Do YOU support legalization?

[Playinghardball]

HELL YA!!

[porphyrian]

1. Yep. n/t

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. I sure do!

[gateley]

3. Yes!

[lumpy]

4. Yes

n

[Bluzmann57]

5. Yes

Si. Absolutely.

[sarcasmo]

6. Green would be the #1 crop in the country.

[otherone]

7. tax it !

[GreenPartyVoter]

8. Absolutely!

[Bennyboy]

9. Not really sure......

even though it has been my dream to see cannabis legalized, I am not sure that is such a good idea.

Not sure i want to see a system in place like with alcohol with licensing and labeling and all of that. If it is legalized then I think the local grower will be shut out of the business.

Just not sure how I would vote. Especially after seeing what happened her in CA in regards to the dispensaries etc and how they turned it into big biz.....

[redqueen]

11. But aren't there places where it's legal and people are allowed to grow a certain amount at home?

Kinda like home microbrews?

[SomethingFishy]

20. Yes, and not only that, but you can designate someone as your "provider"

and as such they are allowed to grow a certain number of plants for you.

[Bennyboy]

31. And the cities and counties will

spend gazillions of dollars to see that there are laws to thwart that. Just like Nevada County did, by passing a very restrictive ordinance against growing. 1000 feet from this an that and the other things etc..... More lawyers, more courts more $$$$ taxpayers money going to both sides.

[Blue_In_AK]

62. Yes.

Alaska decriminalized marijuana by court case in 1975. It's been legal to have an ounce (some interpretations of the law say four ounces) for personal use, or up to 25 plants.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

12. You're right.

Mass murder in Central America, prison overcrowding in the United States, people going to jail for life over pot and lives being ruined are all better options.

[TBF]

10. Yes. nt

[Ohio Joe]

13. You can be assured that I will be voting for it here in CO

I currently have my red card here but it should be available to every adult.

[longship]

14. Definitely yes. Plus, national amnesty.

Total amnesty for all non-violent offenders. Violent offenders to be resentenced w/o drug charges.

[antiquie]

140. Yes, national amnesty.

'eres to you...

[Politicalboi]

15. Marijuana, It's what's for dinner

&feature=g-all-u

[sabrina 1]

16. Yes, end the phony, murderous drug war and deal with addiction as a medical and educational

problem. It never was about anything other than an excuse to build up a profitable 'law enforcement' industry, to diminish everyone's civil rights and to get Federal Funds to interfere in the business of other countries, for profit.

Aside from which, even if it ever had been well-meaning, it failed long ago to stop drug use.

[ellaydubya]

17. As soon as possible- that would be a "YES"!!!

[RebelOne]

18. Yes.

Because I think it would eliminate a lot of illegal drug sales.

[oldbanjo]

32. I agree with you.

[RiffRandell]

19. Yes. n/t

[DirkGently]

21. For PEOPLE. Not corporations.

Last thing we need is Wal-pot or Marlboro Marilights. Individuals should be able to produce, sell, and possess some reasonable amount that precludes mega farms or mass distribution.

[Honeycombe8]

40. But corporations are people, too.

[OnionPatch]

117. Oh, but you know big-ag will be right in there if it's legalized.

With all that profit to be made, you know they'll be buying politicians to craft the laws so that they can cash in. They'll probably end up with the biggest cut of the market. But maybe there will still be a niche market for locally-grown, organic, "artisan" bud. I hope that's the case.

[DirkGently]

120. Maybe "decriminalization" would work better, then.

We don't need another profit center for the already-rich. We need to stop putting people in jail for a substance less harmful than alcohol, and enabling and fighting a huge black market.

[Egalitarian Thug]

144. Good point. We have to be aware that once this prohibition surrenders to the inevitable we will

have to watch for regulations/fees/etc. that seek to prohibit small organizations and individuals from growing, packaging, and so on. Forbidding genetic patents is probably necessary.

[immoderate]

22. Only if it's legal!

--imm

[Le Taz Hot]

23. Yep. n/t

[PD Turk]

24. Yes

I should be able to grow my own in my garden.

[bluestate10]

25. Voters in my state decriminalized amounts under a few grams a few years back.

I personally voted to de-criminalize because I could not tolerate a person getting a criminal record for using the stuff. I would be ok with and vote for full legalization. In addition, I would like to see changes where parents can get a license from the local police department or the state police to serve alcohol to their minor children legally and have the children served alcohol, if the kids want it in restaurants under parental supervision. If our society is going to control the effects of drug or alcohol use, we must de-mystify drugs and alcohol to children.

[HenryBasil]

26. Spam deleted by DURHAM D (MIR Team)

[rsweets]

27. yes ... and bring back the hemp industry

[Gidney N Cloyd]

28. What would the numbers look like if people could vote honestly?

I'm pro-legalization but I'm not sure I'd share that with everyone who asked.

[spanone]

29. the days of reefer madness are waning....about time

[Spitfire of ATJ]

42. I always considered that a comedy.

"Faster! Faster!"

[Bluenorthwest]

30. Yes indeed and the sooner the better....

nt

[glinda]

33. For medical purposes I do.

I think the penalties are ridiculous now though also.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

41. "For medical purposes I do."

You could say goodbye to the antidepressant industry.

