course not, that is incredibly stupid to say. So why do these people assume that just because someone likes to smoke every once in a while, or maybe many times more than that, that they are addicted to that substance. That is an extremely ignorant way to look at things. I wish that politicians and all others lobbying against weed would stop using such unfair and untrue tactics against bud to get their way. Maybe for the next debate these guys should do some real research and maybe smoke a blunt or rip a bong.

[a9stokes]

This Usa-Is now so Druged up--They do not know what they are doing from one day to the next--Marijuana-used as amedicine--only by strict ok by a doctor YES--But to be sold all over--we are just asking for a comlete take over by the strongest Comunistic government in the world==because we will all be so full of drugs we will not have a brain to -control our USA-We are puppets now--Just wait until the pot heads all give take over--no fight just all brainless individuals!!

[therxbandit]

You must really have no faith in our armed forces if you think the only thing needed to take over this country is to legalize weed.

[YourVeryWrong]

Rodney Dangerfield: ?I tried marijuana once. Just once, that's all. I didn't know what I was doing. I was on cocaine at the time...?

[Birdman313]

The more we try to legislate morality, the further we get from freedom.

[earthling76]

Enough said.

[Trappedusa]

people,freinds and fo did we not forget that our goverment sprayed the marijuana feilds with paracout back in the 60s and 70s to try to kill the evil weed.You know who it killed was the enocent people that got a hold of it.Another words its ok for the goverment to kill people because they had a brain storming idea and that was there solution to the problem.WHOS the EVIL ONE? Whats next?

[samantha1974]

THEY STILL DO IT!

[kesterling2003]

"its not like people who sell are gonna stop selling if it does come available in stores."

Easy to find alcohol bootleggers in your neck of the woods I presume.

[samantha1974]

Never met a bootlegger. Is it even financially advantageous to be a bootlegger when anyone can go down to the corner store and buy a six pack? No, it's not and the same thing will happen to countless drug dealers if marijuana is made legal. Poor drug dealers. All they wanted was to make a buck and now you guys come along and legalize their main source of bread-n-butter? How sad!

[Big-Jim-bob]

Gess what, you grow some tomatoes in your back yard now and then but most of them come from the store... Why? It would be the same with marijuana.

[nt109]

Thomas Jefferson wrote,
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. "
Marijuana Prohibition is immoral and goes against the very notion of liberty that was established by the founding fathers. When our country is in debt, what do we do? We SHOULD be spending money on EDUCATION for inner city children and health care. Instead, this great nation is laying off teachers and building more prisons and fattening the government paychecks of the prison guards, police, prosecutors, and judges who benefit from the prohibition; not to mention the other industries such as the paper industry, big pharma, and the alcohol and tobacco lobbies that benefit from cannabis hemp's illegality.
Facts are Facts: Marijuana is non-addictive, as stated many times, one cannot overdose from marijuana. I think a person would need to smoke 15 thousand joints in 20 minutes to get a toxic dose of THC or so i have heard. If there was this grand notion or proof that marijuana causes cancer, wouldn't the DEA or the ONDCP(Office of Nation Drug Control Policy) be parading the emaciated bodies of the "victims of cannabis" on their weekly anti-marijuana lying parade. Alcohol and Tobacco are the true dangers to society. Every day people die from prescription drugs, every day someone dies from cigarettes, every day someone dies from alcohol, it is not the case with marijuana.
I begin to wonder, if the marijuana prohibition is all about "control". I tend to see that marijuana/cannabis often opens an alternative mindset or an alternative viewpoint or reality or consciousness. Why would the government want the American citizens to alter their consciousness in such a way so that we begin to think for ourselves rather than be blind sheep? It is very simple . CONTROL.
There is a nice documentary called, "The Union - The Business of Getting High". I would advise anyone with an open mind to watch it. I really wish such a documentary would be shown on The History channel, or CBS, or PBS or anything so people can actually see the follies of marijuana prohibition. Please CBS buy the rights to this documentary and air it on your network i think that would be awesome.

[AttentionDeficit]

"I think a person would need to smoke 15 thousand joints in 20 minutes to get a toxic dose"

Not true. Researches have recently discovered that a toxic dosage is a 50 lb bale....dropped from a 5th story window

[Trappedusa]

I just wish when Obama and Cliton were smoking there joints that a cop would have pulled up and grabbed them and slammed there faces into the cop car just for haveing a illegal joint.Did they not forget it was illegal or did they just snub the law. I did'nt inhale said Cliton.What the F_ _ _ do they think that all americans are STUPID? IT makes me SICK.