[glinda]

146. I would rather see people smoke pot if it helps them than do

other drugs by Pig Pharma.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

148. No kidding, it also could cause munchie stock to skyrocket.

[dorksied]

34. Legalize it, tax it, and keep Big Tobacco from getting their greedy mits all over it.

And keep it clean... I don't want all the additives that they put in cigarettes in my joint, yo.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

38. Joint???

I want buds,...with little shiny bits...

[Spitfire of ATJ]

35. Should have been legal when prohibition was repealed.

Marijuana would end the Republican Party as it would eliminate a LOT of hate.

[Honeycombe8]

36. Yes! It would decrease prescription pill useage, for one thing. nt

[ms liberty]

37. Yes. K&R...n/t

[aintitfunny]

39. Yes!

[RoccoR5955]

43. I have been there since

I was one of the 12%!
What took all of you so long to come around?

[clydefrand]

44. yes

If people in this country have the right to drink alcohol and smoke tobacco, why not allow people to use marijuana?


Are Native Americans allowed to use this or some other "weeds" in their ceremonies? I hope so.

[annabanana]

45. I came to this conclusion in

1967

[Vidar]

46. Yes.

[OriginalGeek]

47. Unreservedly Yes.

None of this "For medical reasons only". There is not one good reason to keep it illegal. It's moronic to make people lie about their cataracts or some made-up condition to get weed.

[Iggo]

48. Absolutely.

[KG]

50. I support decriminalization.

not the same thing as legalization.

[riderinthestorm]

56. Stop the war on drugs. That's insanity.

And I agree with you KG, decriminalize.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

51. User since 1963. Sure glad I didn't wait for it to become legal.

Use it carefully and respectfully, it's your God given right.

[ZombieHorde]

52. Of course cannibalism should be legal!

Oh wait, this is about pot? Sure, why not? I support legalization.

[Deep13]

53. Well, I agree with it, but I have not done anything to support it. nt

[Gormy Cuss]

54. Not only legalization but use for medicinal purposes (which requires RECOGNIZING that is has such)

and for recreational purposes with the same level of restraints as alcohol and tobacco.

[ReasonableToo]

55. Yes. Many reasons

Sorry if this duplicates others but it why I say legalize...
-collect taxes on sales
-make durable products from it
-explore medicinal uses
-stop filling our jails with users
-it's not worse than alcohol
-it can be used to get users off hard drugs

Reasonable police officers and judges want it to be legalized.

[defacto7]

57. yep, absolutely

There are points about how to do it, the politics, the lawyers, the radical naysayers... but then every big change in our society starts as a circus. I hate the circus, I hate the people who squeeze as much money and time out of the process as possible....

BUT... it's time to get the circus started so we can get it over with.

It's time to legalize cannabis.



(wow, sounds like I just wrote a TV ad or something)

[defacto7]

59. This seems like a good post to have a poll added...

But looking over the comments, it's all one sided. Maybe we should invite some GOPers to participate?

not!

[redwitch]

58. yes

most definitely.

[6502]

60. No.

Again: No.

There are many legal remedies (prescription and non-prescription) for every medical condition people say they they need weed for --- and none are carcinogenic.

headache/body aches: anelgesics
depression: anti-depressants
sleepness: various sleep aids
anxiety: anti-anxiety meds

And all medicines must pass FDA approval. They cannot legally cut or dope thier products.

Go to a doctor, tell doctor what ails you, and get a prescription.

Cost? If you live in a country with national health insurance of any kind you have no excuse. ObamCare in its current form will suffice for many. And if you fall through the cracks there, you are more likely to receive broad support from the greater society for expanding healthcare to more people so you could fill valid legal prescriptions before they would ever permit coverage for illegal drugs.

Marijuana and other illegal drugs have known costs to society which supporters gloss over with hand-wavey pseudo-scientific, pseudo-economic, pseudo-social scientific nonsense all in the service of your single-minded goal: to do whatever you want --- be it fuel your addictions or just plain get high --- at the expense of the greater society.

PS
I do support publicly funded drug rehabilitation clinics to help release people from thier patterns of use and/or addiction.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

63. That's not the question, Anslinger.

The question was not, "Do you think marijuana should be used for medical conditions". The question was, do you think people who want to smoke it recreationally should be sent to prison. Thanks for playing.

[6502]

68. You are very easy to respond to...

I did answer the question and was kind enough to qualify my answer.

You might have missed that --- you are only human

Or, you did not miss that and realized that you have nothing to offer to counter my points... further, you realized that anything you offered would have only served to validate my position. The result: you throw a text-based tantrum punctuated with "Thanks for playing."

You have nothing to stand on.

And, oh, "Thanks for playing"... but you have nothing to offer... so you loose.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

97. Who the fuck do you think you are?

You're sporting quite the attitude for someone who can't spell words given in fourth grade spelling tests. You've also got the form, but without the substance behind it. You're using a form, a template, that says I have nothing to stand on, but I very clearly elucidated my point, and you've done nothing to counter it. You've accused me of throwing a tantrum, which makes clear you have no idea what a tantrum looks like (hint: you'd be in a corner blubbering). You make the clain that anything I offer would only serve to validate your position. There's absolutely nothing I said that would have the tendency to do this, else you would have brought it up. So yes, you've got your "always right" template ready to go, but it's based on nothing. This is reminiscent of the Bush Administration's "repeat a lie enough and it becomes true" stance that they used for everything. This is the domain of the fuckwit, of the easily led, of the right-wing radio fan, and if you think it will work here, work with me, then you're even less able than I had at first imagined. Just because you have irrational fears of marijuana doesn't mean that well-adjusted members of society do, and you're going to need to get used to that concept, scooter. You either want pot smokers to go to prison, or you'd like them sent to rehab. Get bent, and get back with me once you've had a few years to mature and live some life.

[6502]

110. You obviously didn't read my commnet...

... in the "PS" part of my comment I said that I support rehabilitation... but that is not in conflict with my position that illegal drugs remain illegal.

Also, it is petty to pick at people's spelling on internet forums.

I'd already listed where you can go to find data (.gov sites... see other comments... I will leave it as a task for you to find the exact sources).

I've done that kind of research related to the assertion that companies in the US do not pay their fair share of taxes. I first checked the website. Then I called the IRS directly and made a request. They could not release raw individual corporate tax data, but were kind enough to direct me to where I could download aggregate data sets to support my search.

Once I had the numbers, I ran my own analysis that showed that the assertion made in the press was in fact correct.

I've done the same with climate data as well --- except that due to my hard work schedule, I have not had the time to get the brute force churning of the numbers going. The data set is huge.

My position on illegal drugs is in line with the establishment.
Yours is not.
You want people to support you.
So, I say: Make a good argument. The data is there. I even give you a template for how to develop the document (see my other posts).

But, if you can't, then no one will support your position.

But even more than that, unlike many around you, I will not coddle you by lying and letting you feel that I believe in what you believe or that I will support your desire to use illegal drugs.

I see no profit in lying.

PS
I am a liberal.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

111. You answered as though your considered opinion holds merit, weight

It does not. You're not able to coddle me, as that would require my buy-in. I don't care which data sets you've compiled, and which you've yet to work on--your work has no meaning for me. I feel no compulsion to "make a good argument" to you...check the biblical pearls-before-swine thing for my rationale. And no, I don't need your template, as I've already explained how it's fatally flawed, and is not fit for adult conversation. A majority of Americans already do support my position, by the way. Finally, many congratulations for your alignment with the establishment. Bye now.

[renie408]

132. Curious

How do you feel about alcohol? Should we go back to prohibition because alcohol has large negatives effects on society? And if you feel alcohol should be legal, why not marijuana? Marijuana is not worse for you in any way than alcohol and has less negative effects in many ways.

[NotThisTime]

65. We are in the minority, but hell no for all the reasons listed

I have a neurodegenerative disease for which it has been offered, I say no, when I need something to just get me through my life is done. I don't want my critical and analytical skills screwed up by a damn thing, it's bad enough my body is failing.

[6502]

71. Please speak with....

... your doctor... or a doctor... just to live life doctors do prescribe pain-killers and various kinds of sedatives.

A friend of mine has a a few conditions (just recently added to it a degenerate spinal disease).

Like you, this friend wont even consider illegal drugs.

This friend goes to a doctor, gets appropriate prescriptions and even prescriptions for rehabilitation to help reduce pain and make this friend feel better overall.

Heck... I hurt my spine years ago.
The pain was endless.
I had problems with walking and balance for years.
I couldn't sleep right anymore.

But the doctors did the same for me.
Appropriate pain medicines... therapy... and even Tai Chi.

I eventually got better.
But all the while, my mind was clear.
My work life was never in jeopardy.
There was never a chance for legal problems.
When a medicine made me too drowsy for work, I simply talked with my doctor and he adjusted it, and things went well again.

Heck, even now, I take medicines...
Legal.... with a prescription from my doctor...

No worries.
No fear.
No problems.

And... I feel good.

[porphyrian]

75. As with abortion, legalization would not make use mandatory.

You would still be free to not use marijuana in the same way that you are currently free to not drink alcohol, for example. Why do you believe that it should remain illegal beyond the stated medicinal alternatives?

[Zorra]

79. +1

[6502]

80. Unlike aboriton, illegal drug use does have negative effects...

... to the greater society.

Please do not waste time trying to conflate dissimilar aspects of different issues.
Or more simply put: don't make straw-men.

In this case, you introduced the concept of mandatory forced use of drugs: which is never mentioned by anyone... EVER. You just made that up to distract from the fact that you cannot find any valid evidence that shows that illegal drug use does not have negative effects on the society at large.

We'll be waiting for you to bring the "evidence".

Right here.

But, you wont return with anything.
There is too much evidence against illegal drug use.

My advice: please just go to a doctor and get a prescription for approved medicines.

[Comrade Grumpy]

83. I don't think anyone argues drug use can have negative effects on the individual and society.

Drug are a two-edged sword, and I include prescription drugs, illicit drugs, and alcohol and tobacco. They all have their beneficial aspects and their detrimental ones.

Opioid pain medications (and heroin) can relieve the pain; they can also addict or kill you.

Stimulants (Ritalin, amphetamines, cocaine) can help you work or study; they can also addict you or weird you out.

Alcohol can loosen inhibitions and relax you; it can also turn you into a drunk and make you drive poorly.