[Thanatoll1]

Don't forget George W. Bush. He also should have had his face slammed into a cop car for smoking marijuana.

[AttentionDeficit]

trappedusa: sometimes, laws are so ridiculous they invite snubbing. this is one of them. the greater acceptance of the weed among the public will lead (eventually) to greater acceptence in the legal venue. but it won't be without a fight, as this is a huge cash cow

[MatterofLiberty]

Why aren't we all shouting "SCHAFFER REPORT" at Obama!!! End This Civil War on our Cannibus using citizens!!!!

[aj219]

liot could be done for openers on a moderate basis treating depression, anxiety, stress and pain as well as other things. I can't believe they haven't done it yet as it would be great for tax revenue and like sex, they could exploit it.esribed by physicians and I refuse to take drugs that lay me out like a junkie and then end up having to spend so much time recuperating from the effects that I become dehydrated and near starving and so weak that I can't eat even if I want to. Two pulls on a joint and I'm relaxed enough to be able to sleep at night instead of waking up and trying to walk around to shake off the pain of my disabling conditions as I have been doing for the past 7 years. There is no night or day for me, it all runs together in one messed up fog of pain. I just barely manage to pull together enough energy to be a good Mom to my kids and push them to excel in school so they'll never have to work a job like the one I had that left me disabled and in chronic pain for life. That is as organized as I get. When are they going to let doctors prescrbe marijuana to those of us who cannot tolerate those strong and highly addictive prescriptions that make people sound like Pookie in New Jackme, the politicians should really think it through. First, the politician works in a general mode, meaning he might know that replacing a hip can be done, but he really doesn't know how to do it or the same with heart surgery. He might look at gambling and summate that its okay. Its okay to think this way and we have some laws that lean one way or another, but this is pretty simple. America smokes pot and you know it, we drink alcohol, and smoke although not as much. Legalizing pot could be done for openers on a moderate basis treating depression, anxiety, stress and pain as well as other things. I can't believe they haven't done it yet as it would be great for tax revenue and like sex, they could exploit it.esribed by physicians and I refuse to take drugs that lay me out like a junkie and then end up having to spend so much time recuperating from the effects that I become dehydrated and near starving and so weak that I can't eat even if I want to. Two pulls on a joint and I'm relaxed enough to be able to sleep at night instead of waking up and trying to walk around to shake off the pain of my disabling conditions as I have been doing for the past 7 years. There is no night or day for me, it all runs together in one messed up fog of pain. I just barely manage to pull together enough energy to be a good Mom to my kids and push them to excel in school so they'll never have to work a job like the one I had that left me disabled and in chronic pain for lime, the politicians should really think it through. First, the politician works in a general mode, meaning he might know that replacing a hip can be done, but he really doesn't know how to do it or the same with heart surgery. He might look at gambling and summate that its okay. Its okay to think this way and we have some laws that lean one way or another, but this is pretty simple. America smokes pot and you know it, we drink alcohol, and smoke although not as much. Legalizing pot could be done for openers on a moderate basis treating depression, anxiety, stress and pain as well as other things. I can't believe they haven't done it yet as it would be great for tax revenue and like sex, they could exploit it.esribed by physicians and I refuse to take drugs that lay me out like a junkie and then end up having to spend so much time recuperating from the effects that I become dehydrated and near starving and so weak that I can't eat even if I want to. Two pulls on a joint and I'm relaxed enough to be able to sleep at night instead of waking up and trying to walk around to shake off the pain of my disabling conditions as I have been doing for the past 7 years. There is no night or day for me, it all runs together in one messed up fog of pain. I just barely manage to pull together enough energy to be a good Mom to my kids and push them to excel in school so they'll never have to work a job like the one I had that left me disabled and in chronic pain for life. That is as organized as I get. When are they going to let doctors prescrbe marijuana to those of us who cannot tolerate those strong and highly addictive prescriptions that make people sound like Pookie in New Jackfe. That is as organized as I get. When are they going to let doctors prescrbe marijuana to those of us who cannot tolerate those strong and highly addictive prescriptions that make people sound like Pookie in New Jack