Marijuana can relax you; it can also become the center of your life, but it isn't going to kill you.

The question then becomes: What policies do we craft that acknowledge the beneficial uses of drugs while reducing the overall harm to society and the individual? I would argue that our current prohibitionist policies, especially regarding marijuana, create more harm than they prevent:

1. They don't stop people from smoking marijuana.
2. They create black market profits than benefit criminals, not society.
3. They make criminals out of people who simply want to use a relatively innocuous substance.
5. They chip away ever more at our rights and freedoms in the vain pursuit of total abstinence.

Let's put the ball back in your court: Show me the evidence that marijuana prohibition does not do more harm than good.

[6502]

87. Uh... no...

The burden is on you to prove your case.

Society has already spoken.
In virtually all parts of the world, the the same core set of illegal drugs are the same --- the outcomes are documented the same.

Look read above, I pointed out that the research is already available and is used as the basis of US policy,.

If you want change, the burden is on you to develop a strong body of valid evidence to factually support your position, while refuting the existing body of evidence, while convincing the majority that you are correct.

Tall order.

Not possible.

[renie408]

135. In many states, society has spoken on gay marriage...are we supposed to listen?

Society used to say some things about racial equality, women voting, prohibition, wearing white after Labor Day and all sorts of things. Only a conservative thinks maintaining the status quo of societal approval is a good reason.

I believe in legalization for many reasons. Number one is that I would prefer the ability to grow my chosen insomnia and migraine medication for free in my backyard as opposed to supporting Pfizer. My husband would prefer to grow his chosen recreational drug in his backyard for free really easily as opposed to supporting Anheuser Busch.

I also suspect that legalized marijuana would not result in some flood of stoners dragging the country into a downward spiral and might also minimize some of the illegal drug infighting that occurs.

Lastly, but not leastly, YOU are the one who wants a costly to enforce, costly to society law kept in place. I would think the burden is on YOU and society to prove to ME why marijuana should be illegal, but alcohol (which is directly responsible for 75,000 deaths PER YEAR) is legal.

Tall order.

Not possible.

[porphyrian]

100. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, but I'm trying to understand why you are against legalization.

I'm asking you why you are against the legalization of marijuana. I'm sorry if my comparison offended you, but it wasn't a straw man. I'll be direct; why are you against the legalization of marijuana? Prescription drugs have nothing to do with it, as there can be multiple drugs on the market that treat the same thing. If you agree with the other person in this thread, then specifically what costs to society does marijuana use cause you to decide that it should not be legalized? I'm not trying to fight with you or convince you to change your mind, I'm asking you to clarify your position.

[6502]

102. Please... read post #95...

... write about your position.

You're trying to change the world.
Create a convincing argument that is not mere prose.

Read post #95...

[porphyrian]

103. Actually, you're wrong.

I have done two things on this thread; I've said that I'm for the legalization of marijuana in America and I've asked you and the other "no" vote to clarify why you are against it. You got defensive and blustery and did not answer my question. You have gone further to personally attack me an to make the false charge that there is some burden of proof on me. The burden of proof lies on the person making the unsupported claim, which, in this case, is you. I have remained polite and civil with you thus far, but you seem to be looking for a fight. I won't give you that today, but if you won't be civil with me, I will ignore you from now on.

So, now YOU go back and read what I've posted here and respond with a civil answer or we're done.


I apologize, NotThisTime. In my earlier version of this post, I made the false assumption that you had responded to me, when it was actually the child you responded to initially who responded for you. I look forward to your response to my question.

[Sirveri]

145. That doesn't make it just for the government to make it illegal.

The negative effects to the whole of society from drug use are already illegal, so the proper response is to discourage usage via taxation, similar to our approach to alcohol; not to make a drug, one that is less harmful than legal drugs, as illegal as heroin.

[porphyrian]

72. Civil question

You state, "Marijuana and other illegal drugs have known costs to society which supporters gloss over with hand-wavey pseudo-scientific, pseudo-economic, pseudo-social scientific nonsense all in the service of your single-minded goal: to do whatever you want --- be it fuel your addictions or just plain get high --- at the expense of the greater society."

What are the "known costs to society" you reference without citation? You seem to be making an assumption that I don't. I fully support your right to oppose legalization, but I'm curious to see what costs you believe outweigh the costs of the drug war on society globally.

[6502]

82. Actually... the burden of proof is on you...

You see, our tax dollars have for decades helped to pay for the research through the NSF, FDA, CDC, ATF, universities and medical institutions throughout the US whose papers are all published and available online.
(Do yourself a favor and visit the .gov websites and take a look for yourself).

Further, those papers have been used for years to help develop polices that are then carried out by the FDA, CDC, ATF, FBI, courts at all levels of government, corporate drug policy, US Military and Coast Guard polices, and more.
(Again, check the .gov websites for yourself... or visit your local Army Recruitment Office to get a brief summary... the point is try)

Why am I going to do research for you?
All of the research has been done and vetted by qualified entities (experts) quite often on the tax payer's dime.

I have no reason to fetch any research for you.

You go fetch it yourself.

And when you are done, come back with whatever research you have that refutes it.

Oh, but wait: You don't get to cheery pick.
You have to refute the whole body of research as invalid.
(Basically, you are not allowed to use the tricks used by global warming denialists or holocaust denialist... we're liberals --- we don't do that, right?)

I know you can't succeed at this task.
You are not capable.

[Comrade Grumpy]

84. Your snotty attitude isn't going to go far here.

[6502]

88. Resorting to name calling...

... and as I expected, not a single character of your text was devoted to developing your case.

You completely lived up to my expectations.

[renie408]

138. There is no point.

You have already indicated that it is impossible to sway your opinion. You are, after all, so impressed with yourself.

So, really, the only thing left is to note what an asshole you are and move on.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

99. The Cheeto stain is strong with this one

And it comes from an ISP connection paid for by mom. But junior was able to figure out how to extend a CAT5 drop into the basement, which has made him feel pedantic and superior about all issues, which in turn is why he feels it's ok to take a dump all over the furniture after 80-someodd posts.

[JonLP24]

92. If you think

the reason why cannabis is illegal because of fair and balanced experts and careful review of the facts than you don't know how it became illegal.

First, after the marijuana tax act was ruled unconstitutional, Nixon created a new law enforcement agency, another Cabinet post, and the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse which acknowledged that the stereotypes were false, was shown to have little physical and psychological harm, and said that enforcement was too harsh and recommended decriminalization. What did Nixon do when he created the Controlled Substances Act? He ignored their findings and labeled a schedule I drug(cannabis wasn't the only drug where they ignored positive findings).

Cannabis was labeled a schedule I drug which means

"has a high potential for abuse"

It can w/ some people, but legal substances such as alcohol & tobacco without a doubt have a "high potential for abuse". It doesn't even remotely approach the addictive levels as hard street substances and schedule II (not as bad as schedule I) substances such as cocaine and methamphetamine. If you think the government is making the correct decisions regarding drug policy can you explain why cannabis is treated as if it's worse than those stimulants?

"has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States."

This is clearly false. Off the top of my ahead, cannabidiol which is an ingredient found an cannabis has been shown to inhibit cancer cell growth. It has clear benefits in HIV/Aids patients. Again, clearly false. Schedule II substances cocaine and methamphetamine are schedule II due to having accepted medical uses.

"a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug under medical supervision."

False for similar reasons as above. Most notably, there isn't a single case of cannabis overdose.

When rescheduling petitions are routinely denied, you can't argue the government has things the way they are based on research. And if they do, why aren't alcohol & tobacco illegal when there is plenty of research that shows they are far worse.

The reasons it is illegal is because of voters & public perception. Research has little to do with it. Alcohol & tobacco generally isn't associated w/ drugs such as heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine while cannabis is linked w/ "gateway drug" BS. Stereotypes of users that have them as hippies or slackers, government sponsored propoganda, TV shows & films that grossly exaggerated the effects.

Also voters and politicians alike are generally satisfied w/ the status quo. Even stupid laws like sodomy hung around a long time and only the Supreme Court ended that law. On this point it should be noted when common street drugs were made illegal during the FDR era, it was based on racism, fear, and incredibly false claims(Look up Harry Anslinger). So from 1937 to today, so voters are politicians have been content w/ leavings things as is. The vast majority of cannabis users that vote accept that either the R or D politician won't support legalization so politicians don't have to worry about losing their votes.

With that said, things are changing dramatically. 2001 was when I first started caring about the issue and the outlook was basically there is no chance in hell. The poll above indicates about 70% oppose. It is surprising how much as changed that I didn't expect it. There have been an ever increasing number of states that either decriminalized, legalized medical marijuana, or both. My home state, Arizona, while miles behind everyone else (any amount is a felony) recently approved of medical marijuana (though against the governor and the right wing legislature wishes). Non-commercial possession of under an ounce is legal in Alaska (actually more) and Denver though it is still illegal under federal law -- which as I pointed out, isn't based on logic. Another 10 years, cannabis will be far more legal than it is now as more and more people that actually know the truth about cannabis and dumbfounded by the hypocrisy of the legality of alcohol & tobacco will be eligible voters.

[6502]

95. Good effort, but this is not proof... this is prose...

... Look, anybody can string together a bunch of facts in any way so as to create a convincing story in support of anything.

What's missing in your text is really researched statistics from reputable sources. Where are the references from reputable sources? The analysis based on those sources? It's not there.

I'd already outlined a list of good sources of well researched data from the .gov websites.

After that, you would need to do real analysis on the data to appropriately separate incidental relationships from true cause-and-effect relationships. (Odds are the government already has that data as well).

Please read comment #90 for an outline to the steps.

Try to understand: You and your illegal drug legalization types are on the defensive. The government, government research agencies, respectable research institutes and their researchers, respectable medical research centers and health providers, federal and international law enforcement, social planners, and more all have a body of evidence to support their position. And quite a lot of it is outlined in peer reviewed reports.

In the face of that, you cannot seriously expect to win with anecdotes, analogies and stories.

Please read comment #90.
I've laid out the sources, tools and framework for success.

It's up to you and your group to rise to the challenge.

That said, I am convinced that even with all of this, that you will fail to successfully make your case.
Upon doing your research, you will find that the weight of evidence will not be in for favor.

But... I will wait to see what your group produces.
I am convinced that you can't.