[aj219]

by Cas2dy November 11, 2009 10:53 AM EST
If the fact that marijuan can be so addictive is such a major point of contention, then why have legal drugs of any type? I mean, Percocet, Codeine, Oxcycodone, etc are all pr by spaceatoms November 11, 2009 11:14 AM EST
For one time, the politicians should really think it through. First, the politician works in a general mode, meaning he might know that replacing a hip can be done, but he really doesn't know how to do it or the same with heart surgery. He might look at gambling and summate that its okay. Its okay to think this way and we have some laws that lean one way or another, but this is pretty simple. America smokes pot and you know it, we drink alcohol, and smoke although not as much. Legalizing pot could be done for openers on a moderate basis treating depression, anxiety, stress and pain as well as other things. I can't believe they haven't done it yet as it would be great for tax revenue and like sex, they could exploit it.esribed by physicians and I refuse to take drugs that lay me out like a junkie and then end up having to spend so much time recuperating from the effects that I become dehydrated and near starving and so weak that I can't eat even if I want to. Two pulls on a joint and I'm relaxed enough to be able to sleep at night instead of waking up and trying to walk around to shake off the pain of my disabling conditions as I have been doing for the past 7 years. There is no night or day for me, it all runs together in one messed up fog of pain. I just barely manage to pull together enough energy to be a good Mom to my kids and push them to excel in school so they'll never have to work a job like the one I had that left me disabled and in chronic pain for life. That is as organized as I get. When are they going to let doctors prescrbe marijuana to those of us who cannot tolerate those strong and highly addictive prescriptions that make people sound like Pookie in New Jack

[samantha1974]

Don't forget the anti-nausea medications that marijuana would replace if it became legal, like Phenergan! It's amazing how ignorant some people are. I guess those guys from Drug Free America are just trying to keep their jobs.

[Lepurkahn]

Wow... I like (SARCASM HERE!) how this goes from Legalizing MARIJUANA to legalizing all drugs with several mentions of COCAIN! This guys nuts Marijuana is nothing like cocain... cocain should never be legal. mariujana SHOULD be legal!!!!

[pekyon]

Try a week in Amsterdam and you will see how organized life runs on THC.

[AttentionDeficit]

pekyon: i have been in amsterdam for a week. seemed to run fine. also, the dutch have a significantly lower rate of marijuana use than americans. i have read that canadians have the highest rate of usage (% who have tried it)

[earthling76]

I love it when people who have never been to a place profess hatred for it. A.D is right, they have not only a lower rate of use in those legally permitted to use but the children don't have any where near the same accessibility. Unlike our country where drug dealers don't ask for I.D.

[makemyday2day]

It's interesting in that my 29-yr-old son and I were discussing this exact topic over the weekend: Should pot be legalized? We were both curious if there's EVER been a death of someone directly related to pot?! We'd like to know if there's a death certificate anywhere in the US which lists MJ as the cause of death. Now, compare this to alcohol-related deaths and accidents CAUSED BY DRINKING.

We are not 'potheads' but through each of our individual contacts over the years have found we'd much rather be in the company of 'potheads' than alcoholics ANY day. Time is NOW to legalize - and here's a GOOD way to increase tax revenues!

[earthling76]

Zero is the answer. No one has ever overdosed from cannabis. As I understand it, you would have to ignite so much marijuana to kill yourself that the cause of death would be from smoke inhalation. Like the smoke from a house fire overcoming your ability to escape death.

[jrutski322]

i think it is kind of odd for a bunch of rich white guys to tell me what to do and that i am addict. i can whenever and will whenever and i won't when i don't have money or just don't feel like it. no withdrawl, no sweating, no shaking from going a day without a hit.

"Higher potency marijuana may be contributing to a substantial increase in the number of American teenagers in treatment for marijuana dependence" -David Evans
i want to know where these kids get their sacs from. i thought that i had good stuff. guess not

[AttentionDeficit]

and the treatment part is caused by the kids being caught with weed and given the opportunity for "treatment" over jail. it is legally driven, not medically

[Birdman313]

"If we do not learn from history we are doomed to repeat it". Now where did I here that? Oh yeah I remember, it was 5th grade in my social studies class 27 years ago, when we were learning about the holocaust. My two children are still hearing the same quote, and for good reason; we use in our everyday lives, every single one of us, to one degree or another. I would have to say among a lot of great quotes in our history, this one ranks among the top ten.