[JonLP24]

104. I already researched plenty

if I didn't, why would I know all about the Marijauna Tax Act, the Controlled Substances Act, it's classification, the commission? The weight of the evidence shows how idiotic current policy is especially when alcohol & tobacco are legal. Everything I posted is true & easily verifiable w/ the exception of the last 1-2 paragraphs which is just my opinion but it's obvious politics rather than research is why it maintains the legal status it does.

When it comes to studies, they vary depending on what they're trying to find about cannabis. There are studies on how addicting it is, different studies that look into the multiple medicinal benefits, how it affects driving, how it affects teens, etc. You also have to realize the government often rejects Universities requests to conduct studies. I don't know what it is you're asking but most of those respectable types you mention aren't saying what it is you think they're saying.

A study sponsored by the state of California, conducted by the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research at the University of California, San Diego.

It studies the medicinal aspects of it but the interesting thing (I'm waiting for you to accuse me of glossing over negative claims, which I'm well aware of, but they aren't so horrible that it must remain illegal)

The classification of marijuana as a Schedule I drug as well as the continuing controversy as to whether or not cannabis is of medical value [59] are obstacles to medical progress in this area. Based on evidence currently available the Schedule I classification is not tenable; it is not accurate that cannabis has no medical value, or that information on safety is lacking. It is true cannabis has some abuse potential, but its profile more closely resembles drugs in Schedule III (where codeine and dronabinol are listed). The continuing conflict between scientific evidence and political ideology will hopefully be reconciled in a judicious manner [60, 61]. In the meantime, the decision to recommend this treatment in jurisdictions where use of medical marijuana is already permitted needs to be based on a careful assessment that includes proper diagnosis of a condition for which there is evidence that cannabis may be effective, along with consideration as to response to more standard treatments. Prior substance abuse history, psychiatric comorbidity, and other factors need to be weighed in a risk benefit analysis. Part of this analysis should consider that the potential longer-term harms of the cannabinoids are not fully understood: these include abuse and a dependence syndrome, adverse psychiatric and medical effects in vulnerable populations, and documented risk to traffic safety when combined with alcohol, and perhaps singly [62]. In the long term, as further studies demonstrate whether cannabis is effective for various indications, this should lead to development of novel modulators of the endocannabinoid system which may be prescribed and used as more traditional medicines.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/03/government-sponsored-study-destroys-deas-classification-of-marijuana/

Again, if the government's case is so rock strong solid as you seem to claim, why is cannabis Schedule I, cocaine & methamphetamine Schedule II, and alcohol & tobacco legal? The negative effects of cannabis, which the government uses as a reason to keep it illegal, is nowhere near as bad as those other substances. The only possible way to answer that question logically is that they're hypocrites.

[porphyrian]

98. Your tone is completely unnecessary.

I know others are attacking you, so it's difficult for you not to be defensive, but I simply asked you to clarify your earlier statement. I don't appreciate your attack and further assumptions about me.

I don't expect you to do research for me, I expect you to cite it when you are making an unsupported claim. Thank you for naming some sources, but again, your tone is unnecessary.

The term is "cherry pick," not "cheery pick."

You have no idea what my capacities are and I ask you to stop making assumptions about them.

Thank you.

[6502]

106. Correcting people's spelling is petty...

.... people who support illegal drug use need to either develop a real supportable position or realize that the position is unsupportable and give it up.

My recommendation is simple: Go to a real doctor and get a prescription for real medicines to treat what ails you... anti-depressants, anti-anxiety (weed smokers often talk about its calming effects), pain-killers, sleep aids, and more.

Look: Why take the risk of prison just for a nickle-bag when you can get a prescription for things up to morphine? I once had horrible pain from a tooth extraction and had a prescription for it. It's totally a controlled substance, but if you have horrible pain, the doctors can prescribe it or any number of similar medicines.

Here in Japan I've received prescriptions for some pretty powerful stuff. The doctors gave me like a few days worth first, then asked me to return for an exam. When things checked out, they gave me a week's worth and asked me back again. Once things looked safe, they gave me a longer prescription.

But all the while my core needs were cared for.

If your goal is not medical, but mind a mind altering experience, then your options are limited to only cigarettes and alcohol.

Cigarettes are being regulated with the goal of eventually eliminating them from society: the cost to society (medical) is too great.

Alcohol still remains legal. Like cigarettes, only adults can use it.

I'm not even moralizing here.

I'm in a position where I can reduce the problem to simple risk.

Drinking beer can alter a persons mind, but will not land them in jail as long as they don't cause an accident and are fresh and focused for work, school, raising their kids, and so on.

Generally speaking, you will not go to jail over a rum and coke.
You will not have a blemish on your permanent record over a beer.
You will not have to face the possibility of having social services take your children away over a glass or two of wine.

We have laws and regulations that define the limits for using alcohol.

So, why not take the no risk approach?

Drink some alcohol from time to time and take appropriate medicines to deal with anxiety or sleep issues and other problems.

It's what I do.

And I can sit in a bar with a cop and share a drink as we talk about the newspaper.

And the cop might be taking pain-killers for his bad leg.

And me, sleep aids for my difficulty sleeping due to stress from raising kids.

Given that this is possible, it makes the argument in favor of illegal drugs sound unreasonable and unsupportable. Platitudes and stringing together ideas wont stand up against the force of wide evidence.

So, I say, give it your best shot to be really convincing.
I'm curious to see if it is possible to develop an argument based on the supported body of facts.

But, I will not lie to you.
Even that I laid out how the research could be approached.
I am convinced that a truly supportable position is impossible to develop.

I see no point in lying about that.

[porphyrian]

109. You are against legalizing marijuana in America because it's use is currently illegal?

I'm sorry, but it is apparent that you have limited information on this subject and, as you say, you have no intention of changing your mind about it even if I do produce contrary evidence, which you admit you won't believe, so I won't waste any more time on you. Thank you for being honest about your position. Good bye.

[Romulox]

119. Borderline incoherent. The reason legalization is making such strides is that its opposition

is intellectually bankrupt.

[Comrade Grumpy]

73. Hmm, prescription drug overdoses are now the leading cause of accidental death.

Tell me again about all those nice FDA-approved drugs.

But, as the other poster noted, that wasn't the question.

I sense a high dose of moralism in your post. Would you ban alcohol, also? If not, why not?

[6502]

90. Here's an idea that might gain you some respect...

... let's start by considering your shorthand statement on overdoses as a starting point for your research instead of a conclusion worth debate.

1. Consider your overdose position a kind of hypothesis.

2. Go to the .gov websites and gather the real research data on the topic.

3. See if the data really matches your conjecture. Be careful not to cherry-pick your data or no one will respect any of your conclusions.

4. Determine if there are real cause-and-effect relationships and not just incidental relationships.

5. Include research on other forms of overdose for comparison. Again, no cherry-picking.

6. Do not ignore inconvenient evidence.

7. Report the outcome regardless of whether it supported your original hypothesis or not.

... I was thinking... I'll make you a deal.

You've already suggested the topic... the original hypothesis.
I laid out at least the 7 steps you need to follow to research the hypothesis... with the potential to develop a position paper to support your case.

I'll give you one week to develop your position paper.
Consider this a rare opportunity to really develop your case...
... to try to develop a case that would refute a strong body of researched evidence...
... and perhaps convince thinking people that your position is supportable.

So, can you do this?
Will you accept the challenge?

(If you need more than one week, just say so.)

I am giving you a chance here.

[Comrade Grumpy]

121. You're challenging my statement on overdose deaths?

Here's the CDC on the rapid increae in prescription drug overdose deaths:

http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/rxbrief/

Here's a news report on the CDC ranking of cause of accidental deaths:

http://www.promises.com/articles/drug-poisoning-deaths

I notice you haven't backed up one word of that shit you're spouting. I'm done with this. Go take some morphine.

[Logical]

74. Read more about prescription drug abuse. Get back to me. Jesus, this old argument again?

[JonLP24]

89. I can't speak for every supporter

but there is valid scientific claims that show it is not as bad as opponents make it out to be and it would be interesting to have a discussion to show who is right. As to medicine, you don't have to smoke it but even then, there are plenty of FDA approved drugs that are addictive and have much more harmful side effects.

As far as economic, it is obvious. There are sale tax benefits that the government could be collecting, businesses would start up and pay taxes on their earnings. They would hire employees which also pay taxes but more importantly they would have a paycheck which they would use on purchases at local grocery stores, rent/buy housing, etc. which helps those businesses and employees. IOW, the multiplier effect. I don't see how saying this is a false economic claim.

I think the far bigger cost to society is using resources, enforcement, and time to stop something that isn't a big deal and they can't stop the availability anyways. Especially when more harmful substances such as alcohol & tobacco are perfectly legal.

[6502]

101. Please... read post #95...

What you think does not match with respectable research or public policy in most nations of the world.

Even in Japan, where I live, the set of illegal drugs is about the same as the US (if not more... they recently declared "herb" --- perhaps called "artificial canibis" in the US? --- as now illegal).

You go to prison here for illegal drugs.
You loose your job.
You shame your family and friends.

Read post #95... that will refer to another post that outlines how better to make your case.

But seriously, I am sure that once you actually do the research, you will be unable to create a winning position based on the facts.

[JonLP24]

105. ....

You go to prison here for illegal drugs.
You loose your job.
You shame your family and friends.

and that strikes you as sensible drug policy?

[hootinholler]

114. So, if you live in Japan why are you so worried about US drug law?

You are transparent to the point of hilarity.

[MrMickeysMom]

113. You don't know as much as you think you do about FDA approval, and less about THC...

... which has already undergone FDA study, and is a controlled substance in some states.

"Go to a doctor, tell doctor what ails you, and get a prescription" should include physical, psychological and non-addictive opiate class drugs.

However, the FDA hasn't exactly regulated the abuse of pain medicines throughout the state of Florida, have they?

I support publicly funded drug rehab clinics to get people off Rush Limbaugh's favorite opiate... Oxycodone

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0000589/

[progressoid]

124. Yeah, and let make booze illegal again too.

It serves no medical purpose that prescription drugs can't deal with and has known costs to society.

[Blue_In_AK]

61. It looks like a rocket ship.

I've pretty well ignored the law for a long time, but it would be nice to be legal.