Prohibition has taught us a lot over the centuries. Whether it be prohibition from freedom, religion, firearms, alcohol, drugs or even ideals. The one constant that I've learned is that prohibition doesn't stand the test of time; but what it does do is incarcerate, maim and kill ordinarily good people along the way. One thing that it has never done, yet is designed to do is, prohibit (prohibit: to prevent from doing something; Websters dictionary). One cannot stamp out an idea, only hurt a few people with that idea. Some people will never learn this, and it amazes me that seemingly intelligent people ignore their common senses and the proof from history and engage people with an unattainable solution.

When one engages another in battle, information is king, over and above technology or any other tools of battle. With that being said, prohibitionists are doing themselves a disservice, along with everyone else by not having the information they need to do battle. This particular battle was supposed to be about cannabis, but now I have to call Mr. Evans integrity into question, becuase he cannot stay on topic. Now is the reason medically (like he has ADD)? Or does he actually have integrity issues? Time will tell. What do ya say Mr. Evans can we stay on topic?

I've been a smoker on & off for some years. Yes I said on & off, meaning I quit for years with no side affects that normally come from "addictive drugs" like Vicodin, Oxycontin & a lot of others that my wife has been battleing from a broken back. That being said, if you really want to have the info that you need to do battle, and you are really being truthful that cannabis is the scourge of the Earth, than may I suggest to you that if you want to be on the front lines and not only appear to be banging your war drums from afar, that you pick up a joint, for the sake of the rest of us who need to be saved and stand a post.

[armyoftwelve]

I have clients who are notorious pot growers in my area. The guy is forty and has already had a tracheotomy because he got cancer from all those unfiltered joints he's smoked since he was 17. His wife is 44, needs oxygen and has lost a lung because of all the joints that she has smoked. Don't even try to tell me that MJ is harmless.

I've never met a user of "hard" drugs who didn't start out using MJ.
People who use hard drugs use MJ the way a guy who drinks a shot has a beer chaser.

[jrutski322]

hmm your experience is interesting
i have met addicts for hard drugs. and they have started by "MJ"
i have met people who only use "MJ" and won't touch anything else.
i guess this means it depends on the person and can't be applied to you "MJ" is bad for everyone assumption.

please save us your opinion there are amazingly smart people that function while under the influence of "MJ" probably better then how you function now.
legalize it!

[makemyday2day]

armyoftwelve - "I've never met a user of "hard" drugs who didn't start out using MJ". Well, I can change that for you RIGHT NOW!

Back in the 80's I was introduced to 'snow' AKA cocaine. I was hooked from the get-go and there was NO prior MJ use! NONE! Fortunately, I had a good 'shrink' within a couple years of when I began using who turned my life around. I've been clean for 25 yrs. now.

armyoftwelve - you are GROSSLY misinformed about mj and 'hard drugs'! YOU are one of the 'suckers' who fell for the govt. propoganda they constantly tried to shove in our faces 'back in the day'. Maybe you could loosen up a bit with a couple hits off a joint!

BTW - I'm STILL not a pot smoker (mostly because I don't like to smoke ANYTHING) so I have no motivation for legalization for my own personal use. BUT, I've yet to see (or know) anyone try to pick a fight or beat up their spouse after smoking a 'bowl'.

[kesterling2003]

"I've never met a user of "hard" drugs who didn't start out using MJ."

Right. Only if you give the alcohol that they got drunk on before they used pot a free pass. Funny how alcohol always gets a free pass, and pot always gets blamed. Let's not play the game that legal/illegal is in play here because almost everyone takes their first drink when their younger than 21, and that makes it an illegal drug too. Sheesh, that guy in CA that held the woman hostage for 18 years or whatever gets that behavior blamed on pot because he smoked during the 1970s. Didn't matter that he'd been getting regular **** tests for years and coming up clean, just the fact that he smoked a joint in 1978 turned him into a kidnapper/rapist 20-30 years later. What a load of claptrap. Oh, the 1999 IOM report says that only 70% of white powder users had previously used cannabis. They did a rigourous study including hundreds of participants. How many addicts have you known in your life, and how did you come to know them? Why should anyone believe a word you say? I dothink you're fibbing about your friends who allegedly got cancer from cannabis. Even Dr. Tashkin has given up on that nonsense.

Someday the lies will stop. When do the idiots get the message that lying works for about 5 minutes, until the lied to realize that the liars are lying and completely discount their credibility?

[AttentionDeficit]

armyoftwelve: what a coincidence. i have never met a user of hard drugs that didn't start out on milk. if you can show some causality, supply it. otherwise, don't expect that your opinion is convincing.

[earthling76]

Hey everybody don't worry,....... there's only twelve of them.