[DiverDave]

64. yep

eom

[Simo 1939_1940]

66. Yup. NT

[movingviolation]

67. Undoubtedly

I wish to grow my own without fear of losing my freedom or property, of course it would be sweet to just go to the pot shop and buy legal bud. Here in Cali you can get a medical card and do just that, but I still think 215 was passed under sympathy for those with ailments like cancer or m.s. Of course, it's no ones business if I want to partake recreationally, I shouldn't have to see a Dr. to do that, even though everyone has some kind of qualifying medical condition under the law as it is written.

[Kath1]

69. Yes!!!

Way less harmful than alcohol, IMO.

[Wounded Bear]

70. This non-user supports legalization...nt

[mvd]

76. Yes

I do not support non-medicinal usage, but we have way too many in jails for something no more harmful than alcohol. Only the hard drugs like meth should possibly be illegal. No drugs should carry a lengthy prison term.

[backscatter712]

77. Hell yes, and I don't even like using the stuff recreationally!

When I try to smoke it, I hack up a lung!

But I think it absolutely should be legalized, for medical and recreational purposes.

And it's far past time law enforcement and the prison-industrial complex get put on a leash - the War on Drugs is directly responsible for much of the destruction of civil liberties in the U.S.

Colorado has Amendment 64 on the ballot, which would legalize marijuana like alcohol. Damned straight, I'm voting yes!

[Zorra]

78. I don't smoke herb anymore, but I totally support legalizing it.

[B Calm]

81. My golden years would be more fun!

[TheKentuckian]

85. Certainly. Prohibition is failed, stupid, costly, and cancerous to civil liberties.

I'd go further than weed and end prohibition on all drugs and further yet prohibition on essentially all vice crimes and only say essentially to account for shit like child pornography that some tend to try to roll in to set as bogus rallying points.

[JonLP24]

86. Of course

I don't think using funds for the court cases & housing offenders in jail is a terrible waste of time and money. So many already use it on a regular basis without much harm. It is addictive to a point, most don't buy it if they can't afford it or go out and rob to afford it or sell anything they can that they own just to get it.

[Sunlei]

91. decriminalize and use the existing in place agriculture, herbal and tobacco regulations

[a la izquierda]

93. Heck yeah I do.

[Upton]

94. Yep...

I'll be voting yes on I-502 here in Washington state...

[Skidmore]

96. Yes, but with the caveat that

I'd like to see some recognition of the serious damage caused by some of the hard core drugs like meth and the like. Not every drug is a good high to be had in the safety of a home. Some destroy lives -- of the user and their families.

[99Forever]

107. Shouldn't have been illegal in the first place.

[marlakay]

108. Yes

And hoping if they do so it is grown organically without extra chemicals in it.

[MrMickeysMom]

112. Re-institute the legalization... remember that it WAS legal before the hype...

There is no question that it serves a medicinal purpose across a spectrum of important morbid states.

Of course, we should tax the shit out of it, as should we tax the absolute shit out of hard alcohol way beyond where we are now.

[gulliver]

115. Yes

[Jennicut]

116. Absolutely.

It is very popular among those ages 18 to 49. At least per Gallup. And among liberals.

[bigwillq]

118. I support it!

[egduj]

122. Yes.

But I doubt it will be. Too much money being made by a lot of powerful corporations by keeping it illegal.

[otohara]

123. It's Time

we will pass it in CO.

[Royal Sloan 09]

125. Yes

[CrispyQ]

126. I support the re-legalization of cannabis.

[Th1onein]

127. Yes.

Absolutely.

[tularetom]

128. I support the legalization of practically everything

Marijuana is a no brainer for me.

[geckosfeet]

129. Errm. Yes.

I'll tell ya, it does wonders for chemo induced nausea.

[madmax]

130. Hell yes!

[orpupilofnature57]

131. Yep, not medical Vodka though.

[porphyrian]

134. Ha! n/t

[stevenleser]

133. I'm for complete legalization of all drugs. I have done a 180 from where I used to be on this.

I think they all should be taxed and I think a substantial amount of that tax should go to funding rehab centers.

This is much better though, than billions spent on a war on drugs that isnt working. Its also better than a system, like prohibition, that encourages the creation of hard core organized criminal enterprises all over the world.

Legalize it, allow companies to sell it and tax the sales.

[southernyankeebelle]

136. I have mixed feelings on it. I sure don't want someone behind a wheel driving doing weed.

But I definitely think we should have it for people who are ill.

[porphyrian]

137. Reference: What happened to Portugal

They decriminalized drugs over a decade ago. Look what happened:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/10/17/111017fa_fact_specter

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

[aquart]

139. YES.

[RichGirl]

141. YES YES AND YES...

[MariaM83]

142. YES -- if it is not, alcohol and tobacco use and trafficking should also be criminalized nt

[Native]

143. YES

[Shitty Mitty]

147. Pot cures cancer

Of course it should be legal. It shouldn't have ever been illegal.

[jwirr]

149. Yes.

[Bad_Ronald]

150. I live in a city that may someday legalize the sale of maraijuana...

...but has already criminalized the sale to 24 oz sodas. It wouldn't surprise me if potato chips & twinkies are next. Sure, they'll legalize marijuana, but the catch is they'll criminalize all of our munchies.

[mike_c]

151. yes, absolutely....

eom